TB8-07226

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-07226 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 April 25, 2019 Date de la décision Panel M. Pettinella Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Micheal Crane Barrister and Solicitor 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 OF THE APPEAL [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX (the Appellant) alleges that he is at risk in Turkey because of his Alevi faith, his Kurdish ethnicity, and his involvement with the People's Democratic Party (HDP). He alleges he was targeted, arrested, detained, interrogated and assaulted by state security forces on numerous occasions because of his involvement with the HDP. The alleged incidents of persecution at the hands of state security forces started in 2015. The most serious incidents occurred in XXXX of 2017 and XXXX of 2017. The Appellant fled to Canada in XXXX of 2017. After arriving in Canada, the Appellant learned that police had raided his house in Turkey and had physically assaulted his wife. He filed a claim for refugee protection in October of 2017. [2] The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denied the claim, finding that the Appellant was not a credible or trustworthy witness, and the core elements of his claim lack credibility. [3] On appeal, the Appellant submits that the RPD erred in its credibility findings. He also submits he merits protection based on his profile, or residual profile, on a cumulative basis. [4] Having found that the RPD did not err in its credibility findings or in its assessment of the Appellant's residual profile, I am confirming the decision of the RPD and dismissing the appeal. SCOPE OF THE APPEAL [5] As held by the Federal Court of Appeal in Huruglica, the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) is to review decisions of the RPD on a standard of correctness on questions of law, fact, and mixed fact and law, after conducting an independent assessment of the evidence before it.1 The exception to this rule is where the RPD enjoys a meaningful advantage in the assessment and weighing of oral testimony heard.2 Unless otherwise stated, a correctness standard has been applied. ANALYSIS Admissibility of documents not previously provided [6] Following the filing of his record, the Appellant submitted applications under Rule 29 of the Refugee Appeal Division Rules to use documents, and provide further written submissions, not previously provided. The Appellant requests to use the following documents. He maintains that they were filed as soon as reasonably possible. (a) Letter from XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX of the HDP, dated XXXX XXXX, 2018, with an attached (undated) article or pamphlet;3 (b) Letter from Appellant's wife dated XXXX XXXX, 2018;4 (c) Police report dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018;5 (d) Document from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX dated XXXX XXXX, 2018;6 (e) Letter from Appellant's wife and daughter dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018;7 (f) Paragraph 4 of the Appellant's affidavit dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 20188 and (g) Receipt from lawyer, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, dated XXXX XXXX, 2018.9 Letter from XXXX XXXX - Item (a) [7] The Appellant points out that part of the letter from XXXX XXXX contains information that arose after the rejection of his claim - with respect to the authorities inquiring about him. He requests that the balance of the letter be admitted because it provides corroborative information regarding his activities with the HDP, and he could not reasonably have presented it earlier because the author of the letter was only recently elected, and he learned of this only after the rejection of his claim. The Appellant maintains that the evidence is relevant, since it demonstrates that the authorities continue to seek him, it corroborates his activities with the HDP, and is credible because it if from the HDP. Letter from Appellant's wife - item (b) [8] With respect to the letter from his wife, the Appellant applies to file specifically and only the passage that refers to the events of XXXX 2018. He maintains that the letter was filed as soon as reasonably possible. He points out that the letter indicates that police questioned his wife about him in XXXX of 2018 at a celebration of the Newroz, organized by the HDP. He maintains that the evidence is new, since it relates to an event after the rejection, it is relevant since it demonstrates that the authorities continue to seek him, and it is credible because it is from his wife who was a direct witness. Police Report - item (c), document from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX - item (d), letter from Appellant's wife and daughter - item (e), and Paragraph 4 of the Appellant's affidavit - item (f) [9] The Appellant maintains that the evidence identified as items (c), (d), (e) and (f) is relevant since it demonstrates that the authorities continue to seek him, is new since it relates to events after the rejection date, and is credible because the two official documents are certified and the letter is from his wife and daughter who are direct witnesses. Receipt from lawyer XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX - item (g) [10] The