MC2-14339

RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MC2-14339 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision [Translation of the original version] Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Date of decision January 11, 2023 Date de la décision Panel Me Isabelle Parizeau Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Anabella Kananiye 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 the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), is appealing the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejecting her refugee protection claim. [2] The appellant states that she fears being imprisoned and tortured by the police because of her involvement in the citizen movement XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (XXXX) [struggle for change]. [3] The RPD did not find the appellant to be credible. In its view, it was inconsistent for the appellant to have indicated in an immigration form that her husband would accompany her to Canada, when she stated that her relationship with him was almost non-existent because of her political involvement. It concluded that there was an omission in the appellant's written account and a contradiction in her testimony regarding a notice to appear that the police had allegedly sent her, and it did not give any weight to it or to the other notice that was apparently left at her home in Kinshasa. [4] The appellant alleges that the RPD erred in refusing to consider that she had misspoken as to when she had learned that the police had sent her a second notice to appear and in concluding that the notices to appear contained irregularities. She submits that the RPD incorrectly drew a negative inference from her expressed desire that her husband accompany her to Canada, when she just wanted to avoid breaking the bonds of marriage. [5] The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) is of the view that the determinative issue is credibility. The RAD does not find the appellant to be credible. [6] The RAD confirms the determination of the RPD and dismisses the appeal. BACKGROUND [7] According to the appellant's written account1 in her Basis of Claim Form (BOC Form), she was part of the XXXX movement, which advocates for human dignity and social justice. This allegedly created tensions with her husband, who was a member of the former ruling party, the Parti du peuple pour la reconstruction et la démocratie (PPRD) [people's party for reconstruction and democracy]. Although she was still married, her relationship with her husband was almost non-existent. In XXXX 2019, XXXX reportedly organized a demonstration calling for former president XXXX to be prosecuted for his crimes. The appellant apparently did not take part in it. A friend who worked at the ministry of the interior allegedly told her to be careful, as the authorities were looking for XXXX supporters. After taking two trips in 2019, one to Canada and another to Dubai, the same friend reportedly told her that she had information that the authorities believed that she was mobilizing people to finance the DRC's balkanization. The appellant allegedly decided to leave the DRC, and did so on XXXX XXXX, 2020, when she went on a previously planned trip to visit her son in Canada. On XXXX XXXX XXXX 2020, her children, who lived in Kinshasa, allegedly informed her that the police had left a summons (hereinafter notice) at her home. The appellant reportedly claimed refugee protection in Canada in October 2020. [8] In her amended written account,2 submitted on XXXX XXXX, 2022, the appellant adds that another notice from the police was delivered to her home on XXXX XXXX, 2020. NEW EVIDENCE [9] In her appeal record, the appellant included the following documents as new evidence in addition to an affidavit in support of her memorandum (a letter and number have been used to identify each document in order to facilitate referencing them in these reasons): A-1: Divorce petition dated XXXX XXXX, 20223 A-2: Notice of divorce proceedings dated XXXX XXXX, 20224 A-3: Appellant's affidavit in support of her memorandum5 [10] The admissibility of new evidence before the RAD is subject to the application of subsection 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and the criteria set out in Raza,6 as adapted in Singh.7 [11] In order for it to be admissible under subsection 110(4) of the IRPA, the appellant may present only evidence that arose after the rejection of the claim or that was not reasonably available, or that she could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection. If evidence is admissible within the meaning of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA, it must meet the criteria of credibility, relevance and newness as stated in Singh. [12] The RPD hearing was held on June 16, 2022, and the decision was rendered on July 14, 2022. Documents entered as A-1 and A-2 [13] Along with the documents entered as A-1 and A-2, the appellant submitted a DHL envelope8 addressed to someone who is apparently her son and who received it on XXXX XXXX, 2022. [14] The RAD is of the view that the documents entered as A-1 and A-2 meet the requirements of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA, but that they are not relevant, and it does not consider them to be admissible. [15] The RAD noted that the petition entered as A-1 bears a date that is after the hearing but prior to the rejection of the refugee protection claim and that it concerns facts that also predate it. According to the petition, the spouses' ideological differences stemming