TB5-06527

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 : TB5-06527 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 Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision August 31, 2015 Date de la décision Panel Milton Israel Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal David P Yerzy Barrister and Solicitor Conseil(s) du (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated Representative(s) N/A Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] XXXX XXXX (the Appellant), a citizen of Georgia, appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying his claim for refugee protection. The Appellant has not submitted new evidence in support of his claim and he has not requested an oral hearing. The Appellant requests that the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) set aside the determination of the RPD and find that he is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. Alternatively the Appellant requests that the matter be remitted to the RPD for reconsideration by a differently-constituted panel. Determination [2] Pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the RAD confirms the determination of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. The appeal is dismissed. Background [3] The Appellant alleged that he fears the Georgian government and the Georgian Dream Party (GDP) and its agents because of his political views. He is a member of the National Movement of Georgia (UNM), an opposition party, and he campaigned for the UNM in various elections between 2012 and 2014. [4] The Appellant further alleged he is a well-known athlete and he owns a XXXX in his home village, XXXX, and because of his status and profile the GDP did not want him to campaign for the UNM. Two GDP supporters sent by the local GDP candidate asked him to join the GDP and work for them as an enforcer during the campaign. He refused and he was threatened by the two supporters and subsequently he was assaulted on a number of occasions by GDP supporters. [5] He filed four complaints with the police about the threats and assaults but the police did not investigate them because they are pro-GDP and they have been bribed by the GDP. [6] The Appellant left Georgia in XXXX 2014, came to Canada, and made a claim for protection. The issues [7] The panel indicated the determinative issues in this case are credibility and state protection. [8] The Appellant submits the issues in this appeal are the following: * Did the panel err in its assessment of credibility by placing undue emphasis on the POE notes and the email from the POE officer? * Did the panel err by requiring corroborative evidence in addition to evidence already submitted? * Did the panel err by engaging in speculation and requiring the Appellant to explain the actions of third parties? The role of the RAD [9] While the IRPA sets out grounds for appeal as well as possible remedies, it does not specify the standard by which the RAD is to review the decision of the lower tribunal. [10] The RAD now has the benefit of Federal Court jurisprudence which speaks to the appellate tribunal's role in relation to that of the RPD. [11] In this regard, the Court in Huruglica considered the appropriate relationship between the RAD and the RPD.1 In Huruglica, the Court determined that the RAD is to conduct a "hybrid appeal". It is to review all aspects of the RPD's decision and come to an independent assessment of the Appellant's refugee claim, deferring to the RPD only where the lower tribunal enjoys a particular advantage in reaching a conclusion. Where the RAD's assessment departs from that of the RPD, the RAD must substitute its own determination. [12] The Court determined that, in conducting its assessment, the RAD can recognize and respect the conclusion of the RPD on such issues as credibility and/or where the RPD enjoys a particular advantage in reaching such a conclusion. The RAD is, however, not restricted as an appellate court is, to intervening on the facts only where there is "palpable and overriding error." [13] The RAD will review all of the evidence in the RPD record and come to its own independent assessment of whether the Appellant is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. Credibility [14] The panel found the Appellant was not a credible witness. The panel found that an accumulation of adverse credibility findings resulted in a further finding that there was insufficient credible and trustworthy evidence to establish that the Appellant was being pursued and persecuted by the GDP government, the GDP party and its supporters. [15] The Appellant indicated in his Basis of Claim Form (BOC) that he actively supported the local UNM candidate in every election in his area between 2012 and 2014 and he testified that he joined the UNM in 2009. He further stated in his narrative that when the UNM candidate in his local area was elected to Parliament, the GDP supporters were angry with him because they knew he had been effective. [16] The Appellant indicated his problems began in XXXX 2012 when he refused to work as an enforcer for the GDP and stop supporting the UNM. He was threatened by two GDP supporters and when he went to the local police concerning the threats he was told since there was no physical harm he should go home and not make matters worse. The Appellant indicated he believed the police were pro-GDP and were bribed by the party. [17] The Appellant stated he was assaulted by GDP supporters on three