TB9-32243

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-32243 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 October 19, 2020 Date de la décision Panel L. Gamble Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Teklemichael Ab Sahlemariam 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), a citizen of Ethiopia, appeals the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying his claim for refugee protection. The Appellant's written statement indicates he has not submitted new evidence and does not request that the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) hold an oral hearing.1 He submits that the RPD erred in its credibility assessment and in its assessment of his sur place claim, and asks that the RAD set aside the decision of the RPD and substitute its own determination that he is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. DECISION [2] I dismiss the appeal. The RPD was correct in finding that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.2 BACKGROUND [3] The Appellant fears persecution by the Ethiopian state and Queerroo militias based on his political opinion and Amhara ethnicity. He states that in 2016, he enrolled in XXXXUniversity in the Tigray region of Ethiopia. During his first year, the Appellant got involved in a student protest against the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) government, and that police arrived at the protest and detained the students, including Appellant. The Appellant was threatened and beaten with a police baton. Fearing for his safety, his family sent him to XXXXUniversity in China. [4] In XXXX 2018, the Appellant's parents' business was looted and destroyed by Queerroo militia in racist attacks. The Appellant's father, along with some other victims of these attacks, went to the authorities and were accused of being anti-reform and having Oromo-phobia. They were advised to relocate if they were not comfortable living in the Oromo community. As the Appellant could not afford to fund continuation of his studies in China without his parents' business income, he looked for other options to secure his safety. He did not apply for asylum in China as China does not accept refugees. Thus, the Appellant decided to pursue studies in Canada, and applied for a student visa in XXXX 2018. His student visa was granted on XXXX XXXX, 2018. The Appellant left Ethiopia on XXXX XXXX, 2018 and arrived in Canada the next day. He filed for refugee protection on January 7, 2019. ANALYSIS Additional evidence per RAD Rule 3(3)(b) and (c) [5] The Appellant has included with the Appellant's Record a package of documentary evidence3 which he states was submitted to the RPD as post-hearing disclosure, but which was rejected by the RPD without reasons. RAD Rule 3(3)(c) provides that the Appellant's Record must include "any documents that the Refugee Protection Division refused to accept as evidence, during or after the hearing, if the appellant wants to rely on the documents in the appeal."4 Therefore, these documents need not be assessed as new evidence in accordance with subsection 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA); however, they will be considered in the present appeal. [6] The Appellant's Record also includes a "partial transcript" consisting of the Appellant's answer to one question posed by the RPD at his hearing.5 There is no evidence that this item is part of the package of post-hearing disclosure rejected by the RPD, and therefore it does not fall under RAD Rule 3(3)(c). This item is relied upon by the Appellant in his Memorandum,6 and although the Appellant does not refer to the Rule, the RAD acknowledges that the Appellant is entitled to rely on "all or part of the transcript" of the RPD hearing pursuant to RAD Rule 3(3)(b). Therefore, this item will be considered in this appeal. Role of the RAD [7] My role is to look at all the evidence and decide if the RPD made the correct decision.7 Merits of the Appeal Assessment of the Appellant's sur place claim [8] The RPD considered the Appellant's evidence of his involvement in activities in Canada which could be perceived as anti-Ethiopian government, including three Facebook posts, a transcript of a 12-minute radio interview featuring the Appellant, and photos and letters confirming his participation and attendance at four meetings and two political rallies held by Ethiopian diaspora organizations, some of which claim to be perceived by the Ethiopian government as anti-regime. The RPD found that there was no evidence or allegation that any of the Appellant's activities in Canada have come to the attention of the Ethiopian authorities, and that therefore the Appellant was not a refugee sur place.8 [9] The Appellant's argument that the RPD erred in its assessment of his sur place claim is fourfold. He states that the RPD erred in law by importing a good faith requirement into the sur place assessment; that the RPD erred in fact by finding his Canadian activities lacked good faith; that the RPD erred in law by applying the wrong legal test in requiring the Appellant prove that the Ethiopian government have actual knowledge of his activities in Canada; and lastly, that the RPD erred in failing to consider documentary evidence which demonstrates that the Appellant's political activities in Canada are likely to have