MB8-24783

RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : MB8-24783 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, Quebec Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision July 18, 2019 Date de la décision Panel Me Zofia Przybytkowski Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Me Luciano Mascaro 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] The appellant, XXXX XXXX XXXX, is a citizen of Haiti. He alleges that he fears returning to Haiti because of threats from a drug dealer in his neighbourhood. The appellant alleges that this criminal is after him because he reported him to the police, which resulted in his arrest and detention. [2] The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejected the appellant's refugee protection claim, as it concluded that his testimony contained significant inconsistencies. The RPD therefore found that the appellant's allegations were not credible. [3] The appellant claims that the RPD erred in its findings. He argues that he simply gave further clarifications and details in his testimony in relation to his written account. In his opinion, his testimony did not contain inconsistencies or implausibilities. The appellant also criticizes the RPD for taking into account the behaviour of the appellant's spouse when assessing the appellant's fear. [4] I conducted an independent analysis of the evidence, taking into consideration the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) and RPD records, including the recording of the RPD hearing. DETERMINATION [5] I dismiss the appeal. I conclude that the RPD did not err in finding that inconsistencies or implausibilities in the appellant's testimony were sufficient to rebut the presumption that his sworn testimony was truthful. ANALYSIS Exclusion [6] The RPD invited the Minister to intervene regarding the possible exclusion of the appellant on the basis of his time in Brazil. The Minister announced that he had no intention of intervening in the appellant's case. The RPD analyzed the issue and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the appellant had a status in Brazil similar to that of the citizens of that country.1 The Minister did not contest the decision made on this issue. I conclude that the determinative issue in this case is the appellant's credibility with respect to this fear in Haiti. Credibility Informing on the drug dealer [7] The RPD found it implausible that the appellant was responsible for the arrest of drug dealer XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX simply after having seen the person and informing the police of where he had seen him. The RPD found it all the more implausible since the appellant testified that the police knew where the drug dealer lived and had previously arrested him, meaning that the police would not have needed the appellant's information to locate him. [8] The appellant claims that the RPD embellished his explanation that the dealer escaped through the back door of his home when the police came for him. He explains that he could sell drugs at home as well as outside. According to him, police officers could know where the dealer lived without successfully netting him. [9] I find that the appellant's explanations do not make the scenario he puts forth more plausible and that the RPD did not err. If the police were intent on arresting him, they could simply conduct surveillance on his home until he showed up. They did not need to rely on the appellant as an informant. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that the appellant was vague regarding the reason for which XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was sought by the police. He explained that it was due to what was happening in the area, with young people smoking. [10] The RPD also noted that the appellant stated that he had not signed any deposition, was never called to testify and that the incident did not get any media coverage. Therefore, no connection can be made between the vague information given by the appellant and Mr. XXXX arrest. Moreover, the appellant did not have any information about what happened afterward. The behaviour of the appellant and his family [11] The RPD found it inconsistent that the appellant's father and spouse lived in the family home after six criminals broke in to threaten the appellant in his absence on XXXX XXXX, 2013. The appellant allegedly sought refuge in Port-au-Prince at a friend's home until he left for Brazil in XXXX 2013. He also apparently returned on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2013, to retrieve some personal effects; his spouse then allegedly warned him that criminals were watching the house. [12] The RPD did not believe that, if the appellant had been communicating by telephone with his spouse, she would not have warned him that criminals were watching the house before he arrived there in person, and that she would have remained there. [13] The appellant criticizes the RPD for having assessed the subjective fear of his spouse, who is not claiming refugee protection in this case, and that it relied on objective documentation2 as if the appellant and his family knew it and used it as [translation] "bedside reading." I cannot accept these arguments. [14] The documentation indicates that there is a culture of revenge in Haiti and that the criminals would not hesitate to attack family members if they could not find the person they were looking for. Without being familiar with the objective documentation on Haiti, the appellant is familiar with the conditions in his country and testified that he feared that the criminals would attack his spouse or his father in his absence. Nevertheless, the appellant's spouse left after three months and his father continued to live in the same location until 2017. The RPD did not assess the subjective fear of the appellant's spouse. Rather, it assessed the evidence in connection with the existence of a threat against the appellant, as well as his behaviour. [15] The RPD correctly concluded that, if the appellant feared for the safety of members of his family, he would have taken steps to have them leave their home. The RPD also did not err in finding that the appellant's behaviour is inconsistent with his fear, in that he returned to his home without checking to see if the criminals had made threats or were watching. Death of the appellant's brother [16] The RPD did not give any probative value to the documents concerning the complaints made to the authorities by the appellant's father in December 2017 and June 2018.3 The June 2018 complaint concerns the death of the appellant's brother, allegedly connected to the problems the appellant had had with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and his associates. The RPD found it implausible that the appellant's father had never disclosed any threats he apparently received between 2013 and 2017. The appellant criticizes the RPD for being too severe in not giving any probative value to these documents because the appellant's father had not reported any threats for four years. [17] I conclude that the RPD did not err in finding it implausible that the criminals had not made any threats for four years, then re-emerged and killed the appellant's brother. Furthermore, upon reviewing the documents, I note that the complaint regarding the death of the appellant's brother shows a date of [translation] "year two eighteen and Monday, XXXX XXXX." The word [translation] "thousand" is therefore missing. [18] I find that these inconsistencies and the irregularity in the document undermine the credibility of the allegation that the criminals continue to seek and threaten the appellant and that they are responsible for the death of his brother. The RPD did not err when it gave little probative value to the documents. CONCLUSION [19] For these reasons, I conclude that the appellant, XXXX XXXX XXXX, has not demonstrated that he faces a serious possibility of persecution in Haiti or that, on a balance of probabilities, he would be subjected to a risk to his life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. Therefore, he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. [20] The RPD's decision is correct. The appeal is dismissed. Zofia Przybytkowski Me Zofia Przybytkowski July 18, 2019 IRB translation Original language: French Date 1 In accordance with Article 1E of the Convention. 2 National Documentation Package on Haiti, July 20, 2018, Tab 7.6: Acts of revenge committed by gangs or by other organized crime entities; ability of gangs or other organized crime entities to track down their targets, including those who return to Haiti after a long absence (2015-June 2018). 3 Refugee Protection Division record, exhibits D-3 and D-4, pp. 76-77. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : MB8-24783 RAD.25.02 (April 4, 2019) Available in English 6 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 4, 2019) Disponible en français