from the appellant's membership in a citizen movement that opposes her husband's political party are such that they jeopardize the sustainability of the couple's relationship, the appellant abandoned the home a relatively long time ago and, according to the most recent information, she has settled in Canada. The notice of the petition for divorce, entered as A-2, postdates the RPD's decision. The appellant allegedly received the two documents after the RPD's decision. The appellant alleges that she was not aware of the steps taken by her husband and that she found out about them when she received the documents entered as A-1 and A-2, and that these documents were therefore not available. The RAD considers that documents A-1 and A-2 were not available before the claim was rejected and concludes that they meet the requirements of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA. [16] The appellant submits that the documents entered as A-1 and A-2 are relevant, credible and new as defined in Singh. The RAD does not agree. It has no reason to question their genuineness given their source, a law firm that allegedly represents the appellant's husband, and the fact that they were sent to the appellant's son. It also considers them to be new, as they concern facts that would not have been known to the appellant at the time of the hearing. However, the RAD is of the view that the documents are not relevant in deciding the determinative issue of the credibility of the appellant, who, as explained later in these reasons, did not establish a political profile as a basis for a reasonable prospective fear of persecution. Affidavit entered as A-3 [17] The appellant submitted an affidavit in support of her appeal memorandum, which the RAD considers to contain new evidence. The RAD conducted the analysis below to determine whether this new evidence is admissible under subsection 110(4) of the IRPA and Singh. It concludes that it is not. [18] The RAD noted that paragraphs 1 and 2 refer to the appellant's BOC Form, and that paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10 and 11 and part of paragraphs 7 and 8 contain statements that constitute the arguments that the RAD will take into account in its analysis. [19] Furthermore, the appellant states the following at paragraph 7: [translation] "Yet, despite the fact that my relationship with my husband is almost non-existent, I have never stopped loving him. He is the father of my children. I continue to believe, perhaps naively, that he will finally come to realize that my fight is a noble one." Here, the appellant adds to the testimony that she provided at the hearing, according to which her relationship with her husband had become almost non-existent, which must be assessed based on the criteria of new evidence. The RAD does not consider this to be admissible new evidence because it did not arise after the claim was rejected, and the appellant does not explain why it was not reasonably available or why she could not have been expected in the circumstances to have presented it, and the RAD does not see it. The RAD comes to the same conclusion regarding the allegation at paragraph 8 that reads as follows: [translation] "As a Christian, I consider marriage to be a sacred sacrament that must be maintained no matter the cost." [20] The RAD does not admit the documents entered as A-1, A-2 and A-3 as new evidence. REQUEST FOR AN ORAL HEARING [21] In her memorandum, the appellant asks that an oral hearing be held if the RAD questions the credibility of the new evidence, in order for her to respond orally to any questions it may have. [22] In order for the RAD to hold an oral hearing, the conditions set out in subsection 110(6) of the IRPA must be met, which includes the existence of new evidence. [23] There is no new evidence. [24] The RAD therefore may not hold an oral hearing. ANALYSIS [25] The RAD conducted an independent assessment of all the evidence, which included listening to the recording of the RPD hearing, took into account Guideline 4, updated in July 2022 and entitled the Chairperson's Guideline 4: Gender Considerations in Proceedings Before the Immigration and Refugee Board,9 and applied the standard of correctness.10 [26] The RPD analyzed the refugee protection claim under section 96 of the IRPA given the nexus with one of the Convention grounds, namely, political opinion. The RAD agrees with this point of view, which the appellant is not contesting. [27] In Alazar,11 the Federal Court held that procedural fairness requires that the Minister be given notice when a new issue is being considered by the RAD as well as the opportunity to make submissions, even if the Minister has not intervened before the RAD. Relying on the definition of a new issue set out in Mian,12 the Federal Court held that notice must be given to the Minister whenever the answer to the following question is affirmative: [84] ... To reiterate, the question is whether the ground on which the RAD decided the appeal is a new issue in the sense that it is legally and factually distinct from the grounds of appeal advanced and cannot reasonably be said to stem from the issues as framed by the respondents (the respondents being the only party to the appeal for the purpose of this part of the analysis). Only if this question is answered affirmatively will it have been a breach of the requirements of procedural fairness for the RAD to decide the appeal on the basis that it did without first providing the Minister an opportunity to be heard in relation to it. [28] The RAD concluded that its