come to the attention of the Ethiopian authorities.9 i. Appellant's first and second arguments: whether the Appellant's actions in Canada demonstrate a good faith opposition to the Ethiopian regime and whether the RPD erred in considering if these activities were undertaken in good faith [10] The RPD states in its decision "The panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, owing to the credibility concerns, that the claimant has attended some political demonstration[s] and Ethiopian community gatherings in Canada for the purpose of bolstering a refugee claim and not because he is a genuine political opponent of the current regime."10 The RPD also finds in respect of the Appellant's social media posts, that the "posts were made in an attempt to bolster his refugee claim," and therefore places no weight on them in establishing the sur place element of his claim.11 [11] While some cases from the Federal Court have held that the RPD is not required to deal with the issue of whether the claimant is a refugee sur place where it determines that the basis of the claim is not credible,12 other cases have held that the RPD should consider the sur place claim even where it does not believe the account of the experiences in the home country.13 However, on my reading of the RPD's decision, it seems not that the RPD was importing a good faith requirement into its assessment of the Appellant's political activities as alleged by the Appellant, rather that the RPD was not convinced that the Appellant's motivations for engaging in political activities in Canada were for reasons unrelated to an attempt to bolster his claim for refugee protection. That is to say, since his activities were not credibly attributable to a genuine political belief, it is unlikely on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant would continue to be involved in anti-government activities if he were to return to Ethiopia. Therefore, on a forward-looking basis, it is not credible that he would continue to engage in such activities thus placing him at a risk of persecution in Ethiopia, on a balance of probabilities. [12] I do not agree that the RPD made a legal error in importing a good faith requirement into its assessment of the Appellant's sur place claim, rather, in finding that the Appellant lacked good faith in making four social media posts, his attendance at four meetings14 and two rallies held by Ethiopian diaspora groups in Canada,15 and his statements during a single, 12-minute radio interview16 the RPD was making a finding that the Appellant's claim to hold anti-government political views was not, on a balance of probabilities, credible. As such, the Appellant is unlikely to continue these activities if he were to return to Ethiopia, and therefore he is unlikely to face more than a mere possibility of persecution on this basis in Ethiopia. Having reviewed the evidence, I agree. [13] I am likewise not persuaded about the credibility of the Appellant's alleged anti-government political beliefs. The evidence on record indicates that the Appellant made social media posts on Facebook which he claims are or would be perceived as anti-government. The first is from XXXX XXXX, 2019, and appears to contain two photos of the Appellant's hometown, without commentary.17 The other three posts are from XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX, 2019, and consist of re-posts (or sharing) of two articles which denounce rising ethnic tensions and the need to seek justice in the Appellant's hometown.18 The Appellant has not submitted any new evidence in this appeal to indicate that his anti-government social media presence has continued in the time since his claim was rejected by the RPD. I am not persuaded that the sharing of two articles which were not authored by the Appellant himself, and/or the sharing of two photos, over a total of four dates in 2019 (when the Appellant has been in Canada since XXXX 2018), rises to a level that, on a balance of probabilities, would bring him to the attention of Ethiopian authorities for suspicion of real or perceived anti-government political opposition or beliefs, even when considered in conjunction with the Appellant's attendance at other events as discussed below. [14] The Appellant argues that the RPD misunderstood the evidence about the nature of the meetings and rallies he attended, by characterizing them as gatherings of the Ethiopian community in Canada as opposed to political events. The Appellant points to evidence that the meeting of XXXX XXXX, 2019, was political in nature, as participants were gathered to discuss repression of an Ethiopian journalist. He states that the group issued a press release after the meeting XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.19 However, a review of the exhibit provided includes XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to the article, and despite detailed examination, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and I note that the press release does not name him personally.20 I cannot find that the Appellant is personally identifiable in the press release issued following the meeting, even if it is accepted that he attended. [15] The Appellant also directs the RAD to three subsequent meetings held by Ethiopian diaspora organizations in Canada, which he attended on XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX, 2019, and points to evidence that these gatherings were political in nature, and photos which demonstrate that the Appellant physically attended.21 The Appellant also directs the RAD to the evidence indicating that the two rallies he attended on XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, 2019, were in opposition to the Ethiopian government and/or its policies.22 I accept that these meetings and rallies were political in nature as advertised in the promotional flyers, and that the Appellant was in attendance. [16] However, as the RPD noted, the photos indicate mere attendance by the Appellant, and he was one among many attendees. He was not an organizer or a speaker, nor is it alleged that the Appellant had any notable profile or involvement in these meetings or rallies. In light of the credibility concerns with the Appellant's claim (which are discussed below), the credibility of the Appellant's motives for attending these four meetings and two rallies, during the nearly two years he has been in Canada, must be examined. I am not persuaded that the Appellant's passive attendance at these events - and in two instances, volunteering to assist the organizations hosting the meetings23 - credibly demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, the genuineness of his anti-government views. The RAD has also considered the evidence of a further rally the Appellant attended after his RPD hearing on October 13, 2019, and photos which show the Appellant holding anti-government signs,24 and I accept that the Appellant physically attended and that the event was political in nature. However, even accepting that additional event as one attended by the Appellant there has been no new evidence submitted by the Appellant to show any ongoing anti-government or political activities in the year since this most recent event. I am not persuaded that the additional one event attended raises his political profile such that the conclusions of the RPD would no longer be correct. [17] The totality of the evidence shows that the Appellant is a member of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX,25 and that he has attended a total of five political meetings and two rallies in Canada, as one individual without any notable profile, among many other attendees from the Ethiopian diaspora. He has shared on 3-4 occasions some photos and articles authored by others on social media, which appear to show support for the Amhara people in his hometown, and was interviewed on XXXX XXXX, "XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX" about events related to ethnic tensions in his hometown and their effects on the youth of the town.26 I have no evidence before me that his anti-government political activities have continued subsequent to the rejection of his claim by the RPD on November 4, 2019. [18] Given that the RPD found the Appellant was not a credible witness,27 the question is whether this evidence demonstrates on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant holds genuine anti-government political opinions such that he is likely to continue his activities, thus demonstrating on a balance of probabilities, that he would face more than a mere possibility of persecution on this basis if he were to return to Ethiopia (I will turn to the likelihood that these activities may come to the attention of Ethiopian authorities below). On the evidence before me, I cannot find that the RPD erred in its assessment of the credibility of his political profile, and I agree with the RPD that the evidence does not show, on a balance of probabilities, a credible or genuine anti-government profile on the part of the Appellant. Now I will turn to whether the Appellant's activities in Canada, even if not undertaken in good faith, are likely to have come to the attention of Ethiopian authorities, on a balance of probabilities. ii. The Appellant's third and fourth arguments: there is insufficient evidence to suggest that the Appellant's low-level political activities in Canada are likely to have come to the attention of Ethiopian authorities [19] The RPD indicated that there was no evidence or allegation that any of the Appellant's activities in Canada have come to the Ethiopian authorities' attention.28 The Appellant argues that in so doing, the RPD placed an erroneous burden on the Appellant to show that the Ethiopian authorities have actual knowledge of his activities, which would amount to an error in law.29 The Appellant rightly notes that the standard to be applied is whether his activities abroad are likely to have come to the attention of the authorities in Ethiopia. This ties in closely with the Appellant's argument that the RPD erred by failing to assess the documentary evidence which shows that his activities are likely to have come to the attention of the Ethiopian authorities. While the RPD did refer to documentary evidence speaking to the situation of returnees to Ethiopia who have been politically active in exile,30 the RPD failed to explicitly consider several of the other applicable items of evidence on this issue. However, I can remedy this by assessing these items in the context of assessing the likelihood that the Appellant's activities would have or could come to the attention of Ethiopian