TB9-01980

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-01980 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 March 16, 2020 Date de la décision Panel Kimberley Foreman Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Ashley Erin Fisch 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 (Principal Appellant), a citizen of Iran, appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), dated December 21, 2018, rejecting his claim for refugee protection. [2] The Appellant asks the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) to set aside the negative determination of the RPD and either grant his claim for protection or refer the matter back to the RPD for redetermination. DETERMINATION [3] Pursuant to subsection 111(1)(a) of Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA or Act)1 the RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the decision of the RPD. The appeal is dismissed. BACKGROUND [4] The Appellant alleges that he is at risk if he were to return to Iran, as the government has become aware of his conversion to Christianity. [5] The Appellant was born into a Muslim family, where he was predominantly raised by his father and step-mother. He experienced episodes of abuse from his step-mother if he failed to observe certain religious rites. In 2011, the Appellant and his girlfriend were stopped by the Sepah and detained. He alleges he was interrogated and tortured for 11 days. He required medical attention for his finger. [6] After his detention, the Appellant became depressed and his mother suggested he should come to Canada for a visit. His application for a Canadian visitor visa was denied. [7] Four years later in XXXX 2015, the Appellant ran into an old friend from university. They reconnected and eventually the Appellant spoke to his friend about his experience with the Sepah and his feelings on Islam. Over time, his friend opened up to him about his conversion to Christianity. The Appellant began to attend home church meetings and began to practice Christianity. [8] In XXXX 2017, the Appellant's friend informed the Appellant that the authorities had become suspicious of their home church group and he should go into hiding. The Appellant went into hiding at the home of his cousin, XXXX. With the assistance of his cousin and an agent, the Appellant obtained a Canadian visa and arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018. A month later, the Appellant's father informed him that the Sepah discovered their home church network and arrested his friend. His father was questioned about his son's whereabouts. The appellant fears Iranian authorities due to his religious conversion. APPELLANT'S ARGUMENTS [9] The Appellants argue that the RPD erred in its decision in the following ways: * The RPD failed to properly assess the appellant's Christian identity and sur place claim. * The RPD erred in making credibility inferences on subjects unrelated to the appellant's testimony. * The RPD erred in concluding the appellant was not in detention in the absence of medical report. * The RPD erred by impugning the veracity of the appellant's documents based on credibility. [10] The Appellant has not submitted any new evidence and does not request a hearing in this matter. Role of the RAD [11] When reviewing the RPD decision, the panel is required to independently assess all the evidence and determine whether the RPD erred in relation to each alleged error of law, fact or mixed fact and law. For this assessment, the panel has applied the standard of correctness as per the Federal Court of Appeal decision in Huruglica.2 If the panel finds that the RPD had a meaningful advantage in a particular circumstance, it may defer to the RPD's credibility assessment of oral testimony. ANALYSIS [12] I have reviewed the RPD hearing and record, including the RPD reasons and decision, in my independent assessment of the record. Previous attempt to travel to Canada and detention [13] The RPD found that the Appellant failed to establish his XXXX after an incident with the Sepah as his rationale for travel to Canada. The Appellant testified that after he was detained by the Sepah in 2011, his mother suggested he come to visit her. The Appellant testified that his mother sent him a letter of invitation for a visit for his Canadian visitor visa; however, the visa officer, when reviewing the file in the Global Case Management System (GCMS) notes, states the trip "appears to be for exploration. Business...!?1?1? Not very clear. Father and son travelling together...No family no friends to visit in Canada."3 [14] When questioned about why the purpose of his visit was not listed as visiting his mother, the Appellant testified that it was a mistake made by his travel agent because he did not know how to fill out the forms. The RPD did not find this explanation to be reasonable and I agree. [15] The Appellant testified that his mother had sent him a letter of invitation to visit Canada; if this was accurate, it was not supplied for the purpose of his visa application. It is clear from the GCMS notes that the Appellant had noted that his father, his mother's ex-husband, would be accompanying him on the trip and that he had no family in Canada. Furthermore, the rejection of the application is outlined as his failure to 'have a legitimate business purpose in Canada,' his 'travel history' and the fact that he provided an incomplete application.4 [16] The Appellant did not provide his CVV application from 2011 to establish that the letter from his mother had been provided, or that an agent had filled out the application for him. Considering the notes in the GCMS, I find on a balance of probabilities that the Appellant did not attempt to secure an invitation from his mother. The failure to provide consistent information on how and why he attempted to secure a visitor's visa leads me to take a negative crediblity inference relating to his need to travel due to his depression after his detention. It also fails to establish the Appellant's allegation that his detention by the Sepah lead to a greater hatred for Islam and how it was applied by the authorities in Iran. [17] The RPD made a further finding regarding the Appellant's failure to provide a medical report about the injuries he sustained during the alleged detention. The panel took a negative crediblity inference due to the lack of corroborating documentary evidence relating to the Appellant's detention. I have reviewed the testimony on this issue. The Appellant testified that he made up a story at the medical centre about what had happened to his finger, that he did not tell them about the Sepah and his detention. I find that the Appellant's explantion relating to the lack of medical documentation to be reasonable. While I understand that the panel's previous finding relating to the visa application to lead to a negative crediblity inference relating to his