intention to examine [translation] "the appellant's political profile as a basis for a reasonable prospective fear of persecution," which was not broached by the RPD or by the appellant in her memorandum, constituted a new issue and it gave the Minister and the appellant a notice.13 The RAD did not receive any submissions from the Minister or from the appellant within the time limit. [29] In the same notice, the RAD asked the appellant to provide it with the originals of the two notices to report to the DRC's national police, dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 2020, and XXXX XXXX XXXX 2020, which the appellant had submitted to the RPD as C-3. The appellant submitted the documents to the RAD within the time limit. Credibility [30] The RPD did not find the appellant to be credible. The RAD's finding is the same. [31] The RAD considers the issue of the appellant's political profile to be determinative. It is of the opinion that the appellant did not establish, with credible and sufficient evidence, her political profile as a basis for a reasonable prospective fear of persecution. That being said, the RAD nevertheless analyzed the notices to appear from the national police, which, according to the appellant, had been left at her home in Kinshasa in XXXX 2020 while she was in Canada, because they are the reason she provides for fearing the authorities. The RAD did not give them any weight. The RAD did not examine the impact that the appellant's involvement in XXXX had on her relationship with her husband, which had been analyzed by the RPD, or the appellant's arguments about this in her memorandum, as this impact is not relevant in deciding the determinative issue. Notices to appear [32] The appellant alleges that the two notices to report to the police were left at her home in Kinshasa while she was in Canada. The subject headings of the notices read [translation] "Invitation" and the reasons given are [translation] "Information requested." The notices ask the appellant to report to the general intelligence division of the national police at the address indicated. The notice of XXXX XXXX, 2020, contains a summons for XXXX XXXX XXXX and the notice of XXXX XXXX, 2020, includes a summons for XXXX XXXX. The following note appears on the notice of XXXX XXXX XXXX [translation] "Note: If you fail to comply with this notice, you will be summoned by force." [33] The RPD found that the appellant's credibility was undermined by her failing to mention the XXXX XXXX notice in her initial written account, without a satisfactory explanation. Furthermore, the RPD did not give any weight to the notices to appear given the circumstances in which the appellant had received them, and it noted they contained one irregularity, namely, the fact that the national police stamps appeared under, not over, the signature information. The RAD reaches the same conclusion as the RPD. Failure to mention the XXXX XXXX notice to appear in the initial written account and contradiction in the appellant's testimony [34] The RPD found that the omission and contradiction pertained to a central element of the appellant's story and undermined her credibility, and that she had not established, on a balance of probabilities, that she in fact received a notice to appear on XXXX XXXX, 2020, summoning her to the national police and that, if she failed to report, she would be summoned by force. The RAD shares this view, pointing out, as mentioned above, that it is of the opinion that the appellant did not establish her political profile. [35] In her initial written account included in her BOC Form, signed on XXXX XXXX, 2020,14 the appellant states that a first notice to report to the police was left at her home in Kinshasa after XXXX demonstration on XXXX XXXX, 2020, and that her children told her about it on XXXX XXXX, 2020. On XXXX XXXX, 2022, the appellant submitted an amended written account that included an addition and a date correction, and the addition regarding a second notice to appear that was allegedly left at her home on XXXX XXXX, 2020.15 [36] The RPD sought to understand why the second notice to appear was not mentioned in the appellant's initial written account even though it predated the signing of the written account. It found that the appellant's credibility was undermined by this omission for which there was no satisfactory explanation. [37] According to the RPD, the appellant first testified that on XXXX XXXX, 2020, when she was in Canada, her children told her that a notice to report to the police had been left at her home in Kinshasa and that, that same week, her children informed her that a second notice to appear had been received asking her to report to the police on XXXX XXXX. The RPD stated that, when confronted with the fact that she did not mention this in her initial written account, the appellant's response was: [translation] "I think that you did not understand me correctly, Madam Member. I said that the first time, they told me about the first notice, and later they told me that there was another notice and that I had to report on the XXXX." The RPD asked the appellant when her children had told her about the second notice and, after pausing to think, she answered: [translation] "It was later. I think it was at the end of XXXX." The RPD did not find this response to be credible. After listening to the recording of the hearing again, the RPD noted that the appellant had initially testified as follows: [Translation] The first notice was delivered on the XXXX. They did not tell me about it because