TB6-11332

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 : TB6-11332 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 December 21, 2016 Date de la décision Panel M. Pettinella Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Johnson Babalola 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 XXXX (the Appellant) 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 appeal and does not request an oral hearing. The Appellant asks the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) to find him to be a Convention refugee or person in need of protection. In the alternative, the Appellant asks the RAD to refer the matter back to a different member of the RPD for a redetermination. DETERMINATION [2] Pursuant to subsection 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. This appeal is dismissed. Background [3] The Appellant alleged before the RPD that, upon return to Nigeria, he will be persecuted because he bisexual and this information had been leaked to the community. [4] The claim for refugee protection was heard on July 19, 2016. By a decision dated August 16, the RPD rejected the claim finding that the Appellant was not a credible witness and had not established his sexual orientation as a bisexual. [5] On appeal to the RAD, the Appellant submits that the RPD erred in its assessment of his credibility and in its analysis of the documentary evidence. ANALYSIS Role of the RAD [6] The Appellant refers to the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal, in Huruglica, 1 and submits that the standard to be employed in this case is the correctness standard. He submits that the RAD is to carry out its own analysis of the record to determine where the RPD erred. [7] The Court, in Huruglica, indicated that the role of the RAD is to intervene when the RPD is wrong in law, in fact or in fact and law; and this translates into an application of the correctness standard of review. 2 The Court held that, with respect to findings of fact (and mixed fact and law), which raises no issue of credibility of oral evidence, the RAD is to review RPD decisions applying the correctness standard. It went on to indicate that after carefully considering the RPD decision, the RAD is to carry out its own analysis of the record to determine whether the RPD erred. The Court also stated that having done the above, the RAD is to provide a final determination, either by confirming the RPD decision or setting it aside and substituting its own determination of the merits of the refugee claim. It is only when the RAD is of the opinion that it cannot provide such a final determination without hearing the oral evidence presented to the RPD that the matter can be referred back to the RPD for redetermination.3 [8] Considering the recent jurisprudence, the RAD will conduct its own analysis of the record to determine whether, as submitted by the Appellant, the RPD erred. Where no issue of credibility of oral evidence was raised, the RAD will apply a standard of correctness when assessing RPD findings of fact or of mixed fact and law. Where the credibility of oral evidence was raised, the RAD will defer to certain findings of the RPD where the RPD enjoyed an advantage over the RAD in assessing the oral evidence of witnesses who appeared before it. The extent of this deference will be assessed on a case-by-case basis dependent upon the particular circumstances of the matter and in conjunction with the RAD's own analysis of the record as a whole. In addition, the standard of correctness will be used for any error of law including a breach of natural justice or procedural fairness found in the RPD decision on appeal to the RAD. MERITS OF THE APPEAL Credibility Anomalies in the evidence regarding events that prompted the Appellant to flee Nigeria and his delay in departure [9] The RPD noted that the although the Appellant believed that his parents assisted him in obtaining his passport, gaining admission to a Canadian school, and obtaining a Canadian visa, it was because they wanted to push him out of Nigeria because they did not want to spoil their name. It noted that these actions appeared inconsistent with allowing the Appellant to wait four months after receiving his Canadian visa before leaving Nigeria. The RPD found it reasonable that, if the Appellant's parents really wanted to push the Appellant out of Nigeria, they would have sent him to Canada as soon as his documents were in order or shortly thereafter. It found it inconsistent that the Appellant stated his parents wanted him to wait until school was to begin, before sending him to Canada, if indeed they were interested in pushing him out of the country to save face. [10] The RPD noted that the Appellant's explanation for the above-noted inconsistency raised further inconsistencies. It noted that the Appellant alleged that, as soon as he arrived in Canada, his parents stopped taking his calls because they were angry over the fact that he is bisexual; however, he had spoken to his mother two weeks before his hearing but she was still angry with him at that time. The RPD found the Appellant's testimony, that his parents no longer support him and refuse to take his calls, appeared to be inconsistent with his parents' actions in helping him get his documents to get out of Nigeria, paying for his ticket to Canada, making arrangements for him to defer his admission to school and to stay with his father's friend in Canada, and providing him letters in support of his refugee claim. The RPD