TB8-11569

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-11569 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 Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision December 19, 2019 Date de la décision Panel Matthew Oh Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Paul Vandervennen 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 ("the Appellant") is a citizen of Ethiopia who claims to fear persecution by the Ethiopian government on the basis of her political opinions. She appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division ("RPD"), rejecting her claim for refugee protection. The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in its assessment of the credibility of her allegations. DETERMINATION [2] Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act ("IRPA"), the appeal is dismissed. On an independent assessment, I reach the same conclusion as the RPD regarding the Appellant's credibility. I determine that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. The Refugee Appeal Division ("RAD") therefore confirms the RPD's negative determination. BACKGROUND [3] The Appellant is an Ethiopian citizen but she moved to South Africa in 2011 after marrying her husband, who is a South African citizen. While living there, the Appellant claims to have attended two meetings with the opposition XXXX Party, as well as two meetings with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. She says that she provided cash donations to those groups on each of those occasions. [4] In XXXX 2016, upon returning to Ethiopia for a visit, the Appellant alleges that she was detained by police, who interrogated her and accused her of supporting the opposition as well as XXXX. She claims that she was beaten and sexually assaulted before being released two days later. Due to racial violence in South Africa, the Appellant chose not to return there. Instead, she decided to come to Canada to make a refugee claim. [5] The RPD heard the Appellant's claim on March 29, 2018 and rejected it on the basis of credibility. The RPD did not believe the core allegations. The RPD found that the Appellant's oral testimony about her activities in South Africa was vague, and that there was an inconsistency in her evidence about those activities. The RPD drew a negative inference from the Appellant's failure to seek corroborative evidence. It also found that it was unlikely that the Appellant would approach state authorities for a birth certificate and kebele card after she had just been detained and abused. After weighing the evidence and the credibility issues, the RPD found that support letters from the Appellant's uncle and husband were insufficient and that the allegations were not credible. Role of the Refugee Appeal Division [6] The jurisprudence establishes that the RAD is required to undertake an independent assessment of the evidence and reach its own determination. Deference is owed to the RPD only where the RPD held a meaningful advantage in assessing evidence.1 [7] In the present case, I see no reason to show deference to any of the RPD's findings. I have applied a correctness standard and arrived at independent findings based on the evidence before me. ANALYSIS [8] The sole, determinative issue argued on appeal is whether the RPD erred in its credibility assessment. For the reasons that follow, I largely agree with the credibility findings as well as the weighing of the evidence. I reach the same conclusion, that the allegations are not credible. Discrepancies between oral testimony and other evidence regarding activities in South Africa [9] The RPD noted that there were variations in the Appellant's evidence about her activities in South Africa. I agree with the RPD that the discrepancies undermine the Appellant's credibility. [10] The Appellant alleged in her Basis of Claim ("BOC") narrative that she "attended meetings and fundraising events for opposition parties and an Ethiopian news medium XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX2 Similarly, a letter from her husband states: She was involved in Ethiopian political matters in XXXX, and went to different meetings of opposition parties and movements, and fundraising events.3 [11] In oral testimony, however, the Appellant indicated that she did not support multiple opposition parties and movements, but rather that she supported only the XXXX Party while she was in South Africa. She explained that she provided cash donations to them in XXXX 2014 and XXXX 2015. She also described that she provided cash donations to XXXX in XXXX 2015 and XXXX 2016. When confronted about how her husband's letter indicates that she went to different meetings of opposition parties and movements, rather than meetings with just the XXXX Party, the Appellant attempted to blame this on an interpretation error. This is despite the fact that the husband's letter is written in English. Rejecting her explanation, the RPD drew a negative inference and gave little weight to her husband's letter. [12] On appeal, the Appellant argues that the RPD was being microscopic in assessing the wording of her husband's letter. She says that the RPD was merely nit-picking and that it reached its conclusion by being excessively pedantic. [13] I agree with the RPD's reasons. I do not consider the reasoning to be microscopic. Both the BOC narrative and the husband's letter make reference