MB8-09747

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MB8-09747 MB8-09748 / MB8-09749 / MB8-09750 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Persons who are the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Appeal considered / heard at Montreal, QC Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision November 12, 2019 Date de la décision Panel Ayanna Roberts Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subject of the appeal Me Aminder Kaur Mangat Conseil des personnes en cause Designated representative XXXX XXXX XXXX Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX (Principal Appellant), his wife, XXXX XXXX XXXX (co-Appellant), and their children, XXXX XXXX (Minor Appellant 1) and XXXX XXXX (Minor Appellant 2), citizens of India, appealed a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), dated December 21, 2017, rejecting their claims for refugee protection. [2] The Appellants allege a fear of persecution at the hands of the Telugu Desam Partymen (TDP) political party in India. The Appellants' allegations are as follows. They are supporters of the Indian National Congress (INC). In 1998, the Principal Appellant's father was murdered as a result of his political opinion. People believed that the Principal Appellant would run for office in his father's place. As a result, he received death threats from the TDP and the family fled. Over the years, they moved from their home state of XXXX XXXX to New Delhi and Mumbai. They were sought out, received threatening phone calls and their youngest daughter was the subject of an attempted kidnapping in 2006. They moved to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in XXXX 2006 and remained there for ten years without incident. The TDP came back into power in 2016 and the threatening phone calls and in-person inquiries against the family resumed in the UAE. The Appellants filed a complaint with the UAE police. The Principal Appellant lost his job with the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX due to the oil recession and there was no progress following his complaint. So, the Appellants requested that the Indian Embassy arrange protection for them if they needed to return to India. With the embassy's reassurance, the family returned to Mumbai, India on XXXX XXXX, 2017. In India, the TDP party asked for them in their hometown and at family members' homes and the threatening phone calls resumed. Fearing for their lives, they fled for Canada, arriving on XXXX XXXX, 2017. [3] The RPD found that the Appellants were not credible concerning their allegations about being persecuted in India and the UAE by members of the TDP due to contradictions and omissions in their testimony. The Appellants argue that the RPD should have given more weight to corroborating documents and did not properly assess their explanations for perceived inconsistencies. [4] The appeal is denied. The determinative issue is the Appellants' credibility. The Appellants' testimony and evidence present a number of contradictions relating to events in the UAE which they have not acceptably explained. This includes the arrest, detention and exoneration of the Principal Appellant due to a fraud case involving his alleged political persecutor, XXXX XXXX. The Appellants have not credibly explained why this information was omitted from their Basis of Claim (BOC) forms and why the Principal Appellant and the co-Appellant presented contradictory testimonies on this issue. Moreover, in their appeal memorandum, they did not challenge the RPD's conclusions on appeal relating to a number of these important contradictions. Finally, the Appellants returned to India several times for reasons including the marriages of family and friends. The Appellants are not credible about their alleged fears of persecution. ANALYSIS Credibility [5] Having reviewed the evidence, including multiple hearings and testimony from the Appellants, I find that the RPD did not err in concluding that the Appellants are not credible about their fear in India related to their political opinion. [6] The Appellants' inconsistent and contradictory testimony about events in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) poses a serious credibility problem and causes me to conclude that they have not demonstrated on a balance of probabilities that they are currently being persecuted by XXXX XXXX or the TDP. [7] At the heart of the Appellants' claim is the premise that he is being threatened because the TDP believes that he is a potential political successor to his father. Because the TDP are said to hold that belief, the Appellants allege that while they were living in Delhi, they were targeted by XXXX XXXX who is alleged to be XXXX XXXX XXXX. The Appellants allege that XXXX XXXX and his associates located them in XXXX XXXX, UAE and threatened them.1 These threats are alleged to be related to the history of political persecution that the Appellants claim to have suffered. [8] However, the evidence on file shows that the Principal Appellant was arrested, charged and exonerated on fraud charges in the UAE on a balance of probabilities. On this subject, the RPD correctly drew negative credibility inferences related to the Principal Appellant's arrest and detention in the UAE, the omission of that arrest and detention from the Appellant's BOCs, the length of the detention, whether or not he lost his job due to that detention and the submission of a fraudulent document from his Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) application. While I have