Appellant maintains the evidence identified as item (g) is relevant since it corroborates the evidence that official documents were received with the assistance of a lawyer in Turkey, is new since it relates to events that occurred after the rejection, and is credible because it is a receipt from a lawyer. Determination on the admissibility of documents not previously provided [11] I considered the Appellant's explanations for submitting new documents after his appeal record was filed. I note that the Appellant alleges to have requested the documents when he became aware of information that might be helpful to his claim. I also note that there was a delay in getting the documents to Canada and then having them translated. I note that the Appellant's counsel was ill, and absent from work, after the appeal record was filed. Having considered relevant factors, including those mentioned in RAD Rule 29, I am allowing the Appellant's applications to use documents, and provide further written submissions, not previously provided. [12] Also, in my view, items (c), (d), (f) and (g), and portions of items (a), (b) and (e), meet the statutory requirements of subsection 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). These items or portions contain information regarding alleged incidents or circumstances that arose after the rejection of the Appellant's claim for refugee protection. I find that the portions of (a), (b) and (e) pertaining to incidents or circumstances which occurred or arose prior to February 22, 2018 were reasonably available and the Appellant could reasonably have been expected to have obtained and presented them to the RPD prior to the rejection of his claim. Since items (c), (d), (f) and (g), and those portions of (a), (b) and (e) that pertain to incidents or circumstances which occurred or arose after February 22, 2018 meet the test for new evidence, they are accepted in this appeal. Also, only the submissions pertaining to the accepted evidence will be considered. A further assessment of the accepted new evidence is found below. Request for an oral hearing [13] The Appellant requests an oral hearing.10 [14] My jurisdiction to convene an oral hearing is limited: there must be admissible new evidence that raises a serious issue of credibility, is central, and determinative.11 Items (c), (d), (f) and (g), and portions of (a), (b) and (e), have been admitted as new evidence, however they do not meet the criteria for convening an oral hearing. The new evidence does not justify allowing the Appellant's refugee protection claim for the reasons that follow. The Appellant's request for an oral hearing is therefore denied. Findings of the RPD Credibility Appellant's political profile [15] The RPD noted that the Appellant provided inconsistent evidence regarding the date he became a member of the HDP. It also noted that the Appellant was not forthcoming or spontaneous when asked about the process to become a member of the HDP. It drew a negative inference from the inconsistent and evasive evidence provided by the Appellant. [16] The RPD noted that the Appellant was unable to clearly and coherently testify about the process of becoming an executive in the HDP, he was hesitant and questions were repeated several times, and he had difficulty remembering what he did for the party and what his role as an executive in the HDP was. It found on a balance of probabilities that the Appellant was not a member of the executive of the HDP in his province as alleged. [17] The RPD noted the Appellant's oral testimony that he stayed with a friend in Istanbul for a week prior to leaving for Canada, however his written evidence indicates that he left for Canada from XXXX. It drew a negative inference from the inconsistency. [18] The RPD noted that the Appellant provided inconsistent evidence about the timing of the last time police went to his house to look for him and when he learned of it. It found the Appellant's inconsistent evidence diminishes his credibility. The RPD also noted that the Appellant provided inconsistent evidence about what transpired during the police visit, and that he had no explanation for why he did not have any corroborating evidence from his wife. It found on a balance of probabilities that the police are not searching for the Appellant based on his political profile, and that the finding was bolstered by the Appellant's criminal clearance certificate. [19] The RPD noted that the Appellant testified that undercover police started to harass him at his shop in XXXX of 2016, however according to his Basis of Claim Form (BoC) narrative police began to raid his work place in 2015. It drew a negative inference from the Appellant's vague, evasive and contradictory evidence. [20] The RPD noted that the Appellant's overall evidence concerning his participation in campaigns, demonstrations and protests was vague and he could not provide any details about the many demonstration he allegedly attended. It found the Appellant's evidence about his alleged political activities not credible and on a balance of probabilities there is not a reasonable chance of persecution if he is to return to Turkey. [21] The Appellant submits that the RPD erred in failing to properly consider his evidence in light of his five years of education and lack of sophistication. He points out that the RPD did not believe he