MB9-15003

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MB9-15003 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 Ottawa, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision October 27, 2020 Date de la décision Panel Susan Brown Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Claudette Menghile Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] The Appellant XXXX XXXX XXXX is a citizen of Nigeria who fears persecution as a bisexual woman. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) found that the Appellant was not credible based on discrepancies between her original Basis of Claim (BOC) narrative and an amendment. The Appellant submits that the RPD erred in its credibility analysis. [2] The Appellant's written declaration says that she is presenting new evidence1 but new evidence is not included in her record nor are there any arguments to support its admission. I assume that the Appellant's statement about new evidence was made in error. [3] Following my review, I find that the RPD did not have a sufficient basis for its finding that the Appellant is not credible. DECISION [4] The appeal is allowed. I substitute my own decision that the Appellant is a Convention refugee. ANALYSIS [5] The determinative issue on appeal is whether the Appellant is credible. [6] For the reasons explained below I find that the RPD erred in its assessment of the Appellant's credibility. Credibility [7] The RPD focused its credibility assessment on differences between the Appellant's original2 and amended3 BOC narratives. The RPD found that upon comparing the two versions of the narratives there were some important differences which the Appellant could not reasonably explain. [8] The Appellant argues that for the sake of precision she submitted a modified narrative and that there were no substantial differences between the narratives. "Of course there are discrepancies the story is amended."4 [9] The Federal Court is clear that the RPD is "entitled to review the contents of [a BOC] before and after its amendment and may draw negative inferences about credibility if matters it considers important were added to the [BOC] by an amendment later".5 [10] I have reviewed the discrepancies identified by the RPD, the Appellant's explanation to the RPD and arguments to the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) and do not find that the discrepancies are sufficiently important to support a negative credibility finding. Discrepancy Original BOC Amended BOC Appellant's explanation to RPD Appellant's argument Discovery of her bisexuality Since her college days (2007) From her school days (2005) During her time at grammar school, the Appellant only had sex with women, and that it was only during college that she started having sex with both men and women. There simply is no contradiction. The modified story brings precision as to when the Appellant started being sexually active. Husband's discovery with same sex lover June 10, 2017 June 17, 2017 As June 10 was not the accurate date, it is only normal to change it in the amended narrative. Whether the incident occurred on June 10 or June 17 is not significant. Length of shelter at Uncle's house Two days Uncle drove her to another house that night. The Appellant wanted to make her amended narrative more explanatory. Appellant wanted to provide details as to exactly where she was. This is not central to her claim. Corroborative evidence [11] I agree with the RPD that there are credibility issues with the two newspaper articles from "The Authority Daily" presented by the Appellant6 based on the objective evidence about brown envelope journalism7 and because both articles were published nearly two years after the events of June 2017. [12] The Appellant points out that the objective evidence is mixed about whether it is common practice for ordinary citizens to give brown envelopes to bribe journalists to create news stories and submits that there is no evidence which establishes that the newspaper articles she submitted are not authentic. [13] I find that the issues with the two newspaper articles are not a sufficient basis for a negative credibility finding. State protection [14] The objective evidence presents Nigeria "as one of the most homophobic countries in the world, not only due to the severity and comprehensiveness of its legislation that criminalizes same-sex relations, but also for the discriminatory and violent treatment given to LGBTI people in the form of arbitrary arrests, blackmail, physical and psychological abuse by the police..."8 Under these circumstances the state of Nigeria cannot be expected to provide an internal flight alternative or protection for the Appellant. CONCLUSION [15] The appeal is allowed. I substitute my own decision that the Appellant is a Convention refugee. (signed) "Susan Brown" Susan Brown October 27, 2020 Date 1 P-2, Appellant's Record, page 12, Appellant's Memorandum, Part IV. 2 RPD-1, RPD Record, pages 16-18, Exhibit 2. 3 RPD-1, RPD Record, pages 11-15, Exhibit 5. 4 P-2, Appellant's Record, page 5, Appellant's Memorandum, para 9. 5 Zeferino v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 456 at paras. 31 and 32. 6 RPD-1, RPD Record, pages 144 and 145, Exhibit 5. 7 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Nigeria, 30 April 2019, tab 11.5: Brown envelope journalism, including types of publications that are affected; efforts to combat the phenomenon (2015-November 2017). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 3 November 2017. NGA106001.E. 8 Ibid., tab 6.2: Nigeria. State-Sponsored Homophobia 2019. International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association. Lucas Ramón Mendos. March 2019, page 3/360. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MB9-15003 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