TB8-14438

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-14438 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 August 28, 2020 Date de la décision Panel R. Seyan Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Brian Ibrahim Cintosun 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 [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX (the appellant) argues that the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (the RPD), which denied his claim for refugee protection, is incorrect. [2] He is a citizen of Iran and alleges he cannot return because he is wanted by the authorities. His employers, the Iranian police, sought to send him to Syria. He refused and fled Iran. Determination [3] I confirm the decision of the RPD that the appellant is not a Convention refugee. Nor is he a person in need of protection. [4] The determinative issue is credibility. I do not believe the appellant's allegations as I do not find his testimony to be credible. [5] I find, after an independent review of the evidence, that the RPD made the correct decision. Allegations [6] The appellant worked for the XXXX XXXX as a XXXX XXXX. In XXXX 2015, his XXXX XXXX asked the appellant to go to Syria to XXXX XXXX XXXX. The appellant pled ill health. [7] In XXXX 2016, the appellant was asked once more to XXXX in Syria. The appellant refused. The Sepah (also known as the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) raided his house and placed him in detention for XXXX days. The appellant's in-laws paid a bribe to have him released. [8] The appellant fled to Canada. He alleges he cannot return to Iran, because he did not obey the religious leadership of his country. The role of the Refugee Appeal Division [9] I am required to examine the record (the evidence, the submissions and the RPD decision) independently and determine if the RPD arrived at the correct decision.1 No new evidence; no oral hearing [10] The appellant is not submitting any new evidence. He is not requesting an oral hearing. [11] The admission of new evidence is a pre-requisite for an oral hearing. Therefore, I have no jurisdiction to hold an oral hearing. The RPD did not err when it found the appellant not credible with respect to the omission from the Basis of Claim (BOC) [12] The RPD found that the appellant was not credible because he omitted from his BOC a visit by the Sepah two to three weeks after he was released from detention. [13] The appellant argues that the RPD erred, because it did not consider his detailed testimony regarding the triggering event (his initial arrest dated XXXX XXXX, 2016). Instead, the RPD focused on an event that the appellant could not remember at the time of the completion of his BOC. The appellant does not contest this omission. Nor does he argue that it was not a significant detail. [14] I disagree with the appellant. [15] The appellant made his refugee claim upon his arrival at the port of entry (February 20, 2017). He completed his BOC on March 3, 2017 with the assistance of counsel. His narrative is extensive. [16] The appellant does give detail with respect to the triggering event, but this does not explain why he omitted the visit from the Sepah XXXX or XXXX weeks after his release. He testified that he did not remember, which is not a reasonable explanation. There is no medical or psychological evidence that the appellant's memory is impaired. Furthermore, this is not a microscopic or minor detail (for example, two Sepah officers versus three; a van versus an SUV), but an important event. It is a direct interaction of the appellant with his agents of persecution and should have been in his BOC. [17] His explanation is that he forgot to include a visit to his house by his agents of persecution a few weeks after he was released from detention. This is not a reasonable explanation. [18] I do not find that this visit occurred as alleged. This finding rebuts the presumption of truth. The appellant no longer benefits from the presumption that his sworn testimony is true. The RPD did not err when it found that the appellant was not a XXXX XXXX during the time of the allegations [19] The RPD found that the appellant had failed to establish that he worked as a XXXX XXXX for the XXXX during the critical times (approximately 2015 - 2016). [20] The appellant argues that the RPD was unreasonable and made an error. He argues that he stated at the port of entry that he was a XXXX XXXX and testified in detail about his position and his role. He conducted XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. [21] The RPD did not err when it found that the appellant was not a XXXX with the XXXX during the material time of his allegations. [22] The appellant has provided the following information in support of his allegations that he worked as a XXXX for the XXXX: a XXXX educational certificate dated XXXX 19922; XXXX ability certificate dated XXXX 1997 for XXXX XXXX XXXX3 issued by the XXXX XXXX XXXX; four photographs showing the appellant in a XXXX and XXXX XXXX. [23] These documents do not establish that the appellant worked as a XXXX for the XXXX XXXX between 2015 to 2017 or that he was asked to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The documents are dated. The educational certificate and XXXX ability certificate date to the 1990s. The photographs are undated, but the appellant is a young man therein, younger than the photograph attached to his Notice to Appear at the RPD.4 [24] When asked if he had any evidence to establish his recent employment with the XXXX XXXX, the appellant replied that the Sepah had confiscated his papers. This is not a reasonable explanation. It is difficult to imagine that the Sepah confiscated all recent records of his employment. [25] As I stated earlier, the appellant's testimony no longer benefits from the presumption of truth. [26] I find, unlike the RPD, that the appellant was a XXXX and XXXX XXXX, but the Appellant