they had no electricity. We spoke about it on the XXXX. It was later that week that we spoke and that they told me that there was another notice asking me to report to the police on XXXX XXXX, 2020. [38] The RPD stated that it confronted the appellant about this contradiction a bit later during the hearing and that she reiterated that the RPD had misunderstood her answer. [39] The RPD drew a negative inference from the appellant's failure to mention the notice to appear of XXXX XXXX, 2020, in her initial written account, from the contradiction in her testimony as to when she learned about this notice, and from her answer suggesting that the RPD had misunderstood her statement, when the recording of the hearing demonstrates the opposite. [40] In her memorandum, the appellant alleges that the RPD erred in refusing to consider that she had misspoken as to when she found out about the second notice to appear. She had testified that it was in XXXX 2020, after she submitted her BOC Form. The appellant submits that she erred in stating that she had found out that she had received the second notice the week of XXXX XXXX, 2020. After the RPD asked her why she had not mentioned this in her written account, she immediately stated that she had not known about it at that time and reiterated several times at the hearing that she had not found out about the second notice until XXXX 2020. She also mentioned that if she had indicated that she had found out about it in XXXX 2020, it had been a misunderstanding on her part or an error in how she expressed herself. The appellant submits that the RPD should have given her the benefit of the doubt. The appellant criticizes the RPD for conducting a microscopic analysis. The appellant refers to a decision16 in which the Federal Court drew such a conclusion in a case where a refugee protection claimant confused the date (February 29 instead of February 28). The RAD is of the opinion that the situation is different in this case, as explained below. [41] Upon listening to the recording of the hearing, the RAD noted that the RPD correctly recounted the appellant's testimony.17 It also noted that, when the RPD asked the appellant to describe how she had learned that the XXXX XXXX notice to appear had been delivered, she testified spontaneously about the two notices to appear. As indicated in the excerpt from the testimony reproduced by the RPD and cited above, the appellant first mentioned the notice that had been delivered on XXXX XXXX, and she then explained that her children told her about the notice of XXXX XXXX that same week. It was not until she was confronted with her initial written account, which does not mention the second notice, and the RPD repeated its question confronting her about that written account, that the appellant answered that the RPD had misunderstood her. According to the RAD, this is not a slip with regard to a date, but rather a different course of events. [42] Furthermore, in the RAD's view, it is inconsistent that the appellant's children told her about the notice of XXXX XXXX, 2020, three months later, when she testified18 that she talked to them every two or three days and that she was able talk to them every day if they had something in particular to discuss, especially since the second notice to appear included a threat-[translation] "Note: If you fail to comply with this notice, you will be summoned by force"19-which was not made in the first notice. [43] Contrary to the appellant, the RAD is of the opinion that the circumstances in which the benefit of the doubt may be given, as set out by the Federal Court in Gebrewold,20 are not present: As the Court noted in Noga v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FCT 454 [Noga], the benefit of the doubt principle "applies in a limited number of circumstances". Benefit of the doubt should be given only "when all available evidence has been obtained and checked and when the examiner is satisfied as to the applicant's general credibility", which assumes that the applicant's statements are "coherent and plausible" (Noga, at paragraphs 10 to 12). [emphasis added] [44] The RAD agrees with the RPD's conclusion that the appellant did not establish, on a balance of probabilities, that she received a notice to appear on XXXX XXXX, 2020, summoning her to the national police and that she would be made to appear by force if she failed to comply. No weight given to the notices to appear [45] The RPD did not give any weight to the above-mentioned notices to appear given the credibility issues as to the circumstances in which they were received. It noted, in passing, an irregularity regarding the notices: the stamps of the DRC national police appear under, not over, the information related to the signature. [46] In her memorandum, the appellant argues that the RPD erred in concluding that the notices contained irregularities. She submits that the RPD did not have them analyzed to draw such a conclusion. She agrees that the RPD could rely on its specialized knowledge, as it appears to have done, but that, in a case like this, it had the obligation to notify her. The appellant alleges that, at the hearing, the RPD did not raise the anomalies that it had noted, which would have given her the opportunity to provide an explanation or submit the original notices to appear for the RPD to examine them. The appellant submits that this is a breach of natural justice. [47] The RAD does not accept the appellant's arguments. Contrary to the appellant's statement, the RAD is of the view that the RPD was not obligated