MB8-13247

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MB8-13247 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 December 6, 2019 Date de la décision Panel Christina Harrison Baird Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Syed R Khan 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 is a citizen of Cameroon. He appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), which rejected his claim for refugee protection. He alleges that he has been targeted by government security forces because of his family's participation in the Southern Cameroons National Council (SCNC). He claims that he was detained and subsequently his father was murdered and his mother and brothers disappeared. The Appellant states that government security personnel will kill him if he returns to Cameroon. [2] The determinative issue in this appeal is whether the RPD erred in assessing the Appellant's credibility. The RPD found that omissions and inconsistencies in the Appellant's evidence did not have a reasonable explanation. They related to the death of his father, his travel to Nigeria at the relevant times, and the authenticity of his corroborative evidence from the SCNC. The RPD found this showed that the Appellant was not credible with respect to evidence at the heart of his claim. [3] The Appellant submits that none of these aspects should impugn his credibility because he made satisfactory explanations, presented a legitimate death certificate for his father, and was present in Cameroon at the relevant times. He says he had no control and little knowledge of the SCNC personnel or process to produce the letter he received as corroboration. [4] The RPD was correct in its assessment of the Appellant's credibility. Therefore, I dismiss the appeal. The Appellant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. ANALYSIS Appellant is not credible about his detention [5] I find that the Appellant's account of being arbitrarily detained is not credible. Although the documentary evidence states that such arrests do occur to persons of his alleged profile, I find that the Appellant contradicted himself and that his subsequent actions show a lack of subjective fear. [6] The Appellant gave evidence that his encounter with security services personnel in civilian dress occurred in XXXX 2013. They were passengers XXXX XXXX XXXX. As a result of his offhand remark about the President's arrival holding up traffic, the passengers accused him of plotting to kill the President. He claims they received instructions to take him to the gendarmerie, but instead took him to a known torture site where they threatened him with a gun to his head and obtained a false confession. The Appellant states that he was permitted to escape by a man in an army uniform.1,2 This account is contradicted by his declaration at the Canadian port of entry (POE) that he had never been detained.3 I find his credibility is impugned by this contradiction. [7] The Appellant testified that he went into hiding with a friend in Yaoundé, then decided to return to his village. He said he thought the village was safer than Yaoundé.4 Although hiding is consistent with a subjective fear, the following are my reasons for finding that a return to his village was inconsistent with such a fear. [8] The Appellant testified that when he had been home in the village in XXXX 2013, his mother informed him that security forces had arrested and beaten his father there in XXXX 2013. He knew that his father had been ill-treated in the village in recent months. If that allegation is true, then it was inconsistent for the Appellant to conclude that the security agents would not come all the way to the village. Moreover, as someone seeking to avoid arrest, it was illogical for him to seek refuge with his father, who allegedly had been detained for his Independence Day activities with the SCNC. The Appellant explained that he did not think the Government of Cameroon would go so far as to arrest him for his family's political activity.5 I do not find this explanation satisfactory, since the documentary evidence indicates that the Government of Cameroon does arrest people for their imputed political opinion.6 I find it more likely than not that these inconsistent allegations are false. [9] If the Appellant's evidence were that he believed strongly in the SCNC and wanted to brave the government's bullying, I might find his evidence more credible. In contrast, he has said that he was never involved in politics, did not like it, and advised his brother to stay out of it.7 [10] Moreover, there is evidence from the Appellant himself that he traveled to Nigeria from XXXX XXXX, to XXXX XXXX, 2014.8,9 Departing Cameroon after the incident in XXXX 2013 might seem consistent with a subjective fear. Many SCNC activists and other Anglophones have crossed the international border into Cross River State, Nigeria.10 However, the Appellant claims that this evidence from his POE interview is incorrect and that he did not travel to Nigeria since he was a child.11 Also, the Appellant claims that the passport stamps showing his entry and exit from Nigeria at slightly different dates (XXXX XXXX, to XXXX XXXX, 2014),12 were falsified by his agent in the process of securing a visa for Thailand. Neither version is consistent with the Appellant's story that his father was killed and the remainder of his nuclear family disappeared on XXXX XXXX, 2014, after which he hid in the bush, in a nearby village, and in Buea.13 [11] I do not accept the Appellant's argument that he did not realize entry and exit stamps for Nigeria existed in his passport.14 