to the Appellant's meetings with multiple opposition parties. Had the Appellant simply disclosed these highly relevant details about her involvement with the XXXX Party in her BOC narrative and Schedule A form, this would not have been an issue. The narrative makes only vague mention of the Appellant's attendance at "meetings and fundraising events for opposition parties".4 If her association with the XXXX Party led to her detention, she ought to have disclosed this information; yet neither the BOC form nor the Schedule A form make any mention of the Appellant's association with that party. I too draw a negative inference from the fact that the Appellant's evidence suggests that she had involvement with multiple parties in South Africa, whereas her oral testimony revealed (for the first time) that in fact she was only involved with the XXXX Party. Vagueness of testimony regarding meetings in South Africa [14] The Appellant also challenges the RPD's finding that she provided vague and evasive testimony about her political activities in South Africa. Having reviewed the audio recording, I agree entirely with the RPD's characterization of the testimony. [15] Given that the BOC narrative had very little detail about the Appellant's political activities in South Africa, this information had to come out through oral testimony. The RPD patiently questioned the Appellant, attempting to draw out what exactly the Appellant had done in South Africa and the context behind it. Eventually, the RPD learned that the Appellant had attended two meetings with the XXXX Party and two meetings with XXXX, where on each occasion she made a cash donation to those organizations. The RPD drew a negative inference, noting how it had to ask the Appellant several times to provide detail and to elaborate. The RPD considered that the testimony about what occurred during the meetings was vague, including the ideas that were discussed in those meetings. [16] The Appellant instead says that she answered the RPD's many questions in a detailed and knowledgeable manner, without vagueness, evasiveness, or a lack of spontaneity. She provided the month and year of each meeting, described the locations of each, and how she learned about them. The Appellant says that the RPD mischaracterizes the testimony. She argues that the RPD expected too much of her, and that it was unreasonable to expect her to remember complete details about meetings that she had attended three or four years before. She was never a member of the XXXX Party and never held herself out to be a political expert. She emphasizes that the XXXX Party itself only provides vague information about its vision. [17] I am unpersuaded by the Appellant's arguments. The RPD's description of the testimony is fully supported by the audio recording. When asked about how she supported XXXX, at first the Appellant could only say that they came to Johannesburg and said that they needed support from the diaspora, and that she therefore supported them. Only through much prompting could the Appellant state that she gave them money - XXXX South African Rand on two occasions - and that this occurred in the context of meetings in Johannesburg that she had learned about through other members of the diaspora. At almost every instance, however, the Appellant was evasive and vague in her answers. For instance, when the RPD tried to understand where the XXXX meetings were held and how the Appellant learned about them, the Appellant vaguely stated that people called and told her because they were advertising. When pressed for more information, the Appellant stated that it was Ethiopians in Johannesburg. She had to be pressed multiple times to explain how she knew the person who called her and to provide the name of the individual who told her about the first XXXX meeting she attended. When asked to explain how she learned about the second XXXX meeting, she merely stated that they had heard. When asked how she had heard about it, she replied that it was from Ethiopians that are there. Again, only after being pressed and pressed for information could the Appellant finally explain that she simply happened to overhear other Ethiopians discussing the matter while she was on a street in Johannesburg making purchases. [18] With respect to the XXXX Party meetings, the Appellant was indeed vague about what occurred during the meetings. She stated that they were telling them about their ideas and what they are doing. However, when asked to explain what ideas they presented, the Appellant merely responded that their idea was to connect funds, as it was a fundraiser. She confirmed that the only idea they discussed was fundraising. However, she soon afterwards changed her testimony, stating that they did not only discuss the idea of fundraising but that they also told them about what ideas they had, and asked for funds. The RPD confronted the Appellant about how she had initially testified that their only idea was fundraising. The Appellant clarified that in fact the representative told them about their ideas and what is happening. When yet again asked to explain what ideas were discussed, the Appellant struggled to provide an answer. She stated that the main issue was that they were opposing the government. She eventually made vague reference to famine in Ethiopia and corruption. Again, when asked to explain specifically what ideas the