occasions because of his UMN activities and he was hospitalized as a result of two of these attacks. He testified he went to the police on at least four occasions and they would not investigate or help him because they were pro-GDP. The Appellant's XXXX XXXX, 2014 POE interview [18] The panel cited the notes of the Immigration officer who interviewed the Appellant on XXXX XXXX, 2014, in which it is indicated that the Appellant stated that he is persecuted in Georgia by the government people-National Movement of Georgia (UNM) and they will kill him. The notes further indicate the Appellant stated that during the elections he was told to beat up on various people due to the fact he is a sportsman. [19] The panel noted the Appellant stated in his BOC that he was persecuted by the GDP government and its supporters because he was a member of the UNM. When the panel asked the Appellant whether the Immigration officer's notes were correct he said "no", and that he had told the officer he was persecuted by the GDP government and its supporters. He further stated the officer or interpreter must have mixed up the parties. The Appellant stated as well the officer did not read to him what had been written in the notes. The panel further noted the Immigration officer mentioned in his notes that the Appellant stated his assailants were threatening that they would kill him, and not that the assailants actually assaulted and hospitalized him as indicated in the BOC and in the Appellant's testimony. [20] The panel also cited email correspondence between the Minister's representative and the Immigration officer,2 filed by the Minister, regarding the interview mentioned above. In response to questions regarding the interview, the officer indicated the following: "I do recall the refugee exam somewhat." "If I remember correctly, I believe he stated the National Movement of Georgia was the agent of persecution. I hope this helps." "No I don't recall any problems with the connection on the phone."3 [21] The panel indicated it had concerns regarding what the Appellant told the Immigration officer and it did not find the Appellant's explanation that the officer mixed up the parties to be reasonable in the context of other credibility concerns noted in its decision: his omission in his Schedule "A" declaration that he was a member of the UNM, his lack of objective documentary evidence from the UNM to substantiate that he was a member of the UNM and his low profile in the party. [22] The panel acknowledged that the email exchange noted above occurred approximately six to seven weeks after the XXXX XXXX, 2014 interview and the officer's response "was not the strongest or clearest." The panel indicated it would not totally ignore the emails, given the other credibility concerns noted above, despite the weak language and the six to seven weeks that had elapsed since the interview occurred. The panel recognized however the evidentiary problems and it did not put too much weight on the emails. However, based on its analysis regarding the discrepancy in the interview concerning which political party was persecuting the Appellant, the panel drew an adverse inference as to the Appellant's overall credibility and the truthfulness of his allegations. [23] The Appellant submits that the panel erred in disbelieving the Appellant when he testified that the information recorded by the officer was recorded in error and that he never swore to the truthfulness of that statement. [24] The Appellant further submits he swore to tell the truth at the hearing and there were no grounds to doubt his testimony. [25] The Appellant submits as well that there was no evidence before the panel that the notes, once recorded were ever verified or reaffirmed by the Appellant. The Appellant argues it is common sense that either the interpreter or the officer could have made a mistake and that is why fairness dictates that the information should have been read back to him. Since this was not done, the Appellant further argues it is unreasonable to blame him for inconsistencies. [26] The Appellant also submits that the officer provided an equivocal confirmation to the Minister's representative indicating he might not have remembered correctly. [27] The Appellant submits that any discrepancies could be the fault of the translator or POE officer and cannot automatically and irrevocably be attributed to him. [28] The RAD has reviewed and assessed all of the evidence in regard to the POE interview. The RAD notes that the panel acknowledged that the email exchange between the Minister's representative and the POE office was problematic as to the officer's memory of the Appellant's response in the interview and its evidentiary value. [29] The RAD notes that the panel's findings in this regard are ambivalent. The RAD further notes that in paragraph 21 above, it is noted that the panel questioned the reasonableness of the Appellant's argument that the POE officer might have mixed up the names of the political parties. The RAD notes as well that the panel's concern in this regard was based on other credibility concerns: his omission in his Schedule "A" declaration that he was a member of the UNM, his lack of objective documentary evidence to substantiate his membership in the UNM and his low profile in the party. [30] The RAD notes that in paragraph 22 above it is noted that based on its analysis regarding the discrepancy in the interview concerning which political party was persecuting