noted the Appellant's explanation that his brother was the one who convinced his parents to send letters of support for him, but that they were very resistant and, in spite of sending the letter, still refused contact with him. [11] The RPD found the Appellant's explanation not credible: either his parents' assistance in leaving Nigeria was self-serving out of their anger and/or embarrassment over his alleged bisexuality, which would mitigate against a four-month delay in leaving Nigeria after his Canadian visa was issued, or his parents in fact supported the Appellant by their actions in assisting him in exiting Nigeria and providing support letters, which would likewise militate against the delay. The RPD found that, not only did the Appellant's explanations fail to reasonably explain his delay in leaving Nigeria if indeed he feared that the pastor might leak his confession, his testimony on this point raised internal contradictions he did not reasonably explain. [12] The RPD noted that the Appellant provided confusing and inconsistent testimony regarding allegations that his parents paid a bribe to the pastor for his silence about the Appellant's confession to having homosexual feelings. It noted that the Appellant testified that the last time he had spoken with his mother, she informed him that his parents had been bribing the pastor not to leak the Appellant's secret to the congregation, and that they had stopped paying the bribe, and therefore the congregations became aware of the Appellant's homosexual feelings. It noted that the Appellant testified that his secret had not been leaked when he had departed Nigeria, but that since his departure the congregation and community knew and had been harassing his parents to the extent that they had to move. The RPD noted that this information was omitted from the Appellant's Basis of Claim Form (BoC). It also noted the Appellant's explanation that he had become aware of the information two weeks prior to his hearing and was unaware he could have amended his BoC. [13] The RPD found the above inconsistent with the Appellant's later testimony, when he stated that his mother was no longer giving money to the priest, that was when the priest told the regional overseer, and then his father bought him a ticket to Canada. The RPD noted that despite stating that he did not know when his parents stopped paying the bribe, other than it was some weeks before his hearing, the Appellant then testified that he knew his parents had stopped bribing the priest back when everything had happened. The RPD found the Appellant's testimony confusing and evolving - at first stating that he had just found out that his parents had bribed the pastor for his silence, and some weeks before the hearing they had stopped paying the bribe and now the congregation was aware of his secret, then later stating that he knew his parents had stopped bribing the priest when everything had happened which caused the priest to disclose his confession to the regional overseer, thus precipitating his flight from Nigeria. [14] The RPD found that, not only was the Appellant's testimony internally inconsistent, but if his parents were paying a bribe to the pastor for his silence, this fact further undercut the Appellant's explanation for waiting four months to leave Nigeria. It found that the father wanting the Appellant to wait for school to begin was not a reasonable explanation for the delay in leaving after the issuance of his Canadian visa if (a) his parents wanted to push him out of Nigeria to preserve their reputation, and (b) they were bribing the pastor for his silence while the Appellant remained in Nigeria, when he had the ability to leave. The RPD found that the Appellant's explicit testimony that his secret was not leaked out when he left Nigeria was inconsistent with his claim that his parents did not bribe the pastor in early XXXX 2016, and that was why the pastor leaked his secret to the regional overseer, prompting his rushed departure from Nigeria. [15] The RPD found the Appellant's overall credibility was impacted in that the events that he outlined to have occurred that led him to flee Nigeria - specifically the non-payment of a bribe to the pastor and the pastor's subsequent disclosure of the Appellant's confession to the regional overseer of the church - were more likely fabricated to deceive the Board. [16] Timing of departure - With respect to the RPD's findings on the timing of his departure from Nigeria, the Appellant submits that the RPD misapprehended the evidence. He maintains that his parents' urgency to have him leave Nigeria was based on their perceived belief that the information regarding his sexuality had been leaked; and while his parents felt shame about his sexuality, this information was held solely between him, his parents, the pastor and eventually the regional overseer when he was in Nigeria. The Appellant argues that his parents believed that the pastor would maintain confidentiality; therefore, even after his study permit was issued, it was not important that he leave Nigeria immediately. He maintains that his parents' belief that information regarding his sexuality would be leaked to the public catalyzed the urgency of him leaving Nigeria. He submits that there is nothing inherently implausible about this. He further submits that had he left Nigeria in XXXX 2015, when his study permit was issued, this may have raised issue with Canadian officials, as his program commenced in XXXX 2016. [17] In