MB9-24281

RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : MB9-24281 MB9-24282 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision - Motifs et décision Persons who are the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Appeal considered / heard at Montréal, QC Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision November 30, 2020 Date de la décision Panel Me Bianca Eleonora Suciu Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subject of the appeal Aristide Koudiatou Mianata Conseil des personnes en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION INTRODUCTION [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX and his wife XXXX XXXX XXXX, citizens of Haiti, are appealing the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) dated September 13, 2019, rejecting their refugee protection claims under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). [2] The RPD concluded that the appellants are not described in the exclusion because they never had permanent status in Brazil. Nevertheless, the RPD concluded that, while credible, the appellants failed to establish a prospective risk in Haiti within the meaning of sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA. The appellants argue that the RPD erred by concluding that their fear is unfounded. They are asking the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) to allow their appeal and recognize them as refugees or persons in need of protection, or to refer the file to the RPD for re-determination. OVERVIEW [3] The appellants fear the female appellant's father, who opposed their relationship. They state that, in XXXX 2011, the latter began making death threats against them and attacked them on two occasions. The male appellant left Haiti for Brazil on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2013, and the female appellant followed him on XXXX XXXX, 2014. The appellants married in Brazil. They left Brazil in XXXX 2016 and travelled through a number of countries before entering Canada. They claimed refugee protection here in September 2017. DETERMINATION [4] After conducting an independent analysis of all the evidence on the record, including the recording of the hearing, I am of the opinion that the RPD did not err by concluding that the appellants failed to establish a prospective risk in Haiti. Consequently, I confirm the RPD's determination that the appellants are not refugees or persons in need of protection. [5] The appeal is dismissed. ROLE OF THE REFUGEE APPEAL DIVISION [6] The RAD is required to conduct its own analysis of the evidence, in light of the appellant's arguments, to establish whether the RPD acted correctly with respect to each alleged error of law, error of fact, or error of mixed fact and law. Even though, in some cases, the RAD may show deference to the RPD's assessment, in this case, the applicable standard of review is correctness.1 ANALYSIS [7] The appellants argue that the RPD erred in the analysis of the objective fear. They state that it was established that the female appellant was the victim of physical and psychological violence by her father and that this risk still exists because her father is still in Haiti. The brother also struck the female appellant's sister in XXXX 2018. They point out that the men in her family are violent and capable of persecuting the appellants. [8] Persecution is described as a "sustained or systemic violation of basic human rights demonstrative of a failure of state protection."2 [9] The alleged abuse must be serious and occur with repetition to amount to persecution.3 [10] In this case, the evidence demonstrates that the female appellant's problems with her father began in XXXX 2011, when the appellants informed the female appellant's parents that they were dating. They state that, from that time until they left the country, they experienced [translation] "pressure and threats" from the female appellant's father. [11] The female appellant also states that, on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2011, her father struck her, resulting in a XXXX XXXX, because he saw her with the male appellant at a party in the neighbourhood. He apparently told her to leave the house or he would kill her. The female appellant states that she left the house that same day and moved in with the male appellant and his family. She states that her father sometimes passed by in front of their home, throwing rocks and threatening the male appellant's family. The male appellant states that his father-in-law also attacked him once [translation] "by throwing water at him." [12] As the RPD notes, the appellants did not experience any other harm from the female appellant's father, despite the fact that they continued their relationship against his wishes and continued to live together at the male appellant's home, which was only a XXXX-minute walk from the female appellant's father's home. I agree with the RPD that the evidence does not establish that the female appellant's father represented a real danger to the appellants or that he was motivated to carry out his threats against them. [13] Finally, the male appellant testified that the female appellant's brother struck his sister after they left the country. However, this allegation is vague and no explanation was provided with respect to this incident. [14] Even though the female appellant's father assaulted them on two occasions and threatened them between 2011 and 2013, I am of the opinion that these incidents do not meet the threshold of persecution in terms of their seriousness or frequency. As a result, I consider that it was not established that there is a serious possibility that the appellants would be persecuted or subjected to a risk to their lives or to cruel and unusual treatment or punishment from the female appellant's father if they returned to Haiti. CONCLUSION [15] Under subsection 111(1) of the IRPA, I confirm the RPD's determination that the appellants, XXXX XXXX XXXXand XXXX XXXX XXXX, failed to establish that they are refugees or persons in need of protection under sections 96 or 97 of the IRPA. [16] The appeal is dismissed. (signed) Bianca E. Suciu Me Bianca Eleonora Suciu November 30, 2020 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145, at paras. 90-91; Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93, at paras. 70-74. 2 Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, at p. 723. 3 Noel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1062, at para. 29. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : MB9-24281 MB9-24282 RAD.25.02 (January 2020) Disponible en français 4 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