XXXX Party had, the Appellant could only say that human rights should be respected, and only after a long silence could she say that the country should be ruled through peace. [19] I do not agree that the RPD expected too much of the Appellant. I acknowledge that the meetings took place a few years ago. Still, it was open to the Appellant to explain that she could no longer recall the finer details about what had happened in the meetings. This was not her testimony. Instead, she testified that she supported the XXXX Party because she supported their ideas, and yet she was unable to explain what those ideas were. The Appellant is a relatively well-educated individual. She has held employment in Ethiopia as an XXXX manager and later as a XXXX XXXX XXXX.5 She claimed to have been a supporter of the XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX from XXXX 2004 to XXXX 2005.6 She did not present only a casual interest in politics. She cared enough to attend fundraising meetings for an opposition party while living abroad, and also to give donations to a well-known Ethiopian media outlet that is critical of the Ethiopian government. It is reasonable to expect that the Appellant would be able to describe, in at least some level of detail, what ideas the party had that led her to support them. [20] I am not persuaded that the XXXX Party's own vague statements in its mission statement mean that they would not have a more detailed platform about their ideas for political change in Ethiopia that the Appellant would be aware of as a genuine supporter. Having reviewed the hearing record, I agree with the RPD's characterization of the testimony and the inferences drawn from it. The Appellant was unreasonably vague and evasive in her testimony. Her inability to give spontaneous and clear testimony about the meetings that led her to face problems in Ethiopia cast doubt on her core allegations. Lack of efforts to corroborate political activities in South Africa [21] Noting the above credibility issues with respect to the Appellant's activities in South Africa, the RPD took further issue with the fact that the Appellant had failed to seek corroborative evidence of her activities, such as letters from others who attended the meetings or receipts from the XXXX Party and XXXX for her donations. When questioned about why she had not sought such evidence, the Appellant merely responded that she did not think it was important. [22] The Appellant has not addressed this finding on appeal, and I see no reason to interfere with it, as I agree with the RPD's reasons. The Federal Court has confirmed that, where there are valid credibility issues, the RPD may take into account a claimant's lack of effort to obtain corroborative evidence where it should be available.7 Here, the Appellant's attendance at XXXX Party and XXXX meetings as well as her financial contributions to those organizations supposedly led her to be detained in Ethiopia. This was the very basis for her claim. The Appellant was represented by an experienced immigration lawyer at the RPD. The Refugee Protection Division Rules require claimants to provide acceptable documents establishing their identity and other elements of their claim.8 I see no reason why the Appellant could not have reached out to the XXXX Party and XXXX, or to other attendees that she knew, in order to at least inquire into the possibility of obtaining evidence from them about her participation in the activities described. I too draw a negative inference. Inferences from Appellant's actions in obtaining birth certificate and kebele card [23] The only finding with which I do not agree is the RPD's inference that the Appellant lacked subjective fear because she applied for a birth certificate and kebele card after she was released from detention. [24] The Appellant alleged that she was released from detention on XXXX XXXX, 2016, where she was badly treated and warned not to involve herself in any kind of anti-government activity. However, in XXXX 2016, the Appellant approached government authorities and obtained both a birth certificate and kebele card.9 The Appellant explained that she was fearful of approaching the government for these documents, but that she felt she needed them to corroborate her identity in support of her refugee claim in Canada. The RPD found, given her fear of the authorities, that the Appellant's decision to apply for those documents undermined her credibility about being detained. The RPD considered that the Appellant was already in possession of an Ethiopian passport and Canadian visa. [25] I agree with the Appellant that the above is not a valid basis upon which to doubt the Appellant's detention. The authorities that issued the kebele card and birth certificate were not the same ones that detained the Appellant. She was entitled to these documents and there was no reason to believe that applying for those documents would cause any difficulties for her. [26] This finding, however, was not given a great deal of weight in the credibility assessment. The RPD acknowledged that the documents were not issued by the same government agency that was responsible for her detention. The RPD specifically indicated that it was not treating the issue as determinative. Still, the RPD drew some adverse inference against the Appellant's credibility on this basis. Where the RPD did place some weight on