MB7-09054

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 : MB7-09054 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision - Motifs et décision Appellant(s) XXXX XXXX XXXX Appelant(e)(s) Appeal considered / heard at Montréal, Quebec Appel instruit à Date of Decision March 28, 2019 Date de la décision Panel Normand Leduc Tribunal Counsel for the Appellant(s) Me Marie-Josée Blain Conseil(s) du (de la/des) Appelant(e)(s) Designated Representative(s) N/A Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du (de la) Ministre REASONS AND DECISION INTRODUCTION [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX, a citizen of Pakistan, is appealing against the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejecting his refugee protection claim. [2] He is not submitting any new evidence in his appeal or requesting that a hearing be held before the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD). DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL [3] Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the RAD confirms the RPD's determination, namely, that XXXX XXXX XXXX is neither a "Convention refugee" under section 96 of the IRPA nor a "person in need of protection" within the meaning of section 97 of the IRPA. BACKGROUND [4] In his Basis of Claim Form (BOC Form), the appellant alleges that he is a member of the Pakistan Muslim League-Q (PML-Q) political party and that, for this reason, he fears members of the governing party, the Pakistan Muslim League-N (PML-N). [5] The appellant has spent most of the last XXXX years in the United States, and his three children were born there. He crossed the Canadian border on XXXX XXXX, 2017, and claimed refugee protection here. His wife and children stayed in Pakistan. [6] The RPD rejected the refugee protection claim on the basis that the appellant's allegations were not credible. [7] Before the RAD, the appellant submits that the RPD erred in assessing his credibility, for reasons that will be detailed later under the "Analysis" heading, if necessary. [8] For these reasons, the appellant is asking the RAD to set aside the RPD's determination and grant him refugee protection. STANDARD OF REVIEW AND THE ROLE OF THE REFUGEE APPEAL DIVISION [9] The RAD's role is to review RPD decisions using the correctness standard of review after conducting its own analysis of the record in order to determine whether the RPD erred, as submitted by the appellant. The exception to this rule concerns the RPD's findings in the assessment of the credibility of or the weight to be given to the oral evidence it hears, in cases where it enjoys a meaningful advantage. The RAD then owes a measure of deference to the RPD's findings (Canada v. Huruglica, F.C.A., No. A-470-14). In my analysis, I will provide reasons if I find that the RPD had a meaningful advantage. ANALYSIS [10] The issue to be determined in this case is therefore whether the RPD erred in assessing the credibility of the appellant's main allegations. [11] Having analyzed all the evidence that was presented, including listening to the recording of the hearing held before the RPD, I am of the opinion that the answer to this question is no, for the following reasons. [12] The RPD's decision is based on a series of elements that undermine the credibility of the appellant's allegations, namely: I. The appellant failed to indicate in his BOC Form that his father was killed in Pakistan, as he testified during the hearing. His father allegedly died from shots fired on XXXX XXXX, 2009. [13] In his memorandum, the appellant submits that by finding that this omission undermined his credibility, the RPD [translation] "completely seals the fate of his claim." I disagree with this submission. In my opinion, nothing in the RPD's reasons suggests that this finding alone was sufficient to dispose of this matter. Rather, it is the combination of elements undermining the appellant's credibility that led to the RPD's final conclusion. [14] In his memorandum, the appellant also submits that the RPD erred by failing to consider his testimony before it about his father's death. I also disagree with this submission. Like the RAD, the RPD did take into account the said testimony and came to the conclusion that there was a significant omission in the BOC Form. [15] In my opinion, this is a significant omission. The appellant's explanations, namely, that he had a problem with the interpreter who had helped him to complete the form, are not reasonable in this case, considering the importance of this incident and the fact that it was not included in the amended form that was subsequently filed. [16] In addition, the appellant's testimony about the number of attackers and the date of his father's death contradicts the information in the First Information Report (FIR) and the death certificate that he entered into evidence. II. The appellant alleges that strangers attacked the family home in Pakistan on XXXX XXXX, 2016, and that his son, XXXX, had both of his legs broken. The medical document entered into evidence contradicts the time of the attack, as indicated in the FIR document that was also entered into evidence, and it does not indicate that XXXX had both of his legs broken. [17] I find that these omissions and contradictions undermine the credibility of the appellant's allegations. Even if these documents are not from him, it is nevertheless reasonable and logical to expect that the information included in them is not contradictory and that it is complete, particularly with respect to the seriousness of the injuries. III. In the appellant's testimony, there is a contradiction concerning the date on which he allegedly became a member of the PML-Q political party, that is, 2004 or 2008. [18] Once again, I find that this is a significant contradiction on an aspect that is central to the claim, that is, membership in the political party that is supposedly the source of the alleged problems. IV. The fact that the appellant has left the United States three times since 2008 to return to Pakistan with his wife and children is behaviour that is inconsistent with that of a person who claims that he fears returning there. [19] Like the RPD, I find that this is an additional element that undermines the credibility of the appellant's main allegations. [20] In my opinion, these points raised by the RPD are significant enough to find that the credibility of the appellant's allegations overall is irreparably undermined. [21] Like the RPD, I am also of the opinion that, due to these credibility issues, there is no cause to grant probative value to the other documents entered into evidence to corroborate some of the allegations, specifically those related to the PML-Q party, given that they contain no mention of the problems alleged by the appellant. [22] Consequently, in light of all the above, I find that the appellant failed to establish that the RPD committed errors that justify the RAD's intervention. REMEDY [23] For these reasons, I confirm the RPD's determination, namely, that XXXX XXXX XXXX is neither a "Convention refugee" under section 96 of the IRPA nor a "person in need of protection" within the meaning of section 97 of the IRPA. [24] The appeal is dismissed. Normand Leduc Normand Leduc March 28, 2019 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 RAD.25.02 (April 9, 2013) Disponible en français RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : MB7-09054 5