authorities determining the present appeal. [20] The Appellant points to several items of documentary evidence from the National Documentation Package (NDP) which speak to surveillance of the Ethiopian diaspora by the Ethiopian authorities. Item 4.17 cites anecdotal evidence from members of Unity for Human Rights and Democracy (Unity) Toronto, an Ethiopian organization involved in activities critical of the regime, that relatives or friends in Ethiopia were questioned or threatened after "videos of [its members'] political activities were seen on YouTube or social media" and provided anecdotal details concerning the alleged monitoring of a supposedly confidential teleconference as well as the surveillance of a particular demonstration in Canada by Ethiopian officials. It goes on to say that "even though most executive members of [Unity] are Canadian citizens, they will not travel or have never been in Ethiopia for the past 10 years, for fear of being detained, harassed or deported back to Canada ."31 Other documentary evidence indicates that the Ethiopian regime "monitors the activities of members of the diaspora constantly," and members of the diaspora who are politically engaged against the regime risk being detained in the airport or jailed, the same source says that after the nomination of the new Prime Minister, the situation for the diaspora "would be less threatening and that members of the diaspora are less worried for their safety than before because of the significant change in political situation."32 [21] The report cited by the RPD in its reasons indicates that "Ethiopian authorities 'have informants who attend public events' . . . although, '[a] lot of this is just for intel[ligence] gathering", and that there are "[v]arying opinions on how high a profile you need to be in order to be monitored this way", including that "sometimes" low-profile people are monitored. It also indicates that there was limited information on what has happened with Ethiopians in exile who return to Ethiopia after being critical of the regime, but that "individuals who are known dissidents are at a high risk of detention."33 The item also cites Landinfo, the Norwegian Country of Origin Information Centre, which states that "those who will be under the Ethiopian authorities' suspicion are, first and foremost, people they apprehend as a threat and who may mobilize and are prepared to use military force for change."34 [22] Another source cited by the Appellant supports the position that the Ethiopian government surveillance of the diaspora in Europe and the United States of America can include low profile and less vocal anti-government agitators.35 The Appellant argues the country condition documents indicate that low-level dissidents or agitators "could" be persecuted upon return.36 [23] I cannot find that the Appellant's profile, characterized by passive attendance or at best, volunteering, at a limited number of public events in Canada, would be sufficient to attract the attention of Ethiopian authorities, even as a "low-level" political activist. Simply put, the Appellant has not demonstrated, on a balance of probabilities, that his limited, passive activities among the Ethiopian diaspora in Canada raise his profile to a level of being someone who could be characterized even as a "low-profile and less vocal anti-government agitator," as cited in the documentary evidence. While the Appellant has provided photos of him participating in rallies and attending meetings, there is insufficient evidence regarding how any spy or informant for the Ethiopian government would identify him personally from those photos. The Appellant has not alleged that he was or is a leader, organizer, or speaker at any of these events, and there is nothing on the record to show that he would even be recognizable or personally identifiable by any prospective government spy or informant which might be surveilling the few events which the Appellant has attended. While there is one photo the Appellant took of having signed his name to a register of attendees at a demonstration against the Ethiopian government regarding "the violation of [the] principle of secularism and the existence of political disorder in the country",37 I am not satisfied having signed his name to this list of participants at a single event held in Canada brings the Appellant's profile to a point where it could be said that he would be personally identifiable or of interest to Ethiopian authorities, or that his political activities in Canada are "likely" to come to the attention of the Ethiopian authorities, on a balance of probabilities. [24] I have considered the possibility that the Appellant's radio interview might have made him personally identifiable, however, the transcript of the interview indicates that the Appellant was only identified by his first name, and the interview itself did not contain any personal identifiers which could be used to personally identify the Appellant.38 While the Facebook posts were made under his own profile bearing his first and last name, I am not persuaded that reposting or sharing a very limited number of photos and articles written by someone else is sufficient to attract the interest of Ethiopian authorities, and such activities cannot be said to be "likely" to have come to the authorities' attention