was a member of the HDP executive, and submits that it is irrational to find that someone is sophisticated based on an allegation that is rejected for credibility reasons. He maintains that his business is not functioning, and points out that his first visa application was refused because of his limited income. He submits that the RPD erred in finding that owning property means that someone will be able to understand and communicate with sophistication. [22] While the Appellant concedes that he was discrepant as the RPD describes regarding his HDP membership, he submits that the RPD ought to have given him the benefit of the doubt, given his limited education. He maintains that the RPD erred in finding his explanation as not plausible regarding how one became a member of the executive. He maintains that he was inarticulate about how the executive was elected and the RPD ought to have given him the benefit of the doubt. He maintains that the RPD erred in being microscopic in its findings about his whereabouts during the last few weeks he was in Turkey, and should have given him the benefit of the doubt regarding when he called his wife and learned that police had raided his house. He attributes the lack of letters from his family to being unrepresented and his limited education, and submits that the RPD should have given him the benefit of the doubt. [23] I do not accept that the Appellant's lack of sophistication, or that having five years of education, explains the anomalies in his testimony. His claim is based on his political involvement, including his allegation that he was a member of the executive committee of the HDP. He was able to testify that he became a member of the HDP, how he became an executive of the HDP, and that he protested during the attempted coup. All despite his alleged lack of sophistication and limited education. The Appellant does not need to be sophisticated or educated to provide consistent evidence without omissions regarding important events, or to have sufficient knowledge reasonably expected of a person with his alleged political involvement. [24] The RPD was not wrong in its consideration of the Appellant's education and background in assessing credibility. The RPD noted that the Appellant has a grade 5 education, however, he runs a successful business, owns property, and alleges to have been elected to the executive of the HDP. The Appellant testified at his hearing that he was a successful businessman in Turkey. He also testified that he owned land in Turkey and sold it before he came to Canada. The RPD also noted that the Appellant has been able to provide higher education for his children. It noted that the Appellant's daughters are in university and high school. The Appellant has travelled outside of Turkey on a number of occasions, including to Canada previously, and to France, Switzerland and Cuba. In my view, the Appellant's profile, even excluding his alleged membership in the HDP executive, does not reflect that of someone who lacks sophistication. [25] I also disagree with the Appellant that he should be given the benefit of the doubt with respect to anomalies in his evidence, including his testimony at the hearing. The Appellant's account of events, and his circumstances, are not credible for the reasons that follow. The Appellant lacked sufficient knowledge reasonably expected of a person with his alleged political involvement. He was vague in his testimony regarding his alleged political activities. He provided inconsistent evidence regarding significant aspects of his claim. His allegations run contrary to the evidence in the record. In my view, it is inappropriate to apply the benefit of the doubt to anomalies in the Appellant's evidence or to establish the Appellant's claim. [26] The Appellant provided inconsistent evidence regarding the date he became a member of the HDP. He was unable to clearly and coherently testify about the process of becoming an executive in the HDP. He provided inconsistent evidence regarding his whereabouts the week before he last departed for Canada. He provided inconsistent evidence about the timing of police going to his house to look for him (around the time he left Turkey) and when he learned of it. He provided vague, evasive and contradictory evidence about when police began to raid his business or harass him at his business. He provided vague evidence, lacking in detail, concerning his participation in campaigns, demonstrations and protests. I find that these anomalies seriously undermine the Appellant's credibility and the credibility of his allegations. [27] The RPD was not wrong to find on a balance of probabilities that the Appellant was not a member of the executive of the HDP as alleged. It was also not wrong to find the Appellant's evidence about his alleged political activities not credible and on a balance of probabilities there is not a reasonable chance of persecution if he is to return to Turkey. Having reviewed the evidence, I find the same. The Appellant's allegations of detention [28] The RPD noted that the Appellant's testimony at the hearing about being taken to the police and questioned was contradictory, confusing and incoherent. It noted that he provided no corroborating evidence from his business partner, and failed to mention in his BoC that his business partner left XXXX because he is being sought