reviewed the RPD's reasons, find them to be correct and adopt them as my own, I will still address some of the problems and inconsistencies related to the situation in the UAE in this decision. [9] A police complaint2 entered into evidence, written by the co-Appellant, states that their alleged political persecutors collaborated with friends of the Appellants to forge documents relating to a deal between the XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, a company owned by their primary political persecutor, XXXX XXXX. The complaint explains that the Principal Appellant forwarded documents related to this deal without examining its contents. Upon visiting the offices of the XXXX XXXX XXXX, the CEO informed the Principal Appellant that there was no such deal and that the XXXX XXXX XXXX logo and signatures were forgeries. The XXXX XXXX XXXX then made a complaint to the police against the Principal Appellant. The Appellants claim that the Principal Appellant was framed by his friends and XXXX XXXX. The complaint then explains that the Principal Appellant was detained for 110 days and then cleared by the court. It also explains that during his detention, the Principal Appellant was fired from his job. [10] There are several problems with this complaint. First, it contains handwritten adjustments. Second, it does not mention an alleged 15-17 year history of political persecution at the hands of XXXX XXXX. Third, it mentions that the Principal Appellant was detained for 110 days and cleared in court, yet the co-Appellant testified that he was detained for 45 days and the Principal Appellant denied ever having been detained. Fourth, it mentions that as a result of the detention, the Principal Appellant lost his job, yet in an affidavit signed in Ontario on XXXX XXXX, 2017, the Principal Appellant states that he lost his job due to the recession and oil crisis. [11] The Appellants explain the handwritten adjustments to the complaint by sharing that this was the co-Appellant's draft version and that a different, similar version was submitted to the police in XXXX XXXX. While the fact that the RAD does not have the final complaint before it presents some problems, I do find that the Appellants have entered into evidence the notion of a complaint to the police. [12] The complaint fails to mention that the Appellants are being politically persecuted by XXXX XXXX and the TDP. If there was political persecution, I would expect a complaint to the police to mention that, particularly when this is the alleged reason for why the Principal Appellant would have been framed by them in this case. This causes me to doubt that there is a history of political persecution and leads me to believe that any problems that the Appellants are actually having with XXXX XXXX are directly related to this fraud case. The fact that the fraudulent documents are said to have come from XXXX XXXX also poses a problem. It is unclear why the Principal Appellant would enter into any dealings with the person that he alleges killed his father3 and persecuted him. The Principal Appellant explained this inconsistency by saying that the name XXXX is very common in his home state of XXXX XXXX and so he did not immediately make the connection. I do not accept this explanation because if the Appellants were persecuted by this man for 15-17 years, I expect that they would express suspicion upon seeing the name XXXX in dealings that involve them. [13] When asked whether the Principal Appellant was detained for 110 days, the Principal Appellant denied ever having been jailed or detained. He explained that the XXXX XXXX police arrested him and then the lawyers posted bail and brought him home. He then revised his testimony to state that he was not arrested and posted that his wife was trying to recollect something that did not happen.4 I consider a detention, whether 110 days or 45 days, to be a major event that is difficult to forget or confuse. I find the Principal Appellant's explanation for why this detail was introduced into evidence by his wife not to be credible. [14] When asked whether or not he was arrested or detained, the Principal Appellant evaded the RPD's questions. On his Schedule A immigration intake document, he responded no to the question asking whether or not he had been convicted of, charged with on trial for, party to a crime or offence, or subject of any criminal proceedings in any country.5 When the RPD confronted him about the fact, at a minimum, that he had been subject to a criminal proceeding related to fraud requiring cancellation or exoneration6, he engaged in roundabout explanations of why he was never in jail, why he was never subject to a criminal proceeding and how his lawyer didn't pay any actual bail for his release.7 Once the RPD was given a court document issued by the Judicial Department/XXXX XXXX Appeal Prosecution indicating that charges against him had been dropped, the Principal Appellant continued to deny having had any knowledge of the specifics of the charges against him though resolving the charges resulted in more than one presentation in court.8 [15] The Appellants did not consider this important inconsistency on appeal though it comprises a significant portion of the RPD's reasons for its decision.9 I find that the Principal Appellant knew, at a minimum, that he had been involved in criminal proceedings and lied on both his Schedule A document and his TRV application.10 The RPD correctly drew negative inferences related to these omissions and the Appellants have not challenged