on a balance of probabilities, given the Appellant's ultra low political profile. Therefore, I cannot find on the evidence before me that the limited, low-level involvement in political activities in Canada such as those undertaken by the Appellant can be said to have likely come to the attention of the Ethiopian authorities, on a balance of probabilities. Therefore, I do not find that the Appellant is a refugee sur place. The RPD did not err in assessing the Appellant's credibility i. Credibility concerns arising from the Appellant's testimony related to events at XXXXUniversity [25] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in its assessment of his credibility by making negative credibility findings which are microscopic, and by misapprehending core aspects of his claim.39 First, the Appellant states that the RPD erred by considering that the arrest, detention and assault by police, which he claimed to have experienced as a student at XXXXUniversity, was central to his claim.40 The Appellant notes that the RPD made three negative credibility findings arising from his testimony about his experience of being arrested, detained and beaten by police, following a demonstration at XXXXUniversity. Yet the Appellant now argues that although he felt unsafe there, he still felt safe elsewhere in Ethiopia until the destruction of his parents' business in XXXX 2018. Thus, the Appellant argues, the events at XXXXUniversity were peripheral to his refugee claim, and that therefore no adverse inference from his testimony on these events is warranted.41 [26] I cannot agree. In his Basis of Claim (BOC) form narrative, the Appellant emphasizes this experience in setting out his basis of claim: "I am applying for refugee protection in Canada because my life is at risk in Ethiopia because of my ethnic identity, political views and family profile. My family and I were subjected to unlawful arrest and harassment due to our ethnicity and perceived political opinion. I have endured physical and psychological attacks at the hands of the agents of EPRDF during my stay at XXXXUniversity."42 [27] The Appellant detailed extensively in his BOC the events he experienced following his participation in a student protest at XXXXUniversity,43 and he testified in detail about this experience as well. It is not now open for the Appellant to assert that the events which he claims he personally experienced at XXXXUniversity and, in part due to which he claims he fears persecution in Ethiopia, were merely peripheral details and, therefore, his inconsistent or contradicting testimony about these events, as set out by the RPD, ought not to be held against him. [28] It is noteworthy that the arrest, detention and assault at the hands of police is the only event detailed in his BOC which the Appellant admits to having personally experienced. The destruction of his parents' business in Dire Dawa while he was living in hiding with his aunt in Addis Ababa is the other major event detailed in his BOC as underlying his claim for protection, but he did not personally experience those events. I do not accept the Appellant's position that his testimony relating to events at XXXXUniversity is peripheral to his claim, and therefore credibility concerns noted by the RPD arising therefrom are in error. These events were detailed extensively in his BOC and form a significant basis for his claim, and the Appellant therefore ought to be expected to be able to testify credibly about them. [29] I see no reason to disturb the negative credibility findings of the RPD with respect to contradictions and inconsistencies arising from the Appellant's testimony about the events at XXXXUniversity. For example, the RPD made a negative credibility inference about the Appellant's two returns to Ethiopia in XXXX and XXXX 2018 from China and found that his returns were indicative of a lack of subjective fear.44 The Appellant states that his first return from XXXX XXXX to XXXX XXXX, 2018, should not be held against him, as when he returned in early XXXX of 2018, the only negative event which had occurred was from his time at XXXXUniversity which do not relate to the core of his claim, and thus his return at that time does not indicate a lack of subjective fear.45 Not only do I not accept this argument for the reasons above relating to the apparent centrality of the Appellant's arrest, detention and assault at XXXXUniversity which he cannot now disavow, but I find this argument is moot given that even after the alleged destruction of his parents' business on XXXX XXXX, 2018, the Appellant nonetheless returned to Ethiopia from his studies in China in XXXX 2018. The Appellant admits he returned a second time from XXXX to early XXXX 2018, which return he explained by asserting that he did not know he could fly directly to Canada from anywhere other than Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. This explanation was rejected by the RPD in consideration of the Appellant's education and past travel history. I, too, reject this explanation, because of evidence of the Appellant's education and sophistication with prior travel abroad, and as well because he remained in Ethiopia for a period of time, not simply for a brief day or so, to take a flight to Canada. As such, the Appellant's argument that the first return to