by police. The RPD drew a negative inference from the Appellant's inconsistent and evasive evidence. [29] The RPD noted the Appellant's allegation that he sustained injuries while in detention in XXXX of 2017. It noted that the Appellant provided no medical documents to corroborate the treatment of his injuries. It noted that the Appellant could not provide clear and convincing evidence why police would detain and release him on a promise to quit the HDP. It found on a balance of probabilities that the Appellant was not detained on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017. [30] The RPD noted the Appellant's testimony that he left XXXX from XXXX to XXXX of 2017 to go into hiding in XXXX, but that he would come and go to attend his business and see his family in secret. It found that the Appellant's actions of applying for a new identity card and attending his work place do not indicate that he was in hiding in another town because of his fear of persecution. It noted that the Appellant had a valid visa for Canada and yet did not come to Canada in XXXX of 2017 and instead went into hiding for three months in another town. The RPD found that the Appellant was not in hiding for three months because his documents do not indicate that he lived in XXXX from XXXX to XXXX of 2017. [31] The RPD noted that the Appellant testified he was detained on XXXX XXXX, 2017 for three days, however his BoC narrative does not state how many days he was detained or the date of his release. It gave the note from a doctor no weight since it is not on hospital letterhead, and is typed on regular paper by an unidentified person who is a radiologist. The RPD also noted that the Appellant failed to provide any supporting documents from his family. It noted that the Appellant testified at the start of his hearing that, one week after leaving Turkey or his hometown, police came looking for him, however, at the end of the hearing he testified that his wife was pushed by police in XXXX 2017 when they came a second time to look for him. The RPD found that the Appellant embellished his testimony and that the police have not been searching for him. The RPD also noted that according to his Schedule A, the Appellant was detained for 1.5 days starting on XXXX XXXX, 2017, not three days as he testified at the hearing. It drew a negative inference from the Appellant's inconsistent evidence and found on a balance of probabilities that the Appellant was not detailed in 2017 and the authorities are not searching for him. It also found that the Appellant does not have a political profile which would put him at risk of persecution. [32] The Appellant submits that he should have been given the benefit of the doubt - in relation to the RPD noting that he did not have a letter from his business partner and no medical corroborate of his injuries. He submits that the RPD was microscopic in its findings regarding his relocation to XXXX, and maintains that, while he took some precautions, he did not go entirely into hiding. He submits that the RPD erred in giving no weight to the doctor's letter and points out that there is a wet-seal stamp on the letter, which he maintains is a badge of authenticity. He submits that he ought to have been given the benefit of the doubt regarding the omission of the XXXX 2017 police search in his written evidence. [33] As mentioned above, it is inappropriate to apply the benefit of the doubt to anomalies in the Appellant's evidence or to establish the Appellant's claim. The anomalies in the Appellant's evidence are regarding significant aspects of his claim and not microscopic as alleged. [34] The Appellant indicated at his hearing that he was in hiding (in XXXX) for three months after he was arrested and detained in XXXX of 2017. However, he also indicated that he was regularly going back to XXXX by bus for business reasons. In my view, that is hardly being in hiding. The Appellant testified at his hearing that he was arrested on XXXX XXXX, 2017 and detained for three days. However, according to his Schedule A, he was detained for 1.5 days.12 The Appellant alleges that he travelled to Istanbul in XXXX of 2017 and resided there for one week before he came to Canada; however, according to his Schedule A, he was residing in XXXX until he came to Canada.13 [35] The Appellant also provided inconsistent evidence regarding when police raided his house after he left Turkey, and when he learned of this. I note that despite authorities allegedly looking for the Appellant and questioning and physically assaulting his wife after he failed to report to the police, no credible evidence was presented to indicate that an arrest warrant has been issued against him. One would expect that had the Appellant been a person of interest as alleged, and having failed to report to police - allegedly a condition of his last release from detention, the authorities would have issued a warrant for his arrest after months of searching for him to no avail. [36] In light of the above, it is inconsistent with the documentary evidence that, according to the Appellant and the letter from the HDP,14 the police continued looking for him after he left Turkey. This is problematic considering the Appellant was able to travel to Canada from the Istanbul airport on his own passport and he received an exit stamp from authorities. Documentary