to submit the notices to appear for expert assessment in order to conclude that they contained anomalies, and neither does the RAD. In the RAD's opinion, simply examining the placement of a seal on a document does not fall under a decision-maker's specialized knowledge, which is knowledge accumulated over time as a result of their adjudicative functions. Furthermore, according to the Federal Court,21 it is well established that the principles of procedural fairness do not require claimants to be confronted with information that they are aware of and that they themselves supplied. Therefore, the RAD is of the opinion that there was no breach of procedural fairness, as the RPD analyzed the notices to appear submitted by the appellant and it did not base its conclusion on an extrinsic element. [48] As noted above, the RAD asked the appellant to provide it with the original notices to appear, and she submitted them. The RAD examined the originals and noted anomalies that led it not to give them any weight. [49] The RAD is aware of the Federal Court case law22 according to which syntax errors, which could be likened to typographical or inadvertent errors, should not normally discredit a piece of evidence. The RAD is of the opinion that the notices to appear contain not only errors of that kind, but also other anomalies that led it to not find the notices genuine. [50] The notices were issued by the same person four days apart. However, the date is indicated with a date-stamp in the notice of XXXX XXXX, 2020, and it is handwritten in the notice of XXXX XXXX XXXX 2020. The title of the signatory is typed in both notices. The XXXX XXXX notice refers to "Le Chef de Département des Operations de la Direction des Renseignements", whereas the XXXX XXXX notice reads, "Le Chef de Département des Opérations à la Direction des Renseignements". The RAD also noted that, in the copy of the XXXX XXXX notice that the appellant submitted to the RPD,23 the title was different from the one indicated in the original document that the appellant submitted to the RAD, which starts with "Ce" instead of "Le": "Ce Chef de Département des Opérations à la Direction des Renseignements". The RAD would have expected the typed title of the person who signed both notices to be the same not only in the originals, but also in the copy submitted by the appellant. In addition, as highlighted by the RPD, the national police stamps that appear on both notices are under the title, name and signature of the author of the notices, as is the stamp of the signatory, which appears only on the notice to appear of XXXX XXXX, 2020. Finally, the RAD noted that the XXXX XXXX notice contains a spelling error and that the days are not capitalized the same way in XXXX XXXX and XXXX notices: "Madame, Vous êtes prié de vous présenter ce Lundi XXXX XXXX 2020, à mon office..." and the XXXX XXXX notice reads: "Madame, Vous être priée de vous présenter ce vendredi XXXX XXXX 2020, à mon office...". [51] In light of all the previously noted anomalies, the RAD agrees with the RPD's conclusion that no weight should be given to the two notices to appear submitted by the appellant. [52] The RAD considers that the RPD correctly concluded that the appellant did not establish, on a balance of probabilities, that she received a notice to appear dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 2020, summoning her to report to the DRC national police and that, if she failed to appear, she would be summoned by force; that no weight should be given to the notices to appear; and that the appellant's credibility was undermined. The appellant's political profile [53] The recording of the hearing reveals that the appellant testified24 that she was generally targeted by the authorities, as she was part of XXXX, and that she was criticized for her awareness-raising initiatives in favour of the DRC's balkanization. [54] In her written account,25 the appellant states that she had advocated for respect and human rights when she was very young, and that it had therefore been easy for her to support the ideology of XXXX, which was established in 2012. The appellant states that, even though there was a change in presidents with the election of Félix Tshisekedi, former president XXXX XXXX continued to pull the strings and control most strategic posts. She notes that XXXX and other movements often held demonstrations calling for certain rights, but that those demands were never heard or taken into account and that demonstrations were brutally repressed. The appellant reports that there was a XXXX demonstration in XXXX 2019 calling for former president XXXX to be prosecuted for his crimes. She states that she did not take part in it, but that some of her associates who participated were arrested and later released. [55] In listening to the recording of the hearing, the RAD noted that the appellant testified26 that she became a member of XXXX in 2015 and that she was still a member. When she lived in the DRC, she was part of a cell comprising seven people. She was in charge of XXXX. Her role was to XXXX XXXX XXXX about XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX. She XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX at XXXX XXXX. Some participants chose to join the movement, whereas others refused because they were afraid. The appellant indicated27 that she started her recruitment efforts in 2016 and that she continued them until she left the DRC. The appellant testified28 that she never participated in any demonstrations because she was somewhat worried, which she