the RAD's view, the RPD was not wrong to note that the Appellant's delay in departing Nigeria was not consistent with his allegation that his parents were pushing him out of the country due to the revelation of his sexual orientation. The RPD was not wrong to conclude that this adversely impacted his credibility. On the one hand the Appellant alleged that his parents were pushing him out of Nigeria when they found out about his sexual orientation, and on the other hand he alleged that his parents wanted to delay his departure from Nigeria. If the Appellant's parents were interested in pushing the Appellant out of Nigeria once the Appellant's sexual orientation was revealed, one would expect that they were not interested in delaying his departure. If the Appellant's parents wanted to push the Appellant out of Nigeria due to information about his sexual orientation, it would be reasonable to expect them to have sent the Appellant to Canada as soon as the Appellant's Canadian visa was issued or shortly afterwards. [18] Whether or not information regarding the Appellant's sexual orientation had been leaked beyond his family and the pastor, the Appellant alleged that his parents felt shame about his sexuality, thus expediting his departure from Nigeria would have been reasonable considering his parents' shame and their wanting to rid themselves of their son. Furthermore, the Appellant alleged that the threat of information regarding his sexuality leaking to the public catalyzed the urgency of him leaving Nigeria; however, the pastor allegedly had knowledge of the Appellant's interest in those of the same sex since XXXX 2015; therefore, knowledge of the Appellant's sexual orientation was already known to those outside his family by the time the Appellant received his visa for Canada. Since the Appellant leaked information about his sexual orientation to the pastor, if leaked information was of concern to the Appellant and his family, it would be reasonable to expect him to flee Nigeria as soon as he obtained his Canadian visa allowing him to travel to Canada. [19] The Appellant's assertion that leaving Nigeria sooner than he did may have raised issue with Canadian officials is without merit. Students coming to Canada to study would be reasonably expected to arrive before the start of their educational program to allow them time to settle in to their new environment and make the necessary preparations for the start of classes. [20] The RAD finds that the Appellant's delay in departing Nigeria as well as the anomalies noted above regarding the timing of his departure undermine the Appellant's credibility, the credibility of his allegations, and the credibility of his alleged sexual orientation. [21] Actions of parents inconsistent with allegations - With respect to the RPD's finding that the Appellant's testimony that his parents no longer supported him and refused to take his calls appeared to be inconsistent with his parents' actions in helping him get his documents to get out of Nigeria, paying for his ticket to Canada, making arrangements for him to defer his admission to school and to stay with his father's friend in Canada, and providing him letters in support of his refugee claim, the Appellant submits that the RPD interpreted his testimony in a vacuum. He maintains that while his parents were disappointed in him, they did not want to leave him stranded and destitute. He submits that it was in his parents' best interest to aid him to successfully leave Nigeria and advance a refugee claim in Canada, because they felt shame about his sexuality and did not want him to return to Nigeria where he would continue to bring shame upon the family; therefore, the fact that his parents aided him by way of supporting documentation is consistent with his assertion that they felt shame about his sexuality and wanted to ensure that he did not return to Nigeria. [22] The RAD concurs with the RPD that the Appellant's allegation that his parents no longer support him and refuse to take his calls is not consistent with his allegation that his parents assisted him in departing Nigeria and advancing a refugee claim in Canada. On the one hand the Appellant alleged that his parents do not support him and on the other hand he alleged that his parents have been very supportive. The RPD was not wrong to find that the actions of the Appellant's parents in helping the Appellant get his documents to get out of Nigeria, paying for his ticket to Canada, making arrangements for him to defer his admission to school and to stay with his father's friend in Canada, and providing him letters in support of his refugee claim was not consistent with parents who no longer supported their child and refused to take their child's calls. The assistance the Appellant's parents provided to the Appellant is not demonstrative of parents shunning their child. Furthermore, the Appellant's assertion that his parents did not want to leave him stranded and destitute is without merit considering the disdain his parents allegedly have for him. The RAD finds that the conflicting evidence regarding the actions of the Appellant's parents further undermine the Appellant's credibility. [23] Bribe - The Appellant concedes that he omitted the bribe from his BoC; however maintains that his statement that his sexuality had not been leaked to the congregation and community before he left Nigeria but had been leaked to the regional overseer because his parents had stopped paying the priest is not