these findings. [16] The RPD correctly concluded that the Principal Appellant has adjusted his story when it is convenient. The Appellants allege that the Principal Appellant lost his job in the UAE with the XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX 2016. The co-Appellant alleges that it was due to his arrest and detention on false fraud charges. The Principal Appellant alleges that it was due to the recession and oil crisis - both in his BOC,11 an affidavit signed in XXXX 2017,12 and his oral testimony.13 I already draw a negative inference related to the Appellants' credibility because the Principal Appellant and the co-Appellant presented contradictory testimonies on an issue that should be clear. The RPD correctly pointed out that the Principal Appellant submitted a letter from the XXXX XXXX XXXX confirming his employment with them as an XXXX XXXX from XXXX XXXX, 2016 until the present date which was XXXX XXXX, 2017.14 When confronted with this evidence, the Principal Appellant testified that he had been let go in XXXX 2016 and then rehired as XXXX XXXX XXXX. His testimony contradicts the evidence on file, namely the letter. The RPD concluded that he had submitted a fraudulent document with his TRV application. I agree with that determination. Though they contradict each other, both the Principal Appellant and the co-Appellant testified that he lost his job. I find that the Principal Appellant did lose his job on a balance of probabilities and therefore that he submitted a fraudulent document as part of his TRV application to Canada and I find that Appellant has shown a willingness to lie and to submit fraudulent information to Canadian authorities. [17] What these negative credibility inferences, omissions and inconsistencies demonstrate is that the Principal Appellant is not forthcoming with his oral and written testimony. This casts a general shadow over his credibility about his reasons for leaving the UAE, his reasons for leaving and returning to India and his reasons for requesting Canada's protection. My negative credibility conclusion casts doubt on whether he is being persecuted by the TDP and XXXX XXXX today. Whether or not his father was killed for his political opinion in 1998, and whether or not the Appellants moved out of XXXX XXXX for reasons related to that death, I find that the Appellants have not established that today, they face any persecution for reasons related to their political opinion, on a balance of probabilities. [18] Though I have already concluded that the Appellants' credibility problems are enough to reject their requests for asylum, I have reviewed the hearing recordings and passport evidence related to the RPD's other conclusions. * The RPD did not err by concluding that the Appellants returned to India many times and reavailed themselves of India's protection despite alleging a fear for their lives for reasons that are not acceptable - including returning to attend marriages. * The RPD did not err when it assigned little weight to other supporting documentation. I agree with the issues that the RPD identified with the various support letters from friends, witnesses and their lawyer as well as the medical note. The Appellants have not addressed the specific issues identified by the RPD with each of the documents other than to say that their allegations are accompanied by a considerable amount of evidence. After conducting my own review, I also find that the documents that they have submitted do not overcome the credibility concerns that I have mentioned. * The RPD did not err by concluding that no attempted kidnapping occurred on a balance of probabilities due to a discrepancy between the Appellant's recounting of the kidnapping and the testimony in a support letter from a student who helped foil the kidnapping. The RPD correctly identified discrepancies between the Appellants' recounting of the kidnapping and the testimony in a support letter from a student who helped foil the kidnapping. It also correctly found that the Appellant's testimony about having received a phone call from the TDP confirming that it had attempted the kidnapping was not credible. CONCLUSION [19] The RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection, pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). (signed) Ayanna Roberts Ayanna Roberts November 12, 2019 Date AR/dd 1 RPD Record. Basis of Claim form. Question 2(a). Pages 18-19. 2 RPD Record. Complaint against the following people for involving my husband in wrongful case, harassing my family and giving life threatening to our lives. Pages 345-347. 3 Hearing Recording. October 18, 2017. Between 25:20 and 35:50. 4 Hearing Recording. July 26, 2017. Between 1:27:30 and 1:33:33. 5 RPD Record. Schedule A. Question 4 b). Page 89. 6 RPD Record. Cancellation of Arrest Order. June 2016. Pages 599-601. 7 Hearing Recording. July 26, 2017. Between 1:50:10 and 2:06:09. 8 Hearing Recording. September 19, 2017 Between 18:36 and 34:17 minutes. 9 RPD Record. Reasons for Decision. Paragraphs 12-18. 10 RPD Record. TRV Application. Question 3a). Page 569. 11 RPD Record. Basis of Claim form. Question 2 a). Page 19. 12 RPD Record. Affidavit of XXXX XXX XXXXX. Paragraph 13. Page 430. 13 Hearing Recording. July 26, 2017. Between 2:09:50 and 2:21:08 minutes. 14 RPD Record. Letter from the XXXXX XXX XX XXX. Page 580. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MB8-09747 MB8-09748 / MB8-09749 / MB8-09750 RAD.25.02 (April 04, 2019) Disponible en français 9 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