this, I have not relied on it at all in my independent assessment. Weighing of the uncle's letter [27] Finally, the Appellant disputes the RPD's weighing of a letter that was supposedly written by her uncle. I agree entirely with the RPD's treatment of this evidence. [28] The letter is hand-written, with no accompanying ID. Only a photocopy of the letter was provided. The letter explains that the Appellant is the daughter of the author's sister. It describes that on XXXX XXXX, 2016, he picked up the Appellant from the airport and brought her home. He states that later that day, armed government security officers came home and took her to the police station for questioning. The letter recounts what the Appellant claims occurred to her in detention, and how she was released after two days.10 The RPD found that this letter was insufficient to establish the core allegations, given the many problems with the Appellant's testimony. [29] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred by giving the letter less weight due to the fact that an original copy was not available. She argues that viewing an original copy would have added nothing to the RPD's assessment of the credibility of the document. The Appellant further states that the RPD was wrong in finding that there were too many negative inferences for the letter to be given weight. [30] I disagree with the Appellant's arguments. The Federal Court provides a useful discussion of the concepts of weight, credibility, and probative value in Magonza v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 14 ("Magonza"). The weight of evidence is described as the persuasiveness of some evidence in comparison with other evidence. It is what counts in the ultimate balancing of the evidence that tends to prove or disprove a relevant fact. Weight, as described in Magonza, is a function of credibility and probative value.11 [31] In this case, the Appellant seems to take issue with the RPD's assessment of the credibility of the uncle's letter. The Appellant cannot see how the presentation of an original letter, as compared to a photocopy, could have assisted the RPD in assessing the document's credibility. In my view, however, the problem is a broader one about the RPD's inability to verify and test the evidence. In this case, having been provided only with a photocopy, the RPD could not verify that the document had been sent to the Appellant from her uncle in Ethiopia. There was not even a copy of the uncle's ID, which prevented the RPD from verifying that the author was indeed her uncle. Ultimately, the question left for the RPD was whether this photocopy of a handwritten letter could really be so persuasive as to establish the facts around the Appellant's detention in Ethiopia despite the serious credibility issues that arose during the hearing. I agree with the RPD that the letter fails at that task. I give it no weight. [32] Though I do not agree with all of the RPD's findings, when all of the evidence is considered and weighed, I reach the same conclusion as the RPD. The discrepancies in her evidence, the vagueness and evasiveness of her testimony about her activities in South Africa, and her lack of effort in corroborating those activities cast serious doubt on her allegations. I do not believe on a balance of probabilities that the Appellant was involved in any politically-sensitive activities in South Africa, nor Ethiopia. I do not believe that she was detained as alleged in Ethiopia. CONCLUSION [33] For the above reasons, I am not persuaded that the RPD erred in finding that the Appellant's allegations were not credible. The RPD went on to consider possible residual profiles based on the Appellant's vote for the XXXX in 2005 as well as her ethnicity as an XXXX. The Appellant has not disputed the RPD's analysis of those issues, and I see no reason to interfere with them, as I agree with them in my independent assessment. [34] As the facts that underlie the Appellant's claim have not been established on a balance of probabilities, I determine that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. I confirm the RPD's negative determination. [35] The appeal is dismissed, pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA. (signed) "Matthew Oh" Matthew Oh December 19, 2019 Date 1 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; see also Rozas Del Solar, Paola v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145. 2 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, Basis of Claim Form, at p. 14. 3 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 6, at p. 129. 4 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, at p. 14. 5 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 6, at pp. 126-128. 6 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, Schedule A Form, at p. 35. 7 Ismaili v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 84 (CanLII) at paras 33-56. 8 Refugee Protection Division Rules, SOR/2012-256 at s. 11. 9 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 6, at pp. 106-108. 10 Exhibit RPD-1 RPD Record, Exhibit 6, at pp. 131-132. 11 Magonza v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 14 (CanLII), at paras 27-29. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-11569 RAD.25.02 (April 04, 2019) Disponible en français 11 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 (April 04, 2019) Disponible en français