TB9-10484

RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : TB9-10484 TB9-10485 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision - Motifs et décision? Persons who are the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX(a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX(a.k.aXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Appeal considered at Ottawa, ON Appel instruit à Date of decision November 17, 2020 Date de la décision Panel Me Philippe Rabot Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subject of the appeal Me John Grice Conseil des personnes en cause Designated representative XXXX XXXX XXXX Représentante désignée Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] The principal appellant identifies herself as XXXX XXXX XXXX, and her minor son is identified as XXXX XXXX XXXX (the associate appellant). They claim to be citizens of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and of no other country. The principal appellant submits that she was persecuted by the Congolese authorities because of her opposition to the government presided over by Joseph Kabila. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) noted that the personal identity and nationality of each of the appellants were not established. The appellants state that this conclusion has no basis because the RPD gave undue weight to what it considered to be contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence submitted. DETERMINATION [2] The appeals are dismissed. The appellants did not meet their burden of proof, which consists in submitting acceptable documentary evidence of their identities. It was not demonstrated that they are citizens of the DRC and of no other country. It also was not established that their personal identities are those they claim. BACKGROUND [3] In the proceedings before the RPD, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship (the Minister) intervened in writing,1 arguing that the principal appellant has a different personal identity than the one she claims. Her fingerprints match those of a person identified by the US authorities as XXXX XXXX XXXX, a citizen of Angola. The Minister also indicates that there was a Facebook social network account in the name of a person called XXXX XXXX XXXX whose photograph corresponds to that of the principal appellant. This person identifies herself as a resident of Luanda, in Angola, who has studied at a university in Peru. [4] Finally, an analysis conducted by the Minister of the identity documents submitted by the appellants in support of their refugee protection claims established that these documents were not genuine, namely, a DRC voter card in the case of the principal appellant, and a civil identity record in the case of the associate appellant. [5] During her testimony before the RPD, the principal appellant stated that she has never studied in Peru and that she was not a citizen of Angola. However, she acknowledged that she has lived in Angola and that she spent several months in Brazil in 2017. She allegedly used a false identity in Angola, under which she was able to obtain Angolan identity documents, including a genuine Angolan passport under this false name. She acknowledged that the Facebook account identified by the Minister was indeed hers and that a friend had created it for her and posted false information. [6] Just before the first day of the RPD hearing, several additional identity documents were presented to establish the principal appellant's identity, namely, a supplemental judgment, a certificate of non-appeal with respect to this judgment, as well as the birth certificates drawn up for the two appellants based on this supplemental judgment. All of this was accompanied by a certificate of Congolese nationality. Then, at the hearing, the panel received as evidence written statements from persons described as the principal appellant's maternal grandparents and one of her uncles, a birth certificate for the associate appellant, a primary school certificate and report cards for the principal appellant, and a criminal record extract. [7] In its written decision, the RPD indicates that that the evidence submitted was not sufficient to establish that the appellants were in fact who they claimed to be and that they had only Congolese citizenship.2 According to the RPD, the principal appellant's testimony was not credible because she adjusted her explanations as the panel pointed out to her the contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence. Her voter card was not genuine because it contained irregularities, such as the fact that it was not signed. The associate appellant's civil status record was also not considered to be genuine because the name of the child's father that was listed on it differs from the one mentioned by the principal appellant during her testimony. It also indicates that the child is married. The principal appellant's certificate of nationality has an error in the name of the person for whom it was issued. Irregularities were also noted in the other documents submitted. The family members' statements are unclear as to the family members' relationships to the principal appellant. Lastly, the associate appellant's birth certificate does not indicate his nationality or that of his parents. [8] The appellants argue that the RPD erred in its assessment of the identity documents that they submitted.3 They are of the opinion that the RPD's decision was unfairly influenced by the impression that fraudulent documents are easy to obtain in the DRC. The appellants also argue that the RPD's decision does not take into account the Chairperson's Guideline on Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution (Guideline 4). In particular, they criticize the RPD for not being sensitive to social and cultural differences when assessing the credibility of the principal appellant's testimony. ANALYSIS [9] The RPD did not fail to apply Guideline 4 or show a lack of cultural sensitivity in its analysis of the evidence. It was faced with an unusual situation, namely, that objective evidence, biometric data, establishes that the principal appellant identified herself using a name and nationality different from the ones listed in the visa application she filed with the US authorities, on three separate occasions in 2017 in both Brazil and Angola. The principal appellant acknowledges that this is significant evidence that undermines her credibility. [10] The principal appellant provided an explanation that the RPD did not find credible, namely, that she successfully used a fictitious name to obtain a genuine Angolan identity document and a genuine Angolan passport. It is not inconceivable that this could have happened, but I am of the opinion that it is unlikely. I consider that the RPD was therefore justified in exercising utmost caution in analyzing other identity documents that the principal appellant submitted. [11] I give significant probative value to the evidence submitted by the Minister, particularly because it is based on biometric data. According to this evidence, the principal appellant is a citizen of Angola, contrary to what she claims. If that is the case, it is not the risk to which she would be subjected in the DRC that is to be assessed, but rather the risk in Angola. Although the principal appellant claims to have used a false identity to obtain a genuine Angolan passport without being a citizen of that country, I rather conclude that the Angolan authorities are presumed to have conducted sufficient checks to ensure that the principal appellant was indeed one of their nationals. [12] It is wrong to claim that the RPD's analysis stems from the impression that the DRC is known as a country where it is easy to obtain fraudulent identity documents. The RPD clearly explains in its decision the deficiencies and irregularities in each of the documents submitted by the appellants. I agree with its conclusion that the appellants' documentary evidence does not establish, on a balance of probabilities, that they are citizens of the DRC and of no other country. In addition, this evidence does not establish that their personal identities are those that they indicate in their refugee protection claims. CONCLUSION [13] The appellants did not establish that they are citizens of the DRC and of no other country. Furthermore, they did not establish that their personal identities correspond to those they claim. [14] The appeals are therefore dismissed. (signed) Philippe Rabot Philippe Rabot November 17, 2020 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 SPR-1, Refugee Protection Division (RPD) record, notice of intervention at pages 130 to 136. 2 Ibid., RPD Reasons and Decision at pages 3 to 17. 3 P-2, appeal record, female appellant's memorandum at pages 19 to 29. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : TB9-10484 TB9-10485 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