Ethiopia should not be held against him is rejected as moot, as I draw a negative credibility inference and find the Appellant's actions in returning to his country in XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, were not reasonably explained and indicate a lack of subjective fear in Ethiopia. I agree with the RPD in finding that the Appellant's two returns to Ethiopia in 2018 undermine the credibility of his claim, and his assertion that he holds a subjective fear of return to Ethiopia. [30] In addition, the RPD found not credible the Appellant's evidence of how he was beaten by the police during his detention at XXXXUniversity in XXXX 2016. He testified that he was "beaten" by police shoes on his back, while the Appellant's BOC narrative indicate that the police beat his back with a baton, which the Appellant explained was a mistake on his BOC and which explanation was not accepted as reasonable by the RPD.46 I agree. I also do not find that this inconsistency arose from a microscopic examination of the evidence by the RPD, as alleged.47 As noted above, this was the only incident underlying his claim which the Appellant alleges he personally experienced, and as such, it is reasonable to expect him to testify credibly to the details he has provided in his BOC and in testimony including whether he was beaten with a baton by police, or whether he was kicked with their shoes. [31] The RPD also drew an adverse inference from the Appellant's failure to corroborate his injury arising from the beating at XXXXUniversity with medical evidence, given his testimony that he regained consciousness in a medical clinic but that he had not sought evidence in support of this because there was a "disturbance" and since the students had left "they would not be happy if he were to contact them again".48 I agree that the Appellant has not reasonably explained his lack of efforts to obtain reasonably available evidence to support his claim, in particular, medical evidence to corroborate that he was treated for injuries following the protest he alleges to have attended at XXXXUniversity. [32] I have rejected the Appellant's arguments that these credibility concerns are in error because the elements of his claim related to his experience while attending XXXXUniversity do not constitute a core element of his claim. I find that these credibility concerns are correct, and the Appellant's assertion on appeal that these events do not constitute a central issue in his claim does not accord with the narrative he provided in his BOC, nor does it obviate the expectation that he would be able to testify credibly and consistently about them. ii. Credibility concerns arising from the Appellant's student visa application to Canada [33] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in fact by drawing a negative credibility inference from the perceived inconsistency about when the Appellant applied for his Canadian student visa. Indeed, the RPD found there was a discrepancy between the Appellant's testimony and the BOC that he applied for his student visa to Canada after his parents' business was destroyed on XXXX XXXX, 2018, when the record shows he applied for it in XXXX 2018, before he alleged he feared for his life. However, the Appellant is correct that his BOC indicates he applied for his student visa on XXXX XXXX, 2018.49 Therefore, I accept the Appellant's explanation for his testimony indicating that he applied for his student visa in XXXX 2018 as having meant that XXXX 2018 was when he decided to apply for asylum in Canada. I draw no negative inference from this exchange; however, I find this point is not determinative, as I agree with the remainder of the RPD's negative credibility findings and overall credibility assessment. iii. Credibility concerns arising from the omission of the two times the Appellant alleges he was in hiding at his aunt's home in Addis Ababa [34] The Appellant argues that the RPD made credibility findings which were microscopic in making a negative finding about where the Appellant was when he claims his parents' business was destroyed in XXXX 2018.50 The RPD drew a negative inference from the fact that the Appellant testified he was in hiding at his aunt's home in Addis Ababa when he found out his parents' business was destroyed in Dire Dawa in XXXX 2018, and found this testimony was inconsistent with his BOC which stated he was in China.51 The Appellant states this is a microscopic examination of the evidence, as his BOC merely states that this event occurred while he was a student in China, not that he was physically in China at the time the business was destroyed.52 The BOC states that the Appellant learned of the destruction of his parents' business "while [he] was studying... in China..."53 Therefore, while I am prepared to accept as reasonable the Appellant's explanation for what the RPD perceived as an inconsistency and draw no negative inference from the inconsistency itself, I am not prepared to find that the negative credibility finding relating to these overarching facts is incorrect. [35] In the RAD's view, the central issue related to the Appellant's whereabouts in XXXX and XXXX of 2018 when he returned to Ethiopia (in addition to the concern regarding lack of subjective fear and credibility related to the return to Ethiopia itself), is