the Appellant, the panel drew a negative inference as to the Appellant's overall credibility and the truthfulness of his allegations. [31] The RAD finds there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for the panel's sweeping negative inference concerning the Appellant's overall credibility, based only on its analysis of the discrepancy in the POE interview concerning the agent of persecution. The RAD notes again in this regard the panel's acknowledgement of the problematic nature of the email exchange provided by the Minister. [32] The RAD notes however that the panel also based its concerns about the discrepancy in the POE notes on other credibility findings considered below. Omission in Schedule "A" that the Appellant was a member of a political organization [33] The panel noted that in question 9 of Schedule "A" the Appellant was asked if he had a membership or association with any organizations in Georgia. The panel further noted that 'organization' was defined in the question to include any political organization. The Appellant answered "none". The Appellant was asked why he did not indicate he was a member of the UNM. He responded the question was never given to him or if it was he did not hear it due to a poor telephone connection. He further stated his responses were never read back to him. The panel noted that the Appellant indicated in his BOC that his lawyer had reviewed the airport forms with him and provided the same explanations as noted above. [34] The panel noted the issue of his party membership goes to the heart of the claim. The panel further noted it did not find the Appellant's explanations reasonable. The panel noted as well that the Appellant signed a solemn declaration in the Schedule "A" document that the information he provided was "truthful, complete and correct", and he was aware that this declaration had the same force as if made under oath. The panel also noted there is an interpreter's declaration stating the information in Schedule "A" had been interpreted to the Appellant and that the interpreter believes the Appellant completely understood the forms. [35] The panel noted in regard to whether the telephone connection was poor, as alleged by the Appellant, that the only mistake in the form was the omission concerning his membership in a political party. The Appellant testified that the other information in the form appeared to be correct. The panel found it unlikely that the interpreter would not have asked question 9. In the context of its other credibility concerns in this decision, the panel found the question was asked and the Appellant responded he did not belong to any organization. [36] In addition, the panel asked the Appellant why he signed the declaration noted above if he had problems understanding the interpreter due to a poor telephone connection. The Appellant responded he considered not signing and then decided to sign. The panel found it not to be credible that the Appellant would sign the declaration form if he had genuine problems understanding the interpreter and did not know whether the information in the form was correct. [37] In regard to the Appellant's statement that the information in the form was not read back to him, the panel noted the interpreter made a solemn declaration that he believed the Appellant understood the content and effect of the form. The panel further noted that the Appellant had opportunities to inform the interpreter and the Immigration officer if he did not understand any question that was put to him. The panel reiterated that the Appellant did not have to sign the declaration that he understood the interpreter and the information in the form was correct. [38] The panel found that the Appellant would not have signed the declaration if he believed the information was not complete, true and correct. Because the Appellant indicated in question 9 of the form that he was not a member of any organization, the panel drew an adverse inference to the Appellant's overall credibility and the truthfulness of his allegations. [39] The RAD notes that the Appellant makes no specific submission regarding his failure to indicate in the POE document that he was a member of a political party and that it was the UNM party. The RAD notes that the Appellant may have assumed that the argument made concerning the discrepancy in the name of the political party that is the alleged agent of persecution applied to this issue as well. [40] The RAD finds that the panel's analysis distinguishes this issue from the one concerning which party is the agent of persecution. The panel questioned the Appellant as to why he answered "none" to the question concerning membership in an organization, including a political organization. The Appellant explained that either the question was never asked or he did not hear it due to a poor telephone connection. [41] The RAD notes the panel indicated the Appellant signed a solemn declaration that information he provided was true, complete and correct. The panel further indicated that the interpreter signed a declaration that he believed the Appellant completely understood the question. The RAD notes as well the panel indicated that this was the only question and answer in dispute and that the Appellant confirmed the other information in the form appeared to be correct. [42] The RAD further notes that the Appellant was asked why he signed the declaration noted above if he had problems with the interpretation due to a poor