inconsistent. He submits that the RPD ignored the possibility that his parents were bribing the priest while he was in Nigeria and again while he has been in Canada. The Appellant argues that it is possible that his parents had: bribed the priest to supress the priest's knowledge about his sexuality; stopped bribing the priest which resulted in the priest leaking the information to the regional overseer, which prompted his father to buy him a plane ticket to Canada; bribed the priest/regional overseer again to ensure that this information was not leaked to the congregation and the community; and stopped bribing the priest which resulted in the information being leaked to the congregation and the community. He submits that even if the RAD does not accept his explanation, an inconsistency on a certain aspect of the claim does not mean that an individual is not LGBT. [24] In the RAD's view, the RPD was not wrong to make a number of credibility findings regarding the omission of the bribe from the Appellant's BoC, the impact this information had on the Appellant's other evidence, and the Appellant's confusing and evolving testimony. The alleged bribe the Appellant's parents paid to the pastor for his silence is a significant element of the Appellant's story, particularly because it was also alleged that the congregation had become aware of the Appellant's homosexual feelings when his parents stopped paying the bribe. The allegation that information regarding his sexual orientation had been leaked to the congregation and the community is very important to the Appellant's claim for refugee protection. It would support the Appellant's allegation that he feared persecution in Nigeria because it had been revealed to individuals, besides his family members and pastor, that he is homosexual or bisexual. It would be reasonable to expect the Appellant to have not omitted from his BoC the allegation of the bribe and the allegation that his sexual orientation had been revealed to the congregation by the pastor, considering the importance of this information to his claim for refugee protection. It would also be reasonable to expect the Appellant to provide clear and non-evolving testimony on this issue. On appeal, the Appellant provides more scenarios in an attempt to explain that his testimony on this issue was consistent; however, it does nothing to clarify the issue and makes his story even more confusing. The RPD was not wrong to find that the Appellant's testimony on this issue was internally inconsistent and that it adversely impacted his explanation for his delay in leaving Nigeria. The RAD finds that the omissions, and the vague, evolving and inconsistent testimony further undermine the Appellant's credibility, the credibility of his allegations, and the credibility of his alleged sexual orientation. Veracity of supporting documents [25] The RPD noted irregularities with a number of the documents the Appellant provided to support his claim, including the support letters from his father, his brother and his purported homosexual partner, along with the personal identification cards that accompanied the letters. It noted that the date of birth the Appellant had provided for his father in his BoC and at the hearing did not match the date of birth on his father's identification card. It noted that the address the Appellant had provided for his father and brother did not match the addresses indicated on their identification cards. It noted that the driver's licenses for the Appellant's father, brother and alleged same-sex partner all had the same date of issue and were issued by the same local authority. The RPD noted that the Appellant indicated that his father, his brother and his same-sex partner were all different heights whereas their driver's licenses indicate that they were all the same height. In light of the serious and unexplained concerns with respect to the authenticity of the identification cards, and the widespread availability of fraudulent documents in Nigeria, the RPD found that the Appellant had submitted fraudulent documents. The RPD found that the Appellant lost the presumption of credibility and, absent reliable and trustworthy documentary evidence to support his claim that he is bisexual, his testimony alone was insufficient to prove his allegations on a balance of probabilities. [26] The Appellant refers to jurisprudence indicating that foreign documents are presumed valid unless there is a reason to doubt their validity. He maintains that the documents the RPD had an issue with contained no deficits on their face; rather it was his response to the information on the documents which led the RPD to believe that the documentation was fraudulent. He also maintains that he had no involvement in the creation of the documents and gave his testimony with respect to the information in the documents and how the documents were obtained to the best of his ability. The Appellant submits that the RPD erroneously impugned his credibility on the basis of documents that he was not responsible for procuring. [27] The RAD acknowledges jurisprudence indicating that foreign documents are presumed valid unless there is a reason to doubt their validity.4 In this case, the RPD had valid reason to doubt the validity of documents the Appellant provided to support his claim for refugee protection. The date of birth the Appellant provided for his father in his BoC5 and at the hearing (XXXX XXXX, 1960) did not match the date of birth on his father's identification