that the Appellant failed to mention in his BOC that he was "in hiding" at his aunt's house when he returned so as to ensure he did not have any problems while he was back in Ethiopia. The RPD faulted the Appellant for omitting in both his BOC and refugee intake form any reference to the fact that he was "in hiding" at his aunt's in Addis Ababa during these two returns to his country in 2018, and rejected the Appellant's explanation that he only included permanent addresses in his refugee intake form as a reason that it did not reflect the time he testified he was living with his aunt.54 I am prepared to accept the Appellant's explanation for this omission from his refugee intake form address history, however, this explanation does not reasonably account for why his BOC narrative also omits any reference to the time he alleges he spent in Addis Ababa, and in particular the Appellant's perceived need to live in hiding at his aunt's house during his two returns to Ethiopia. [36] I find it is inconsistent for the Appellant to claim that he felt he needed to live in hiding at his aunt's house in Addis Ababa during his first return in XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, given that his parents' business had not yet been destroyed prior to XXXX XXXX, 2018, and given his argument on appeal that the prior events he experienced at XXXXUniversity were peripheral, and not part of the core of his claim. The Appellant testified that he was not wanted by Ethiopian authorities, 55 and therefore there is no credible reason to explain his testimony that he was in hiding with his aunt as early as his first return on XXXX XXXX, 2018. I find there is no reasonable explanation for his testimony to be inconsistent with his BOC which omits mention of a material detail: the Appellant's perceived necessity to live in hiding with his aunt in Addis Ababa during his two returns to Ethiopia in 2018. I agree with the RPD in drawing a negative credibility inference from this omission, and the lack of a reasonable explanation therefor. [37] The Appellant has submitted a partial transcript to evidence the fact that part of his answer relating to why he did not disclose his aunt's address on his refugee intake form was a statement not attributable to him, but rather, was added by the interpreter.56 I find the Appellant's argument that he did not testify to the words attributed to him by the interpreter at the RPD hearing in response to one question posed by the RPD, as reflected in this small partial transcript, is not determinative. The Appellant does not argue that interpretation errors were pervasive or persistent, merely that one portion of the answer to the Panel's question about why his intake form does not mention he was living with his aunt was not attributable to him. As such, there is no argument about procedural fairness in respect of interpretation, and as I draw no conclusion from the portion of the answer the Appellant claims is not attributable to him, this single alleged interpretation issue is not determinative of the credibility of the Appellant, or any other point in issue in the present appeal. iv. Supporting documents [38] The Appellant also argues that the RPD erred in finding his father's letter insufficient to overcome the above-noted credibility concerns, because the reasons reference the fact that his father's letter, like the Appellant's BOC, omits mention of the Appellant living in hiding with his aunt during his two returns to Ethiopia in XXXX and XXXX of 2018. The Appellant argues the RPD erred in law by assessing the letter for what it does not say, rather than what it does say.57 However, even giving the Appellant's father's support letter58 full weight with respect to the events recounted therein, I find this unsworn letter is insufficient evidence to overcome the numerous and material credibility concerns noted above which arose from the Appellant's own evidence. I agree with the RPD in finding that, notwithstanding this letter, the Appellant has not credibly established material elements of his claim, on a balance of probabilities.59 No breach of procedural fairness from the rejection of the Appellant's post-hearing disclosure package by the RPD [39] The Appellant argues that the RPD breached his right to procedural fairness by dismissing the post-hearing disclosure package submitted by the Appellant, without providing reasons.60 He also argues that the rejected disclosure warrants setting aside of the RPD's rejection of his claim, as the documents could have had a material effect on the decision.61 [40] There is no independent evidence on the record before the RAD that this post-hearing disclosure package was rejected by the RPD on October 31, 2019, as the Appellant asserts,62 but extending the Appellant the benefit of the doubt with respect to this assertion, there is equally no evidence to demonstrate that the RPD either considered these documents or provided reasons for their rejection. In any event, as I have received and considered these additional items of evidence in the present appeal in accordance with RAD Rule 3(3)(c), and as such, I find that any such breach by the RPD has been remedied. I considered the Appellant's evidence that he attended a further political rally in Toronto on XXXX XXXX, 2019 but found that his participation in