telephone connection, and the Appellant responded he considered not signing and then decided to sign. [43] The panel stated that the Appellant had opportunities to inform the interpreter and the panel of his alleged difficulties with the telephone connection and his understanding of the questions put to him, and he did not. [44] The RAD has reviewed all of the evidence concerning this issue and concurs with the panel's finding that, on a balance of probabilities, the Appellant would not have signed the declaration if he had problems understanding the interpreter. The RAD notes in this regard that the Appellant had adequate opportunities in the hearing to inform the interpreter and the panel that he had difficulty understanding questions because of a flawed telephone connection, but he did not. The RAD further finds it strains credulity that only the question regarding party membership would not have been asked or not understood, and concurs with the negative inference drawn by the panel. Corroborative evidence [45] The panel noted the Appellant did not provide a letter or affidavit from the UNM substantiating his party membership and/or their knowledge of the allegations in his claim that he campaigned for the party in 2012, 2013 and 2014, and that he was attacked by GDP supporters because of his UNM activities. The panel further noted the Appellant testified he informed the staff and other members of the UNM at the local headquarters regarding the threats and attacks by GDP supporters. The panel noted in addition the Appellant did not provide any letters or affidavits from the UNM candidates in his village and surrounding area for whom he campaigned. [46] The Appellant testified he asked his mother to get a letter or affidavit from the UNM and the UNM candidates he supported and they would not provide letters. The Appellant testified he did not know why they would not provide a letter or affidavit. He further stated they may be frightened to do so because the consequences could be serious. [47] The panel found the Appellant's testimony in this regard was vague and did not make sense as to why the UNM or its candidates for whom the Appellant campaigned would not provide his mother with a letter or affidavit. The Appellant explained that the situation in Georgia was getting worse and violence by the GDP and its supporters had increased. The panel noted the Appellant did not directly answer its question as to why the UNM or its candidates for whom the Appellant campaigned would not provide a document attesting to his membership in the party. [48] The panel noted the Appellant did not even have an affidavit from his mother confirming that she made an effort to obtain affidavits from the UNM and its candidate for whom the Appellant allegedly campaigned. In the context of the analysis above, the panel drew an adverse inference to the Appellant's overall credibility and the truthfulness of his allegations. The panel cited section 11 of the Refugee Protection Division Procedural Rules (the Rules) which states that a claimant must provide acceptable documents establishing identity and the elements of a claim. [49] The panel found it was reasonable to assume that the Appellant could have obtained a letter and/or affidavit from someone in the UNM or from one of the UNM candidates for whom he allegedly campaigned. The panel noted the Appellant's membership and activities in the UNM goes to the heart of his claim. The panel found the Appellant's explanation for the lack of this corroborating evidence not to be reasonable, and drew a negative inference regarding the Appellant's overall credibility. [50] The panel noted the Appellant did provide a UNM membership card. The panel further noted he stated that he joined the UNM in 2009 but the date of issue on his card is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, The Appellant explained that his first card expired after five years and it was replaced. The panel noted the membership card issued on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, did not indicate an expiry date. [51] The panel noted the Appellant provided a handwritten undated note signed by three of the Appellant's friends which stated that they were members of the UNM and they corroborate that the Appellant was also a member of the UNM. The note also indicates the Appellant "had some problems for several times and he appeared at the hospital twice."4 The panel further noted that attached to this note are the UNM membership cards of the three signatories to the note, one of which was issued on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and the other two on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The panel stated it appeared that neither the Appellant nor his three friends provided any credible or trustworthy evidence that they were involved with the UNM prior to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. [52] The panel further noted that none of the Appellant's friends held XXXX positions in the UNM and the letter provides no details regarding the Appellant's "problems". The panel notes as well, it does not know who signed the handwritten note as it was not notarized. The three signatories do not provide any identity documentation other than their UNM membership cards. On the basis of the analysis above the panel gave very little evidentiary weight to the note. [53] The panel noted that most of the Appellant's problems with the GDP occurred prior to XXXX 2014 and most