MC0-04831

RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MC1-04831 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Montréal, QC Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision March 29, 2021 Date de la décision Panel Guerlain Guerrier Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Jean Fils-Aime Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX is a citizen of Haiti. She fears a notorious criminal, XXXX XXXX. A XXXX XXXX XXXX by profession, the appellant worked for the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX when XXXX XXXX showed up at her office, requesting XXXX for two members of his gang who were XXXX. That happened on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019. The appellant, who did not have the necessary XXXXequipment to XXXX them, referred them to the nearest XXXX. XXXX XXXX took offence at this refusal and threatened to kill her. [2] On XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, the appellant and her co-workers at the XXXX were attacked by XXXX XXXX gang as they were getting off a bus. The criminals shot them. Two people were killed and several injured. [3] During the two weeks that followed, the appellant received several threatening telephone calls per day. She left her country on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, and claimed refugee protection in Canada in April 2019. [4] The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) found that the appellant was not a credible witness and did not establish her allegations. [5] On appeal, the appellant submits that the RPD made several errors by finding that she was not credible. [6] Before the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD), the determinative issue is credibility. DETERMINATION [7] I dismiss the appeal. The RPD correctly determined that the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. ANALYSIS [8] The role of the RAD is not to conduct a de novo consideration of a claim for refugee protection but rather to determine whether the RPD erred as alleged.1 I have conducted an independent assessment of the record in order to draw my own conclusions,2 particularly by listening to the recording of the RPD hearing and reviewing the documentary evidence on the record. The lack of detail in the appellant's Basis of Claim Form undermines her credibility [9] The RPD drew a negative inference as to the appellant's credibility because she failed to provide all of the required details about her allegations in her Basis of Claim Form (BOC Form). Indeed, several material facts were only revealed during the appellant's testimony. [10] The appellant submits that the RPD did not consider the fact that she survived a murder attempt. This trauma allegedly affected her memory. The appellant alleges that she has forgotten certain details regarding her refugee protection claim. [11] The lack of detail referred to by the RPD concerns the documents completed prior to the hearing. It is clear from listening to the recording that the appellant did not forget the [translation] "details" of her refugee protection claim, since she was able to recount everything that she allegedly endured in Haiti. The argument that trauma apparently caused her to lose her memory is therefore not convincing. [12] I also note that when the RPD asked the appellant why her form contained so few details, she replied that fear had prevented her from writing them down. This does not explain why, several months after her arrival in Canada, the appellant did not amend her form to include all the important factual elements that form the basis for her refugee protection claim. [13] In any event, the RPD did not err. Some relevant details were not written in the appellant's BOC Form-details she remembered because she included them in her testimony. While I draw a negative inference as to the appellant's credibility because of the briefness of her BOC Form, this element alone would not be fatal to her refugee protection claim. The appellant's complaint to the Public Prosecutor's Office is not a reliable document [14] The RPD notes that, in addition to withholding XXXX XXXX name, the document from the Public Prosecutor's Office does not detail the events that happened and does not mention the date on which they allegedly occurred. Moreover, this document comes from the civil section of the Public Prosecutor's Office rather than the criminal section or the police station. However, during her testimony, the appellant stated that she went to the police station to file a complaint on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019. [15] In her memorandum, the appellant claims that it is absolutely normal, in the Haitian context, that she did not mention in her complaint to the police that XXXX XXXX was the one who threatened her and shot her and her co-workers. According to the appellant, everyone knows that, in Haiti, police officers collaborate with criminals. This is why it was allegedly dangerous to denounce XXXX XXXX. [16] I do not rule out that withholding the name of her famous attacker protects the appellant from potential reprisals. Nevertheless, filing a complaint with the police when one believes that they are working for the criminals remains an inconsistent or at least a useless gesture. It is also useless to file a complaint with the police without revealing the basic information that would allow them to arrest the culprits. [17] That said, the denunciation filed in evidence by the appellant includes the other flaws and omissions identified by the RPD, which render it not very credible. However, in her memorandum, the appellant provides no explanation as to the origin of this document or the errors of form that are found in it. It is not a police report drawn up at the police station. The document does not contain the basic factual elements to identify or find those responsible for the crime. It also does not contain the date on which the events described allegedly took place. [18] I agree with the RPD's conclusion. This irregular document is not credible. I do not give it any weight. I find that it undermines the appellant's credibility. The appellant failed to mention the numerous threatening calls she allegedly received after the attack of XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019 [19] Immediately after the attack of XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, the appellant started receiving threatening calls, several times a day. The criminals threatened to go after her and her home. [20] The RPD concluded that the omission, in her BOC Form, of these multiple threatening calls undermines her credibility. [21] The appellant did not challenge this finding. [22] I am of the view that this is a significant omission because these repeated threatening calls could demonstrate that the appellant was the person specifically targeted by these criminals. The RPD's conclusion is correct. I also conclude, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant did not receive these threatening calls. CONCLUSION [23] The appellant did not establish her allegations. She presented a brief BOC Form that omitted many of the essential elements at the basis for her refugee protection claim. She submitted a document that was not credible in order to corroborate her allegations. She also failed to declare the repeated death threats she allegedly received. [24] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the RPD's determination, namely that the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. (signed) Guerlain Guerrier Guerlain Guerrier March 29, 2021 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 Dahal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-330-17, Crampton, December 4, 2017; 2017 FC 1102, paragraphs 30 and 31. Kanawati v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-6486-18, Norris, January 3, 2020; 2020 FC 12, paragraphs 23 and 24. 2 Gomes v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-2283-19, Pamel, April 9, 2020; 2020 FC 506, paragraphs 48 to 52. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MC1-04831 RAD.25.02 (January 2020) Disponible en français 3 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.25.02 (January 2020) Disponible en français