explained as being due to the fact of her husband's membership in the party that XXXX opposed. [56] The appellant testified29 that the police had not questioned her before the first notice to appear dated XXXX XXXX, 2020. The RPD asked why the police would go after her in 2020, when she had been a long-time member of XXXX. She answered that it was because of the added story of balkanization.30 [57] The appellant testified31 that her problems started after the demonstration of XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, which she did not take part in, when two members of her cell who had participated in it were arrested, tortured and released after five days. She confirmed32 what she had described in her written account, that a friend who worked in the ministry of the interior had told her to be careful because the authorities were looking for all XXXX members, but that she had not been worried because she had not taken part in any demonstrations. The appellant then testified33 that the same friend told her on XXXX XXXX, 2020, that she had information that she spent time abroad to raise awareness of the DRC's balkanization. The appellant stated34 that although this conversation [translation] "alarmed her," she did not consider it to be serious. She found it strange that anyone would accuse her of balkanization, when this was not in line with XXXX, a movement that advocates human dignity, respect and social justice, as well as leaving the DRC's territory as is, whereas balkanization involves carving up the DRC. The appellant testified35 that her associates had problems after taking part in a demonstration-which, according to her written account, took place on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2020, while she was in Canada-to protest the appointment of XXXX XXXX, and that the notice to appear of XXXX XXXX, 2020, was subsequently left at her home. The appellant testified36 that she had no trouble leaving the DRC for Canada in XXXX 2020. [58] For the reasons set out below, and in light of the objective documentary evidence, the RAD is of the opinion that the appellant did not establish, by means of sufficient and credible evidence, that she has the profile of a political opponent who would likely be sought by the authorities if she were to return to the DRC. [59] According to her written account and her testimony at the hearing, the appellant did not personally have any problems with the authorities between the time she became involved with XXXX in 2016 and the time she left the DRC in XXXX 2020. She never participated in a demonstration. Her alleged balkanization efforts were not consistent with her efforts at XXXX. The alleged notices to appear were delivered to the appellant's home in XXXX 2020, when she had been in Canada for several months and, according to her, issued after a demonstration that she did not take part in. The authorities gave her no trouble when she left the country. The appellant did not state, in her written account or at the hearing, that her children, who still live in Kinshasa, received other notices37 or that the authorities contacted them after the notice of XXXX XXXX, 2020. [60] According to the objective documentary evidence, the XXXX members who experienced problems with the authorities are those who participated in demonstrations or who had spoken out publicly, particularly about the alleged misappropriation of funds by the foundation of the DRC's First Lady. The appellant did not demonstrate that she has such a profile. [61] The National Documentation Package (NDP) on the DRC reports, at Tab 1.18,38 on the key role played by XXXX: In the pre-electoral period between 2016 and 2018, several new youth movements (e.g., XXXX, Filimbi and Réveil des indignés) emerged, and played a remarkable role in raising public awareness of and denouncing civil rights violations. This continues to be the case with regard to the killings that have been perpetrated in Beni, in the province of North-Kivu since 2014 and which have suddenly intensified since President Tshisekedi took office. While several civil society organizations seem to have grown weary, the youth movements (XXXX and Veranda Mutsanga, especially) continue to vocally denounce the inaction of the government and the U.N. forces of MONUSCO, which are stationed around the areas where these killings are perpetuated. (p. 26) The COVID-19 crisis had a rather positive effect on solidarity and self-organization, which seem to be growing. For example, in the city of Goma (North Kivu), one of the most prominent citizen movements, XXXX, began organizing marches in June 2020 to demand the supply of drinking water and denounce the passivity of the authorities that left a large proportion of the population dependent on obtaining drinking water from wells. (p. 14) [62] At Tab 2.9 of the NDP,39 a Human Rights Watch report on the events of 2021 in the DRC states that activists were intimidated, threatened, arrested, and in some cases prosecuted. It notes that the arrests involved members of the movement who reportedly participated in demonstrations, with the exception of a case involving XXXX members who allegedly denounced the First Lady. The appellant did not allude to ever speaking out publicly and stated that she never participated in demonstrations. The report states that, in January, a military court acquitted eight members of XXXX who spent one month in detention for marching peacefully in Beni. In July, two members, who had been detained for three months for marching peacefully in Butembo, were provisionally