of the political campaigns occurred prior XXXX XXXX 2014. In the context of the analysis above, the panel found there was insufficient credible and trustworthy evidence to establish that the Appellant would have a profile that would cause the GDP government or its members and supporters to target and persecute him. [54] The Appellant submits that he provided a reasonable explanation as to why he did not disclose his XXXX UNM membership card as it had expired and he received a new card in XXXX. [55] The Appellant further submits that it is not reasonable to blame him because third parties refuse to provide him with documents, and cites Federal Court case law in this regard. [56] The Appellant further submits that he disclosed a letter signed by three members of the UNM attesting to the fact that he was a member of the party and the panel ought only to highlight the deficiencies in the document. The Appellant submits the document did not contradict the claim and the panel engaged in an overzealous search for inconsistencies. [57] The RAD has reviewed all of the evidence in the RPD record and also Federal Court jurisprudence concerning the need for corroborative documentation in addition to the Appellant's oral testimony and BOC evidence. [58] The RAD finds that the Appellant cites two Federal Court decisions that are not comparable to the case at bar. In Taboada,5 the Court cited Yoosuff which stated that the Board erred when it seemed to require an applicant to prove that agents of persecution act rationally or justifiably. The RAD notes that the Court's finding in this case concerned the actions of the agent of persecution and not, as in the case at bar, the alleged actions of the Appellant's political associates. [59] In Venegas,6 also cited by the Appellant, the case was concerned with the actions of an extortionist and not as in the case at bar the actions of the Appellant's political associates. [60] The RAD finds that if, as the Appellant asserts, he is a well-known athlete whose support for the UNM candidate in his area was significant in this candidate winning the election, it is likely that he would have been able to obtain a letter or affidavit from the candidate simply confirming his participation in the campaign. The RAD further finds that if the Appellant was attacked because of his activities in support of the UNM, it is likely that there would have been some publicity in this regard because of his alleged high profile reputation as a sportsman in the area. The RAD notes that such attacks by GDR supporters and arrests by the GDR government on high profile UNM individuals were publicized as noted in country document evidence cited below, and it was in the interests of the UNM party to publicize these actions. The RAD further notes that the UNM remains an important opposition party and holds 50 seats in Parliament. [61] The RAD concurs with the panel's finding that it was reasonable to assume that the Appellant could have obtained corroborative evidence from the UNM candidate or some UNM party official confirming his allegations that he was a member of the party who played an important role in the area election resulting in a UNM victory. The RAD notes the Appellant indicated he informed the party about the GDP attacks and the RAD finds it likely the UNM would be willing to confirm these attacks, if in fact they occurred. The RAD notes the Appellant did not provide an explanation as to why he was unable to obtain such corroborating evidence other than to say they refused to provide it and the situation was getting worse in Georgia. [62] The RAD notes, as did he panel, that the Appellant provided no letter from his mother confirming that she tried to obtain letters from UNM officials and was unsuccessful. The RAD finds that such a letter would likely have been available to the Appellant and the lack of this evidence raises a doubt regarding the truthfulness of the Appellant's allegations concerning his UNM membership and activities. [63] The panel cited section11 of the Refugee Protection Division Procedural Rules which states that a claimant must provide acceptable documents establishing identity and the elements of his claim. The panel found the Appellant's explanation for the lack of this corroborating evidence was not reasonable and drew a negative inference in this regard. The RAD concurs with this finding on the basis of the analysis above. [64] The RAD has reviewed the letter signed by three friends of the Appellant and the panel's analysis of the letter and decision as to its significance. The RAD finds no error in the panel's assessment of this document and disagrees with the Appellant that it did corroborate the claim. The RAD finds the deficiencies highlighted by the panel were properly made and supported and that the panel did not engage in an overzealous search for inconsistencies. [65] The RAD notes that the document is hand-written and undated. The RAD further notes it is not a sworn affidavit. The RAD notes as well that the letter merely refers to "some problems" without indicating the nature of the problems and whether they were caused by the GDP. The panel noted that attached to this letter were three UNM membership cards for the three signatories, one issued in XXXX XXXX and two issued in XXXX XXXX. The panel further noted there was no credible evidence in this letter that either the Appellant or the three signatories were involved in the UNM prior to XXXX 2014 when the Appellant's alleged