has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that he worked for the XXXX as a XXXX between 2015 to 2016. Therefore, the appellant's assertions are not truthful. He was not asked to serve in Syria; he did not refuse; he was not in detention; the Sepah are not looking for him. [27] The RPD did not err in the determinative aspect of the appellant's employment history. After an independent review of the evidence, I arrive at the same conclusion for the same reasons. The appellant's exit from Iran on his genuine passport is not credible [28] The RPD did not believe that the appellant was able to leave on his genuine passport while he was wanted by the authorities. [29] The appellant argues that the RPD erred in this finding. His evidence is that he used a smuggler and therefore was able to leave on his genuine passport, as the smuggler helped him board his flight through a storage area, thus avoiding checkpoints. [30] I do not believe the appellant's allegations with respect to exit for the reasons that follow. [31] The Australian foreign affairs department reports that authorities "routinely" impose travel bans on citizens for security reasons, tax evasions etc. The Sepah can impose bans without input from the judiciary. Individuals who are subject to such bans are often unaware of these bans.5 A professor specializing in Iranian state intelligence states that there are four checkpoints for departure and that the Iranian authorities maintain two watchlists against which they check individuals.6 [32] There is little information on the bribing of border officials to facilitate departure. The professor states that bribery at entry/exit points is difficult. However, drug trafficking organizations have illicit relationships with the Sepah, but these relationships are "happening further up the pipeline than the official entry and exit points". The academic reports that corruption is more probable at the Baluchistan Sistan areas.7 [33] The appellant did not exit Iran in the Baluchistan Sistan areas. There is no evidence that the smuggler he used is connected to a drug trafficking organization. He left on his genuine passport. His evidence is that his passport was checked at least once by the authorities before the smuggler took him to his plane through a storage area. [34] I prefer the objective documentation over the appellant's account of his exit, which is vague despite the appellant being sophisticated in his employment history. The presumption of truth is rebutted based on the appellant's omission from his BOC. While the appellant's exit from Iran on his genuine passport is not determinative, it is not credible when viewed among the totality of the evidence. [35] The appellant was able to leave on his genuine passport with minimal inconvenience as he is not wanted by the authorities. The RPD was correct when it found the appellant was neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection [36] The appellant argues that a lack of credibility does not automatically mean that he is not a refugee. His testimony may not be relied on, but the country documentation may still establish that he would face arrest and/or punishment in Iran. [37] As the courts have said, one can be both a liar and a refugee. [38] However, in the matter at hand, the appellant has been found not to be credible. [39] He has provided a letter from his wife, which states that she persuaded her husband to leave Iran and that in XXXX 2017, the Sepah came to the house in search of the appellant. I do not give this letter much weight with respect to establishing the appellant's allegations. I have found him not to be a credible witness and I do not find that this letter rehabilitates his credibility to the point where I believe his allegations on a balance of probabilities. [40] There is no other credible evidence before me that establishes the appellant refused orders and was detained. He is of no interest to the authorities, and therefore, would not face arrest and/or punishment in Iran. [41] The appellant argues that the evidence in the record establishes a forward-looking risk of persecution. The appellant cites prison conditions, torture and mistreatment, control of the media from the objective country conditions to establish a forward-looking risk of persecution. However, he has not explained how this evidence relates to his personal circumstances, particularly as I do not find him to be a credible witness. [42] I find the appellant was not a XXXX XXXX for the XXXX between 2015 - 2016. He was not detained. The authorities did not return to his house a few weeks later. The appellant was able to leave Iran on his genuine passport. The Sepah do not continue to search for him. Conclusion [43] I find that the appellant has failed to discharge his onus. He has not been a credible witness and has failed to provide documentation in support of his claim. [44] I have conducted an independent review of the record, hearing and the RPD's decision. The RRD was correct when it found that the appellant was not a Convention refugee. I have also arrived at this conclusion following an independent assessment, although my reasoning is different at parts. [45] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the decision of the RPD that the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.8 (signed) "R. Seyan" R. Seyan 28 August 2020 Date 1 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, [2016] 4 FCR 157, 2016 FCA 93. 2 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, p. 113. 3 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, p. 115. 4 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, p. 26. 5 National Documentation Package (NDP) for Iran (31 March 20202), Item 14.1. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid. 8 Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-14438 RAD.25.02 (January, 2020) Disponible en français 2 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