MB8-25349

Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel des réfugiés RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : MB8-25349 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Ottawa Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision July 2, 2019 Date de la décision Panel Jillan Sadek Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal Gisela Barraza Conseil(s) (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] The appellant is a citizen of Haiti. The appellant alleges that he cannot return to Haiti because supporters of the AAA (Haïti en Action) party wish him harm, since in 2015 he supported the OPL (Organisation du peuple en lutte) party during an election campaign; the appellant later had a disagreement with the elected member of the OPL party, XXXX XXXX, with the result that he no longer benefited from the latter's protection. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejected his claim for refugee protection based on a lack of credibility. I agree with the RPD, as I will explain below, that the allegations are not credible. [2] The RPD was correct to reject the claim. The appeal is dismissed. ROLE OF THE REFUGEE APPEAL DIVISION [3] The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) reviews RPD decisions by applying the correctness standard after carrying out its own analysis of the evidence before it.1 The exception to this rule concerns situations where the RPD enjoys a meaningful advantage in assessing the oral evidence it hears, which, in certain cases, may call for deference. Unless otherwise specified, I have applied the standard of correctness. ANALYSIS [4] The appellant alleges that he wanted to help his friend XXXX XXXX with his election campaign in 2015, so he worked as a [translation] "XXXX XXXX" for the OLP party, having a great deal of influence in his community. Mr. XXXX was elected member for the XXXX riding. The appellant states that he was disappointed that his friend failed to keep his promises after assuming his duties in January 2016. Because of this disagreement, Mr. XXXX declared him an enemy on XXXX XXXX, 2016, and the appellant explained that, because he no longer benefited from the OLP party's protection, AAA party supporters made two attempts to kill him, blaming him for their party's defeat. [5] The RPD rejected the appellant's refugee protection claim on the basis of omissions, implausibilities and inconsistencies between his testimony, his Basis of Claim Forms (BOC Forms), his port-of-entry interview and the other forms he completed in connection with his refugee claim. The RPD noted the following problems: a. The appellant's story in his BOC Forms and in his testimony before the RPD was completely different from the story he told the officer at the port of entry on June 29, 2017. At the port of entry, when asked whether he feared returning to Haiti, he had answered that he did not fear returning and that he had left for economic reasons. b. The appellant filed two versions of his BOC Form, a first version on July 14, 2017, and an amended version on August 17, 2018. In the second version, he adds that he had made two complaints to the police in Haiti in XXXX 2016 and provided a copy of one of them. The appellant explained that he omitted these facts in his first BOC Form because, after submitting his claim, he learned that he had not provided enough detail in his initial version. The RPD did not accept this response as credible. c. The appellant admitted that the excerpt from the registry minutes dated March 16, 2016, did not relate the events of the previous day. The appellant explained that there was an error in the date on the registry minutes and that the authorities had refused to correct it. The RPD did not find this explanation of the inconsistency credible. d. In the amended version of his BOC Form, the appellant also adds that he had been the [translation] "XXXX XXXX" for the 2015 election campaign because of his significant influence in the area. However, when testifying before the RPD, he stated that his sole task was that of chauffeur, driving people to the polls. The appellant was unable to explain this inconsistency. [6] The appellant submits that the RPD's finding regarding his credibility is [translation] "abusive, arbitrary and ignores well-established jurisprudential principles".2 Having carefully listened to the recording of the hearing and read the file, I am of the view that the RPD correctly analyzed the appellant's claim and that the appellant's lack of credibility is the determinative issue. The RPD did not err in taking into account the port-of-entry notes [7] The appellant submits that the RPD should not have ascribed weight to the port-of-entry interview notes and that, in any case, they do not undermine his credibility. The appellant argues that the RPD should have taken into account the fact that he was a young, 24-year-old man with limited education. The appellant explains in his memorandum that, at the port of entry, he did not know that he had to specify and explain all the reasons he had left Haiti and that, although his responses had been vague, they did not contradict the fear he alleged during his hearing. [8] First, I note that the explanation provided by the appellant in his memorandum that he did not know that he had to explain all the reasons he had left Haiti does not explain the inconsistency between the interview notes and the information provided during the hearing and in his BOC Form. It is true that the officer asked the appellant why he wished to leave Haiti, but before asking the question, the officer had asked, [translation] "What do you fear if you were to return to Haiti?", the appellant had replied [translation] "nothing" and, to confirm, the office next asked, [translation] "You do not fear returning to Haiti?" and the appellant had answered [translation] "no".3 Thus, regardless of the reasons the appellant had left Haiti, the fact remains that he clearly stated to the officer that he did not fear returning. This response contradicts the appellant's testimony during the hearing and in his BOC Form. [9] Second, the RPD provided a very good explanation of why it gave weight to the port-of-entry interview notes. It mentioned several considerations: (a) the fact that the appellant had an interpreter during the interview, (b) the fact that he did not allege having a cognitive impairment, (c) the fact that his responses were relevant and coherent, thereby demonstrating his level of understanding, (d) the fact that questions were asked and reformulated to ensure his understanding and (e) the officer's expertise in the performance of his duties. I fully agree with the RPD's analysis. The RDP has made no error in this regard. Moreover, I note that the interview notes were not the only factor on which the RPD based its finding that the appellant was not credible. The appellant does not challenge the other factors on which the RPD based its finding that he lacked credibility. The RPD did not err in its analysis of the documentary evidence [10] The appellant submits that the RPD erred in disregarding the documentary evidence consisting of the excerpt of the registry minutes for the complaint of March 16, 2016. The appellant argues that the RPD found that the document was not credible because the appellant was not credible, without having examined it impartially and with an open mind. [11] This allegation is without merit. The RPD clearly explained, at paragraph 26 of its decision, its reasons for not attributing weight to the document. Its reasoning is clear: the appellant admitted that the excerpt dated March 16, 2016, did not relate the events of the previous day (March 15) and explained that the document should have been dated March 11, 2016, and that he had tried to correct the error, but that the authorities had refused to change the date.4 Like the RPD, I do not accept this explanation; the dates of March 16 and March 15 are mentioned in the registry minutes in three different places.5 They cannot all be mere typos. In addition, as the RPD found, I am of the view that it is not credible that the appellant submitted a document to corroborate his allegations in full knowledge that it contained errors. The RPD was correct not to give it any weight. CONCLUSION [12] In conclusion, like the RPD, I am of the view that the appellant's credibility is seriously undermined by the inconsistencies, omissions and contradictions between his testimony, the documentary evidence, his BOC Forms and other forms and the point-of-entry interview notes. Accordingly, I find that the appellant's account is not credible. For these reasons, I conclude that the appellant has failed to establish a serious possibility that he would be persecuted on a Convention ground or that, on a balance of probabilities, he would be personally subjected to a danger of torture, a risk to his life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if he were to return to Haiti. DECISION [13] Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, the RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the determination of the RPD that the appellant is neither a refugee nor a person in need of protection. "Jillan Sadek" Jillan Sadek July 2, 2019 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., No. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb and Near, March 29, 2016; 2016 FCA 93, para 103. 2 Appellant's memorandum, para. 17, appellant's record, p. 27. 3 Port-of-entry interview notes by the CBSA on June 29, 2017, RPD record, p. 45. 4 About 1h23m into the recording of the hearing of August 28, 2018. 5 Excerpt from the registry minutes dated March 16, 2016, RPD record, p. 83. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------