problems with the GDP occurred. The panel gave the hand-written note very little evidentiary weight and the RAD concurs with this decision. [66] The RAD has reviewed the issue of corroborating evidence and the case law in this regard and concurs with the panel's finding that corroborative evidence could have reasonably been expected in this case. The RAD is guided in this regard by the Federal Court decision in Ortiz7 in which the Court stated the RPD had not erred in drawing an adverse conclusion from the absence of corroborative evidence. The RAD is further guided by the Federal Court's decision in Joseph8 in which the Court stated that in key areas where one would have expected corroborative evidence, none was offered. The Court concluded the RPD was entitled to make an adverse finding in those circumstances. The RAD notes as well that the Federal Court in Owusu9 dismissed the application for judicial review on the basis that the Board did not err "by requiring that the applicant's testimony be corroborated by documentary evidence. Well known athlete in Georgia [67] The panel questioned the Appellant regarding his claim that he was a well-known sportsman in the XXXX area of Georgia and that is why the UNM wanted him to campaign for them. The panel noted the Appellant did not provide any evidence such as press articles to corroborate his high profile reputation in the area. Neither did he provide evidence that he owned a gym and coached children as he alleged. [68] The Appellant testified he was not on any national XXXX team and he was not ranked in the nation in any of the two sports he had mentioned. The panel noted the Appellant provided a 2014 XXXX XXXX Award, a 1998 Sports Award, and a high school XXXX Award. The panel further noted that two of these awards were received approximately 17 years ago. The panel found these awards do not establish that the Appellant has a XXXX reputation as a sportsman. The panel further found there is not enough credible or trustworthy evidence to establish that the Appellant has such a profile of a well-known athlete in the area so that the GDP and its supporters would harass, attack, and pressure him to leave the UNM and join them. The panel noted the Appellant could not explain why the UNM wanted his support because he was a well-known athlete but the GDP wanted him only to act as an enforcer. [69] The Appellant submits there is no definition or standard as to how famous one has to be to be targeted. [70] The RAD has reviewed the evidence as to whether the Appellant had such a high profile as an athlete in the area that both the UNM and the GDP wanted his support for their candidates. The RAD notes that the Appellant failed to provide substantive evidence supporting his alleged high profile. The RAD further notes in this regard, as indicated above, that there was no press coverage of the alleged attacks on him by GDP supporters because he supported the UNM. Neither is there any supportive evidence from the UNM. The RAD notes as well that the Appellant stated that the GDP wanted him only to act as an enforcer in support of their campaign and the RAD finds this evidence does not conform to the Appellant's assertion that he was a high profile athlete who's support for the UNM candidate was significant in the success of that candidate's campaign. [71] The RAD concurs with the panel's finding that there is insufficient credible or trustworthy evidence to establish that the Appellant's profile as a well-known athlete in the area would cause the GDP and its supporters to harass and attack him in order to pressure him to join their party. GDP violence against members of the UNM [72] The panel reviewed country document evidence concerning violent actions by the GDP and its supporters against members of the UNM. The panel noted that it appeared that mostly senior UNM officials and high profile activists and elected or formerly elected politicians were being harassed, threatened and attacked, or charged under provisions of the Criminal Code or by the Prosecutor's office. One document cited by the panel indicates that UNM members sometimes experience violence but "these incidents are not widespread."10 [73] The panel quoted extensively from this evidence which reiterates that GDP actions against UNM members were concentrated on former officials and office holders. It is further noted that there is no evidence that those detained are being mistreated. In addition, Freedom House indicates that Transparency International (TI) Georgia "monitored the ensuing legal proceedings and found that both the defense and prosecution had enjoyed equal opportunities to present their cases," Human Rights Watch also confirmed there were no "significant violations of due process and fair trial norms." Human Rights Watch also indicated there were multiple allegations of pressure on opposition candidates to withdraw their candidacies.11 [74] The panel cited country document evidence concerning the arrest of former ministers and other officials, and attacks on former officials and opposition leaders and activists. The panel found that attacks and harassment are directed against senior members and politicians of the UNM and not someone with such a low profile in the UNM as the Appellant. [75] The Appellant submits that the panel's finding concerning his profile ignores documentary evidence which established that members of all levels of the UNM were at risk of persecution. [76] The RAD has reviewed all of