If that were true, and he had not travelled to Nigeria, then he would have had no reason to declare that he had travelled to Nigeria, when he arrived at the Canadian POE. Only the biographical data page of his passport was before the immigration authorities at that time.15 I find on a balance of probabilities that the Appellant did travel to Nigeria. I find that he travelled there to secure a visa for Thailand, just as his passport indicates; and not because he was fearful. Appellant is not credible about the death or disappearance of his family members [12] I find that the Appellant is not credible about the murder or disappearance of his family members. He has given contradictory statements about the date of the alleged event, and the condition of his father when he arrived on the scene, as well as omitted his role in seeking care for his dad afterward. [13] The Appellant declared at the POE that his dad died on XXXX XXXX, 2014. Given the trauma that he alleges surrounded this event, I find it not credible that he should later change the date to XXXX XXXX, 2014. I am not satisfied that he was so tired or his English was so poor in November 2016-when he arrived in Canada-that an immigration officer misunderstood the date. His evidence is that he taught English in Thailand for two and a half years immediately prior to his arrival.16 I also do not believe that the Appellant himself was unable to correct such an error before signing his immigration forms. [14] Rather, I find that the Appellant changed the date to reflect the date on the Death Certificate,17 which the Appellant received from a friend in Cameroon not long before the RPD hearing.18 While the RPD had some concerns about the authenticity of the certificate, I find these are not material to my decision. The certificate states that the Appellant's father died at the hospital, which is not entirely consistent with the Appellant's testimony that his father died on the front steps of his home, shot as he attempted to flee the burning building. I find that this statement in the document is neutral with respect to the credibility of the Appellant, since it is plausible that someone could be declared dead on arrival, having been mortally injured. However, in my mind, the Death Certificate is not probative of the key credibility issue. While I accept that the Appellant's father has died, there is no cause of death indicated on the certificate. Given that the Appellant's contradictory evidence about his detention and about the date of his father's death gives good reason to doubt his testimony, it would be important for him to provide corroboration of the cause of death. For these reasons, I do not accept the Appellant's argument that simple provision of the Death Certificate is sufficient to corroborate the Appellant's story, or that it does not matter how the father died.19 I find that the Appellant's new allegations at the RPD about his involvement in seeking urgent care for his dying father are an embellishment. [15] The Appellant provided little evidence about the disappearance of his remaining family members. He stated that he asked his travel agent to look into it and got no information. He added that his father's brother, a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, called the police for information but was also unsuccessful. I find it strange that the Appellant gave no evidence of further efforts to locate or bring closure for his family members. In my view, this diminishes the credibility of his claim that he believes they have disappeared due to political persecution. Appellant's corroborative evidence is not credible [16] I find that the Appellant has produced letters that are not credibly authored by a member of the SCNC and I find that they are not authentic. Therefore, they have no probative value as corroboration of his story. [17] The author of the letters in the record20 purports to be "Chairman SCNC." However, as the RPD pointed out, a different man, Nfor Ngala Nfor, has reportedly been accepted as the National Chairman of the SCNC. The Appellant states that his supporter is a Regional Chairman.21 Counsel at the RPD speculated that perhaps the author of the letters was acting in the role of Chairman, given the detention of several high-ranking SCNC leaders. [18] While the documentary evidence acknowledges a controversial election process for the new leader of the SCNC in 2015; as well as different levels of leadership, including county representatives, district heads and zonal coordinators, there is little support for a self-styled, "Chairman SCNC". The titles clearly indicate a region or a faction, e.g. "Frederick Ebong Alobwede (National Chair ...) ... Hitler Mbinglo (Chair of the Northern Zone) ... [and]... Henry Fossung (Chair of the SCAPO/Ambazonia faction)".22 In any event, the author of the letters in the record does not appear among scores of names in the documentary evidence as a leader of the SCNC. [19] The Appellant had ample opportunity to respond to the evidence cited above. The RAD gave notice to the Appellant and his Counsel on August 28, 2019, that it would consider four items from the most recent National Documentation Package (NDP). Counsel was invited to make submissions on these items or any matter raised by the new NDP. Seven days after the deadline of September 10, 2019, the RAD received a request from the Appellant for an extension of time to get a new lawyer. I allowed an extension of time to advise of any change to the counsel of record, in accordance with RAD Rules 18 and 20. The Appellant and Counsel of Record were required to provide this