detention to be reasonable, I agree with the Appellant that this finding is an error. Appellant's omission relating to hiding [18] The RPD drew a negative credibility inference from the Appellant's omission regarding where he stayed after his religious group was discovered. The Appellant alleged that he hid in his cousin's home in XXXX of 2017 due to his fear he would be located by the Sepah. He noted that his cousin assisted with locating XXXX XXXX XXXX, who would help him obtain a visa. The Appellant testified that he stayed at his cousin's home for a week, and rotated where he was staying, sometimes sleeping at the gym, other times at home to avoid detection. [19] The RPD asked the Appellant why he failed to provide these details in his Basis of Claim (BOC) narrative. He responded that he did not think the detail was really important, that the highlight was his cousin's villa, and these were tiny details. [20] I agree with the RPD that this is a significant omission. Where the Appellant went into hiding is signficant and central to his allegations of fear. Furthermore, the Appellant failed to provide any of the addresses he lived in post XXXX 2017 on his Schedule A,5 which shows only one address since 2008. I find that the Appellant's failure to provide consistent evidence regarding where he was in hiding to lead me to find on a balance of probabilities that he was not in hiding from Iranian authorities as alleged. Delay in Leaving Iran [21] The RPD found that the Appellant's delay in leaving Iran undermined his credibility and was consistent with someone who had a lack of subjective fear. After a review of the Record, I agree with the findings of the RPD. [22] The Appellant testfiied that he realized he was no longer safe in Iran in and around XXXX or XXXX of 2017. He testified that his idenitity had been revealed to the authorities, that the group had been exposed and that the authorities were suspicious of them. The Appellant testified that he went into hiding and stopped all Christian activities at this time. He did not leave Iran until XXXX of 2018. [23] The RPD asked him why he did not leave Iran on his valid Schengen visa, which was issued in XXXX XXXX, 2017. The Appellant testified that he wanted to go to his mother because he had no one else other than her. The RPD noted that the Appellant had also made several trips to the UAE and Turkey after he became fearful in the late XXXX of 2017. He testified that he was worried about being detained on these trips, but was sure God would keep him safe. [24] I do not find the Appellant's explanation as to why he failed to leave Iran when his Schengen visa was issued to be credible. The Appellant testified that he had been identified to the authorities for his religious activities in XXXX or XXXX of 2017. He noted that his name was known and he feared for his safety and went into hiding. However, despite this alleged fear, the Appellant left the country numerous times to travel for photography and when he had the opportunity to leave on his Schengen visa, failed to do so and waited an additional four months until he was issued a Canadian visa. While I understand a desire to be reunited with his mother in Canada, I do not find this delay in departure, and the multiple departures through an Iranian airport, to be consistent with an individual who fears the government authorities. I draw a negative crediblity inference from the Appellant's failure to leave Iran at the earliest opportunity to do so. The RPD's assessment of the Appellant's faith and sur place claim [25] The RPD found on a balance of probabilities that the Appellant was not credible and had failed to establish that he had converted to Christianity. The panel specifically found numerous credibility issues with the Appellant's testimony which were central to the core of the claim, including where he went into hiding and his delay in departure, which caused the panel to doubt the veracity of the Appellant's evidence. The panel then found that the central allegation of the claim was not true on a balance of probabilities. [26] The RPD reviewed the documentary evidence, including a letter, pictures and baptismal certificate and found that they could not remedy the Appellant's credibility issues. I have reviewed the Appellant's documentary evidence, as well as his testimony relating to his religious practice in Canada, and find that although he has some religious knowledge and has been baptized in Canada, this evidence is not sufficient to overcome my credibility findings. [27] I have found that due to the aforementioned credibility concerns, the Appellant is not credible and has not established the central allegations of his claim, that he converted to Christianity and is wanted by the Iranian authorities. These documents do not overcome these concerns. The Appellant has provided no documents or other evidence to corroborate his involvement in Christianity in Iran. There are no letters, affidavits, emails or other forms of support. While it is not necessary to do so, given the existing credibility concerns that have been identified in this case, I find it to be reasonably expected, and the absence of any corroborating documents detracts from his overall credibility. I therefore find, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant was not engaged in practicing the Christian faith in Iran, as alleged. [28] While it appears that the Appellant had been attending church in Canada for approximately eight months prior to his hearing, attendance and baptism in and of themselves do not establish that the Appellant is a genuine Christian or is wanted in Iran for apostasy. Furthermore, there is no independent evidence to suggest that the Appellant's activities in Canada have drawn the attention of the Iranian authorities and the Appellant would be at risk if he were to return to Iran. CONCLUSION [29] I have found, after conducting an independent assessment of the evidence, that the Appellant is not a genuine Christian convert and is not wanted by the Iranian authorities for apostacy in Iran. I make a further finding that there is not a serious possibility that he would be persecuted, nor would he be subjected personally, on a balance of probabilities, to a risk to life, a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or a danger of torture, should he return to Iran. [30] The appeal is dismissed. Pursuant to subsection 111(1)(a) of the Act, the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD. (signed) "Kimberley Foreman" Kimberley Foreman March 16, 2020 Date 1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, last amended on February 6, 2014. 2 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93. 3 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, p. 98. 4 Ibid., p. 72. 5 Ibid., p. 44. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-01980 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