the documentary evidence concerning the actions of GDP supporters during the election campaign as well as the actions of the GDP government toward members of the opposition parties. The RAD acknowledges evidence of attacks on UNM members, but notes that the evidence also indicates GDP attacks have been largely directed against high profile politicians, party leaders and supporters. The RAD concurs with the panel's finding that the attacks and harassment are directed against senior members and politicians of the UNM. The RAD finds that someone with such a low profile in the UNM as the Appellant would not have attracted this kind of attention during the campaign and also as a continuing target after the GDP victory. Are the police anti-UNM [77] The panel noted the Appellant testified he went to the police four times and they did not investigate his complaints. The Appellant further stated that that the police were pro-GDP and anti-UNM and they had been bribed by the GDP. [78] The panel stated it had carefully reviewed country document evidence and although there were incidents where the police were pro-GDP, other sources indicate that the Georgian Prosecutor's Office has launched criminal investigations on complaints made that there was pressure put on UNM candidates to withdraw from elections. This evidence further indicates that police provided protection for UNM members/politicians who have been attacked, although there were cases when the police stood by and did not help a UNM official or politician.12 [79] The panel found that it appeared the documentary evidence is mixed as to whether the police would protect officials and activists of the UNM and whether they are pro-GDP. The panel further found the evidence indicates the violence and prosecution appears to be directed against senior UNM officials and activists and elected UNM politicians, which is not the Appellant's profile. [80] The RAD notes the Appellant makes no submission concerning the panel's finding in this regard. Medical documentation [81] The panel noted the Appellant filed two medical reports with the Board indicating he had been admitted for injuries. The panel further noted the dates of the medical reports correspond to the dates when the Appellant allegedly was attacked by GDP supporters, although the exact dates of the assaults were not specifically mentioned in the BOC. The panel also notes the medical reports do not indicate how the injuries were sustained. The panel cited Federal Court jurisprudence in which the Court stated that a psychiatric report "cannot possibly serve as a cure-all for any and all deficiencies in a claimant's testimony." The panel found the medical documents provided by the Appellant cannot overcome all of the credibility concerns mentioned in its decision. The panel gave no evidentiary weight to these documents. [82] The RAD notes the Appellant makes no submission concerning the panel's finding in this regard. Summary of the panel's findings [83] The panel found the Appellant has shown a general lack of credibility in his testimony and that this extends to all relevant evidence emanating from his testimony. The panel further finds that there is not enough credible or trustworthy evidence to establish that the GDP government and its supporters are pursuing and persecuting him and whether the allegations in this claim actually occurred. [84] The RAD has reviewed all of the evidence in the RPD record and concurs with the panel's finding that there is insufficient credible or trustworthy evidence to establish that the GDP government and its supporters are pursuing and persecuting the Appellant and whether the allegations in this claim actually occurred. [85] The RAD is guided in this regard by the decision of the Federal Court in Tingting Sun13 in which the Court stated that: "In the Board's view, there was simply insufficient evidence to support the Applicant's claim of being a member of an underground Church and of being wanted by the PSB in China." The Court further stated that "In my view, this overall conclusion was reasonably open to the Board on the evidence (or, more accurately, the lack of evidence) before it." Disposition [86] Pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of IRPA, the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. The appeal is dismissed. (signed) "Milton Israel" Milton Israel August 31, 2015 Date 1 Huruglica, Bujar v. M.C.I. (F.C. no. IMM-6362-13), Phelan, August 22, 2014, 2014 FC 799 2 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 10 3 Ibid. 4 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 9 5 Taboada, Luis Arturo Franco v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-3390-07), O'Keefe, October 6, 2008, 2008 FC 1122 6 Beltran, Alberto Mario Vanegas v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-2195-11), Rennie, December 14, 2011, 2011 FC 1475 7 Juarez, Jose de Jesus Ortiz v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-2410-05), Phelan, March 6, 2006, 2006 FC 288 8 Joseph, Rasamalar v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-5389-10), O'Reilly, May 16, 2011, 2011 FC 548 9 Owusu v M.C.I., [1995] F.C.J. No. 681 (T.D.) (QL), at para. 4 10 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 11 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid. 13 Sun, Tingting v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-1862-08), Snider, November 12, 2008, 2008 FC 1255 --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB5-06527