information by October 24, 2019. Neither responded. The Appellant was required to respond to the disclosure from the new NDP by October 31, 2019. The RAD did not receive a response. On November 29, 2019, the RAD registry staff telephoned the Appellant and Counsel of Record. Counsel of Record did not respond. The Appellant advised that he still did not have new counsel. He undertook to reply to the Montreal office of the RAD before December 2, 2019. The RAD did not receive any reply from the Appellant. [20] I do not accept the Appellant's argument that it was beyond his capacity to confirm the identity of the person providing written corroboration of the allegations at the heart of his claim.23 He testified that this person was an old friend of his father. Therefore, I find it reasonable to expect that the Appellant could have provided one or more of the following: a copy of picture identification from the author of the letters; an explanation of his role in the national organization of the SCNC; or the Appellant's own testimony about how he himself knew this friend of his father. Moreover, the Appellant could have prepared better to call him as a witness, giving notice to the RPD and getting a telephone number at which the witness could be reached during the hearing, or making an application to secure his testimony at a later date. [21] Aside from this question of identity, the duplication and reformatting of the letter dated XXXX XXXX, 2018, remained without satisfactory explanation. I find it more likely than not that the letters were fabricated to support a refugee claim that is not factual. Appellant has not shown a risk under either s. 96 or s. 97 [22] I have conducted my analysis under section 96 of IRPA because the Appellant alleged a fear of persecution based on his imputed political opinion, which has a clear link to the 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees. Since he has not established the credibility of his allegations, I find there is no serious possibility that he will face harm due to an imputed political opinion if he is returned to Cameroon. It is clear that his actual political beliefs would not lead to persecution, since he has said that he does not wish to be involved in politics. [23] In addition, I find that due to his failure to establish the credibility of his allegations, the Appellant has not shown it is more likely than not that he faces a danger of torture, a risk to his life, or a risk of cruel or unusual treatment or punishment. Since the burden of proof is a "balance of probabilities" for these additional risks, and this is more onerous than the "serious possibility" burden of proof for persecution, the Appellant has not met the burden of proof for torture, risk to life or cruel treatment either. [24] The RPD assessment of the Appellant's credibility was correct. CONCLUSION [25] The RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection, pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). (signed) "Christina Harrison Baird" Christina Harrison Baird December 6, 2019 Date 1 RPD-1, RPD Record, Audio recording of hearing on January 29, 2018, hour 0:41. 2 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2.1, Basis of Claim Narrative, pp. 26-28. 3 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, IMM5669, p. 41. 4 RPD-1, RPD Record, Audio recording of hearing on January 29, 2018, hours 0:45 and 0:55. 5 Ibid., hour 0:46. 6 RAD-1, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Cameroon, May 31, 2019, tab 2.1: Cameroon. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2018. United States. Department of State. March 13, 2019. 7 RPD-1, RPD Record, Audio recording of hearing on January 29, 2018, hour 0:32. 8 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, IMM0008, p. 45. 9 RPD-1, RPD Record, Audio recording of hearing on January 29, 2018, hour 1:35. 10 RAD-1, NDP for Cameroon, May 31, 2019, tab 2.7: "These Killings Can Be Stopped": Abuses by Government and Separatist Groups in Cameroon's Anglophone Regions. Human Rights Watch. July 19, 2018. 11 RPD-1, RPD Record, Audio recording of hearing on January 29, 2018, hours 0:38 and 1:21. 12 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 6, p. 113. 13 RPD-1, RPD Record, Audio recording of hearing on January 29, 2018, hour 1:05. 14 P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum of Appeal, p. 2 of 6. 15 RPD-1, RPD Record, Audio recording of hearing on January 29, 2018, hour 1:29. 16 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, IMM5669, p. 42. 17 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, Death Certificate, p. 92. 18 RPD-1, RPD Record, Audio recording of hearing on January 29, 2018, hour 1:53. 19 P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum of Appeal, p. 2 of 6. 20 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 7, Letter dated "XXX XX, 2018", p. 149; Exhibit 10, undated, p. 159; and Exhibit 10, Letter dated "XXX XX 2018" [sic], p. 161. 21 RPD-1, RPD Record, Audio recording of hearing on January 29, 2018, hour 0:24. 22 RAD-1, NDP for Cameroon, May 31, 2019, tab 4.9, The Southern Cameroons National Council (SCNC), including leadership, structure, objectives, activities, requirements and procedures to become a member ..., Response to Information Request CMR106136.E, June 22, 2018, with attachment, p. 3. 23 P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum of Appeal, p. 2 of 6. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MB8-13247 RAD.25.02 (April 04, 2019) Disponible en français 8 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 (April 04, 2019) Disponible en français