card (XXXX XXXX, 1964).6 The addresses the Appellant provided for his father and brother did not match the addresses indicated on their identification cards.7 The driver's licenses for the Appellant's father, brother and alleged same-sex partner8 all indicate the same date of issue and the same issuing authority, when these individuals have different birthdates which dictate the renewal date of the driver's licenses. The Appellant indicated that his father, his brother and his same-sex partner were all different heights whereas their driver's licenses indicate that they were all the same height. The above are serious irregularities with the documents the Appellant provided to support his claim for refugee protection and he failed to provide reasonable explanations for the irregularities. [28] The RAD concurs with the RPD's finding that the Appellant had provided fraudulent documents to support his claim. Unreasonably explained or unexplained irregularities with the documents and their content undermine their credibility. The RAD finds that the Appellant's action in submitting fraudulent documents to support his claim further undermine his credibility. Supporting documents regarding same-sex relationship [29] The RPD noted further irregularities with the documents the Appellant submitted. It noted the Appellant's assertion that his father, brother and same-sex partner wrote the letters he submitted; however, his brother had drafted and printed the letters on his computer and each of the authors had signed their respective letter. The RPD found the Appellant's explanation not credible, noting similarities in wording between the letters. The RPD found it more likely than not that each of the letters was composed by the same author, the Appellant's brother. This finding combined with the finding that the supporting identity documents are more likely than not fraudulent, led the RPD to put no weight on the support letters, including the letter purportedly from the Appellant's same-sex partner. [30] The Appellant submits that the RPD failed to thoroughly assess the documentary evidence with an open mind, and made a global credibility finding and then discounted his supporting documents. [31] In the RAD's view, the RPD was thorough in its analysis and it was not wrong to give no weight to the support letters purportedly from the Appellant's family members and same-sex partner. As noted above, it was found that three of the letters were accompanied by fraudulent identity documents. Furthermore, similar wording in the three letters suggests that they were written by the same individual and not three different authors as the Appellant maintains. Also, documentary evidence indicates that practically any falsified document can be procured in Nigeria.9 Moreover, the Appellant's story has been found to lack credibility and the letters purportedly from family members and a same-sex partner do not make the Appellant's story believable. Corroboration does not make an incredible story credible.10 The RAD gives no weight to the letters purportedly from the Appellant's family members and same-sex partner in terms of corroborating the Appellant's allegations, including his alleged sexual orientation. Photographs [32] The RPD noted that the Appellant provided photographs of him and his purported same-sex partner. The RPD gave no weight to the photographs, indicating that the photographs simply show two males posing for photos together. The RPD placed no weight on the photographs as evidence corroborating the Appellant's alleged bisexuality as the photos appear to be simply photos of two male friends and are not demonstrative of the Appellant's sexual orientation. Considering that it had found that the Appellant was not a credible witness, the RPD found that the photos did not provide evidence of the Appellant's sexual orientation or relationship with a same-sex partner sufficient to overcome other credibility concerns with respect to his claim. [33] The RAD concurs with the RPD's assessment of the photographs11 submitted by the Appellant. They are undated, were presented without context, and merely show two individuals being photographed together in different locations. Considering their lack of probative value and the credibility concerns noted above, the RAD gives the photographs no weight in terms of corroborating the Appellant's allegations, including his alleged sexual orientation. Letters of support from LGBT organizations [34] The RPD noted documents the Appellant provided from LGBT organizations, each attesting to the Appellant's self-identification as a bisexual in the context of his participation in the those groups. It found that the Appellant's membership or involvement with these organizations did not outweigh the numerous credibility problems with his testimony. It noted that the evidence upon which the letters are premised emanates from the Appellant himself who had lost the presumption of credibility on this point. Also, it noted that mere involvement in community-based LGBT organizations does not establish one's sexual identity, just a willingness to support such organizations and devote one's time to their efforts. The RPD found that the Appellant's motivation for joining the groups had been undermined by his overall lack of credibility. It found that the evidence provided in the letters, with respect to the Appellant self-identifying as a bisexual, is insufficient to overcome the credibility concerns it had. [35] The Appellant