this event did not change the low-level nature of his political profile, or his sur place claim. I have also reviewed and considered the three news articles regarding the human rights situation in the Appellant's hometown in Ethiopia; however, given my findings above that the Appellant has failed to credibly establish the basis for his claim and that, on a balance of probabilities, he would not face more than a mere possibility of persecution on the basis of his anti-government opinion or activities if he were to return, I do not find that these articles are determinative of his claim. Therefore, I do not find that any breach of procedural fairness exists, such that would warrant remitting the claim to the RPD. [41] For all of the reasons above, I agree with the RPD in making negative credibility findings against the Appellant, resulting in the finding that the Appellant had not credibly established the material elements of his claim. CONCLUSION [42] 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, pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA. (signed) L. Gamble L. Gamble October 19, 2020 Date 1 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, p. 16. 2 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, at para. 111(1)(a). 3 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record., pp. 3-15. 4 Refugee Appeal Division Rules, SOR/2012-257, Rule 3(3)(c). 5 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pp. 1-2. 6 Ibid., p. 40, para. 75. 7 Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145 (CanLII). 8 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, pp. 12-13, paras. 45-51. 9 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, p. 18, para. 2. 10 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, p. 13, para. 51. 11 Ibid., p. 13, para. 49. 12 Abdoulaye v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2002 FCT 203; Ghribi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FC 1191 (CanLII); see also Lai v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 179 (CanLII). 13 Manzila v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 1998 CanLII 8405 (FC); see also A.B. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 325 (CanLII),[2010] 2 FCR 75. 14 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pp. 24-28, paras. 24-30. 15 Ibid., pp. 26-27, paras. 31-32. 16 Ibid., pp. 27-28, paras. 33-34; see also Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, pp. 144-147. 17 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, p. 135. 18 Ibid., pp. 129-134. 19 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, p. 24, paras. 24-25. 20 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, pp. 170-171. 21 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pp. 25-26, paras. 26-30. 22 Ibid., p. 26, para. 31. 23 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, p. 127. 24 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pp. 6-10. 25 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, p. 127. 26 Ibid., pp. 144-147. 27 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons p. 12, para. 44. 28 Ibid., pp. 12-13, paras. 45, 51. 29 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record,p. 29, para. 37. 30 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, p. 12, para.46. 31 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Ethiopia (March 29, 2019), Item 4.17. Response to Information Request (RIR) ZZZ105731.E 32 Ibid., Item 4.4, p. 17. 33 Ibid., Item 4.16. 34 Ibid. 35 Item 4.4, op. cit., p. 36. 36 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, p. 33, para. 48. 37 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, exhibit 4, p. 140. 38 Ibid., pp. 144-147. 39 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, p. 19, para. 4. 40 Ibid., p. 36, para. 62. 41 Ibid., pp. 36-38, paras. 63-66. 42 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, Basis of Claim form, p. 18, para. 3. 43 Ibid., pp. 18-20, paras. 9-16. 44 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, pp. 4-6, paras. 11-16. 45 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, p. 37, paras. 64-65. 46 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, p. 9, para. 32. 47 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, p. 39, para. 70. 48 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, pp. 9-10, para. 33. 49 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, Basis of Claim form Question 7(B), p. 26. 50 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pp. 38-39, para. 69. 51 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, p. 7, para. 22. 52 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pp. 38-39, para. 69. 53 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, Basis of Claim form, p. 20, para. 17. 54 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, p. 6, paras. 17-18. 55 Ibid., p. 10, para. 35. 56 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pp. 1-2. 57 Ibid., p. 39, paras. 71-72. 58 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, p. 121. 59 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, p. 12, para. 43. 60 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, p. 19, para. 3. 61 Ibid., p. 35, paras. 56-57. 62 Ibid., p. 3. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-32243 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