released. Two other members were arrested in July and August, detained and then released on bail on November 6. Their trial for defamation and criminal association started on November 5, after they denounced the misappropriation of humanitarian aid allegedly involving staff from the DRC's First Lady's foundation. Thirteen other XXXX activists were arrested in Beni on November 11 during a peaceful demonstration against martial law, and remained in detention at the time of the writing of the report. [63] Tab 2.140 of the NDP reports on the case of two XXXX members who were involved in the allegations of misappropriated funds by the First Lady's foundation. According to Human Rights Watch, one of them faced the death penalty because of the charges and, after four months of detention, he was provisionally released. It also describes that, in January, a military court in Beni acquitted eight XXXX members who faced 10 years in prison after being arrested during a march, that XXXX was denied the right to protest in Butembo on February 15, and that when it held a protest demanding the opening of the schools that had been closed due to COVID-19, the police whipped protesters, injured 17 of them and arrested 21, who were released three hours later. [64] According to the RAD, the political engagement that the appellant submitted as evidence does not establish that she would have a well-founded prospective fear of persecution if she were to return to the DRC. [65] The RAD is of the opinion that the RPD correctly found that the appellant is not credible. [66] The RAD agrees with the RPD's conclusion that the appellant did not demonstrate a serious possibility of persecution within the meaning of section 96 of the IRPA or that she would, on a balance of probabilities, be personally subjected to a danger of torture, a risk to her life, or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment within the meaning of subsection 97(1) of the IRPA if she returned to the DRC. [67] The RAD concludes that the RPD's decision is correct. CONCLUSION [68] The RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the determination of the RPD that the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. (signed) Isabelle Parizeau Me Isabelle Parizeau January 11, 2023 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 Refugee Protection Division (RPD) record, at pp. 21 to 23. 2 Ibid., at pp. 12 to 14. 3 Appellant's record, at p. 9. 4 Ibid., at p. 8. 5 Ibid., at pp. 4 to 7. 6 Raza v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FCA 385. 7 Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v. Parminder Singh, 2016 FCA 96. 8 Ibid., at p. 10. 9 Chairperson's Guideline 4: Gender Considerations in Proceedings Before the Immigration and Refugee Board, issued by the Chairperson pursuant to paragraph 159(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Effective: July 18, 2022. 10 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93. 11 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Alazar, 2021 FC 637. 12 R. v. Mian, 2014 SCC 54. 13 Notice from the Refugee Appeal Division to the Minister and the appellant, dated December 15, 2022. 14 RPD record, at pp. 21 to 23. 15 Ibid., at pp. 12 and 14, paras. 8, 15 and 19. 16 Kidane v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 167. 17 Recording of the RPD hearing held on June 16, 2022, approximately between 1:14:07 and 1:18:57. 18 Ibid., approximately between 0:16:37 and 0:17:19. 19 RPD record, at p. 169. 20 Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Gebrewold, 2018 FC 374, para. 28. 21 Konare v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 985, at para. 16; Moïse v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 93, at paras. 9 and 10; and Akanniolu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 311, at paras. 46 and 47. 22 Ayeni v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1202; Enamejewa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 315. 23 RPD record, Exhibit C-3, at p. 169. 24 Recording of the RPD hearing held on June 16, 2022, approximately between 0:21:32 and 0:22:30 and between 2:00:00 and 2:00:31. 25 RPD record, at pp. 12 to 14. 26 Recording of the RPD hearing held on June 16, 2022, approximately between 0:24:13 and 0:29:34. 27 Ibid., approximately between 0:30:02 to 0:30:40. 28 Ibid., approximately between 0:30:50 to 0:33:35. 29 Ibid., approximately between 0:44:39 and 0:45:07. 30 Ibid., approximately between 0:45:22 and 0:45:41. 31 Ibid., approximately between 0:50:52 and 0:55:27. 32 Ibid., approximately between 0:55:28 and 0:58:09. 33 Ibid., approximately between 1:00:09 and 1:05:20. 34 Ibid., approximately between 1:07:28 and 1:08:05 and between 1:09:27 and 1:10:50. 35 Ibid., approximately between 1:08:13 and 1:09:20. 36 Ibid., approximately between 1:42:49 and 1:43:14. 37 Ibid., approximately between 0:14:43 to 0:16:31. 38 RPD record, National Documentation Package on the Democratic Republic of the Congo, April 29, 2022, Tab 1.18: Congo, DR. BTI 2022 Country Report. Bertelsmann Stiftung. February 2022, at pp. 14 and 26. 39 Ibid., Tab 2.9: Democratic Republic of the Congo. World Report 2022: Events of 2021. Human Rights Watch. January 2022, at p. 3. 40 Ibid., Tab 2.1: Democratic Republic of the Congo. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2021. United States. Department of State. April 12, 2022, at pp. 11 and 26. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MC2-14339 RAD.25.02 (August 20, 2021) 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 (August 20, 2021) Disponible en français