maintains that the RPD ignored the fact that the letters were authored by representatives of organizations that had no vested interest in the outcome of his case. He argues that since these are independent third-party documents, one can imply that the contents of the letters were presented authentically and genuinely as the authors perceived it. [36] In the RAD's view, the Appellant's involvement in or with organizations such as the FCJ Refugee Centre, Sherbourne Health Centre, The 519 Community Centre, Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto, Black Coalition for AIDS Prevention, and Eva's Place do not support his allegation that he is bisexual. Letters and certificates from these organizations merely indicate that the Appellant reached out to the organizations and: attended group and drop-in sessions,12 joined a program,13 became a member,14 became a volunteer, 15 or became a client; 16 that he participated in workshops,17 completed safety training,18 or attended meetings; 19 or that he attended the organization seeking support for his claim to remain in Canada.20 Although many of the documents reiterate what the Appellant told the organization about his circumstances, there is no indication in any of the documents that anyone from the organizations had firsthand knowledge of the Appellant's circumstances. [37] The RAD accepts, as the Appellant submits, that each of the authors of the letters is an independent third-party; however, none of the authors have first-hand knowledge of the Appellant's circumstances, including the circumstances surrounding his alleged sexual orientation. None of the authors can confirm a material fact in the Appellant's claim for refugee protection. The Federal Court has held that highly probative evidence is intrinsically well-presented evidence from independent sources confirming a material fact in the matter.21 The documentary evidence from organizations noted above fails to meet the criteria of highly probative evidence. The RAD gives no weight to the evidence from the organizations, including the LGBT-related organizations, in support of the Appellant's identity as a bisexual man and the allegations of persecution or harm in Nigeria. Psychological report [38] The Appellant maintains that the RPD made no attempt to engage with the psychological evidence he submitted in support of his claim. He points out that he submitted a psychological report which explored his psychological state. The Appellant submits that the RPD made an error by not referring to his psychological report when it assessed his credibility. He notes jurisprudence indicating that there are instances where a report can serve as corroborative evidence determining an individual's credibility, and should therefore be dealt with accordingly by the panel before being rejected. [39] The RPD is presumed to have considered all of the evidence before it, and there is no requirement for the panel to refer to each document in the record.22 However, where there is evidence which is contrary to its decision, the RPD must analyze that evidence and provide reasons why it does not consider it relevant or trustworthy, or why it chose to disregard it.23 [40] It is unfortunate that there is no reference to the Appellant's psychological report anywhere in the RPD's reasons. The RPD found that the Appellant was not a credible witness based on numerous anomalies in his story and in his documents. In reaching this conclusion, it was necessary for the RPD to consider the Appellant's psychological condition, as described in the report, and to consider whether this might have contributed to his evidentiary difficulties. [41] The RAD, after reviewing the testimony and evidence, finds that the many significant anomalies noted in the Appellant's evidence are not sufficiently explained by the psychological report. The Appellant's delay in departure, omissions in his BoC, his presentation of fraudulent documents, and his unreasonable explanations for anomalies in his evidence undermine the credibility of his claim. The RAD finds that the Appellant's mental state, as opined in his psychological report, does not affect the credibility conclusions noted above. [42] The psychotherapist, in her report, opined that the Appellant exhibited symptoms consistent with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. She indicated that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; symptoms can take the form of difficulty understanding questions, requests for questions to be repeated or rephrased, inability to retrieve specific details of the past, or an apparent inability to formulate a coherent response; and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX can lead to difficulties in providing clear and consistent testimony. The psychotherapist opines that, should the problems noted above become evident, it will be important to understand that they likely reflect the disorganizing effects of XXXX stress rather than an effort to evade or obfuscate.24 [43] It is unclear from the psychotherapist's report what to expect from the Appellant in terms of his testimony. The RAD notes from the recording of the hearing that the Appellant had the ability to recall a considerable amount of information from his past, including information previously not presented. The psychotherapist fails to adequately account for the omissions in the Appellant's BoC, his presentation of fraudulent documents, or his unreasonable explanations, simply stating his potential incapacity in general terms as a catchall for any anomalies in his testimony. The RAD gives the psychotherapist's report little weight in terms of justifying the anomalies in the Appellant's evidence, including his testimony at the hearing. [44] Furthermore, in the RAD's view, a psychological report presented by a refugee claimant does not serve to prove the alleged persecution suffered by that individual. Of course, such a report may establish that the Appellant suffers from a condition or exhibits symptoms that are consistent with the alleged trauma. A psychological report might assist the RPD in conducting the hearing in an appropriately sensitive manner or to consider whether apparent credibility problems are instead the result of a psychological condition. The Federal Court has commented that, "Just because a patient is suffering from psychological problems and manifests symptoms associated with those problems does not mean that the patient's account of past persecution as the cause of those problems can be believed."25 The RAD has reviewed the Appellant's psychological report, and there is nothing in the document to suggest that the psychologist independently verified any of the allegations reported by the Appellant. It is the RPD's responsibility to determine whether the Appellant is credible, and the RPD is not required to defer to a psychologist's report when making findings of fact in respect to alleged past persecution. Disposition [45] The Appellant has alleged that the RPD erred in its assessment of his credibility and in its assessment of the documentary evidence. Based on its own analysis of the record, the RAD has found that the RPD did not err in its credibility assessment or in its assessment of the documentary evidence. The RPD's findings are thorough and based on the evidence. Upon a review of the evidence, the RAD has reached the same conclusion as the RPD. [46] As a cumulative result of the above-noted anomalies in the Appellant's evidence, the RAD finds that the Appellant lacks credibility. The RAD does not accept, on a balance of probabilities, that the material events, as described by the Appellant in his Basis of Claim Form and at his hearing with the RPD, occurred as described. [47] On the basis of the findings noted above and after its own assessment of all the evidence in the record, the RAD finds that the Appellant has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that he is bisexual. The RAD further finds that the Appellant has not established on a balance of probabilities that it was revealed to anyone in Nigeria that he is bisexual or that he was harmed or threatened with harm by individuals in Nigeria because of his sexual orientation. [48] Therefore, the RAD finds that there is not a serious possibility of persecution should the Appellant return to Nigeria. The RAD therefore concludes that the Appellant has failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution under section 96 of the IRPA, and, for these same reasons - the lack of credibility - the RAD finds that the Appellant is not a person in need of protection or at a risk to life, or at risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or in danger of torture as set out in section 97 of the IRPA. CONCLUSION Pursuant to Section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Refugee Appeal Division confirms the decision of the Refugee Protection Division and dismisses the appeal. (signed) "M. Pettinella" M. Pettinella December 21, 2016 Date 1 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016; 2016 FCA 93. 2 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, para. 78. 3 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, para. 103. 4 Ru, Ai Ping v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-4746-10), Russell, July 26, 2011; 2011 FC 935. 5 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 24. 6 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 187. 7 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 187, 194. 8 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 187, 191, 194. 9 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 133. 10 Gomez, Hector Cisneros v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-5741-04), Harrington, June 16, 2005, 2005 FC 859. 11 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 196-200. 12 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 179. 13 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 180, 181. 14 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 181. 15 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 179, 185. 16 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 183. 17 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 181. 18 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 184. 19 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 180, 181, 182, 183. 20 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 182. 21 El Bouni, Haidar v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-7627-14), Annis, June 2, 2015; 2015 FC 700. 22 Hassan v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1992] FCJ No 946. 23 Nasufi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) 2011 FC 586; Khan v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FC 1076; Cepeda-Gutierrez v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] FCJ No 1425. 24 Exhibit RPD-1, at pp. 177-178. 25 Mico v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 964, para. 54. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB6-11332