evidence for Turkey indicates that police are responsible for passport control and that Turkish authorities require a list of passengers on all incoming and outgoing flights prior to departure, which is shared with Turkish authorities.15 In light of this evidence, I find it unlikely that had his family members and the HDP been visited multiple times after his departure, they would not have simply informed the police that he left the country in order to avoid constant harassment about his whereabouts. It is also unbelievable that since the police possess the ability to easily determine whether he left the country, they still continued to visit the Appellant's family members and the HDP branch looking for him when he did not report. As a result, I draw a negative credibility inference with respect to the Appellant's allegation that the police are searching for the Appellant and that he was detained and beaten as alleged. [37] The Appellant's evidence regarding his alleged detentions in Turkey and being sought by police in Turkey is fraught with irregularities that have not been reasonably explained. The RPD was not wrong to find on a balance of probabilities that the Appellant was not detained in 2017 and the authorities are not searching for him. It was also not wrong to find that the Appellant does not have a political profile which would put him at risk of persecution. Having considered the evidence, I find the same. Appellant's Kurdish Ethnicity [38] The RPD accepted on a balance of probabilities that the Appellant is Kurdish. While it accepted that Kurdish people in Turkey face discrimination and harassment, and individuals of particular profiles may face persecution, it found that the evidence does not suggest that someone with the Appellant's profile has faced such treatment on the basis of his ethnicity that would amount to persecution. It noted that the Appellant is a successful businessman who has been able to provide higher education for his children and he has traveled without problems over the years, around and outside Turkey. He was able to leave Turkey for Canada several times since the attempted coup in July of 2016, with no difficulties at the Istanbul airport. The RPD found that the Appellant's circumstances do not indicate that his Kurdish ethnicity has been an issue in his alleged treatment by the Turkish government. It found that the Appellant did not provide credible evidence that he was persecuted because of his Kurdish ethnicity or that he would be at risk of persecution if he is to return to Turkey. [39] The Appellant makes no specific allegation of error in the RPD's findings regarding his Kurdish ethnicity and I see none. I agree with the RPD and find that the Appellant's circumstances do not indicate that his Kurdish ethnicity has been an issue in his alleged treatment by the Turkish government. I find that the Appellant did not provide credible evidence that he was persecuted because of his Kurdish ethnicity or that he would be at risk of persecution if he is to return to Turkey. Appellant's Alevi religion [40] The RPD found on a balance of probabilities that the Appellant is of the Alevi religion. Based on his testimony, the RPD found that the Appellant is not deeply involved in the Alevi religion. The RPD found on a balance of probabilities that the Appellant does not have a forward-facing risk of persecution in Turkey based on his Alevi religion. It noted that the Appellant testified that he had problems with the police when he went to activities, but could not give any specific examples of being persecuted based on his religion, or whether these activities were connected to being an Alevi. It noted that the Appellant seemed confused about being surveilled or stopped by police for Kurdish versus Alevi activities. The RPD noted the Appellant's testimony that in 2015 he was prevented from going to the Cem house by police, however this was omitted in his BoC narrative. The RPD found that the Appellant embellished his testimony at the hearing and it drew a negative credibility inference from the confusing and inconsistent evidence he provided. The RPD found that the objective evidence confirms that Alevis with the Appellant's profile may face discrimination, but that it would not amount to persecution. [41] The RPD considered documentary evidence regarding the situation and treatment of Alevis after the coup attempt. It found on a balance of probabilities that there is no evidence that an Alevi individual would face treatment that amounts to persecution in XXXX. Although the Appellant alleged experiencing harassment due to his ethnic and religious background, the RPD found that he failed to establish his risk of persecution based on his ethnic or religious background. It noted that the Appellant did not allege that he fled Turkey because of his religion or the alleged harassment he experienced because of his religion. The RPD found that the Appellant does not have a forward-facing risk of persecution due to his Alevi religion or Kurdish ethnicity. [42] The Appellant makes no specific allegation of error in the RPD's findings regarding his Alevi religion and I see none. I agree with the RPD and find that the Appellant does not have a forward-facing risk of persecution due to his Alevi religion or Kurdish ethnicity. Subjective fear, re-availment, delay in departure [43] The RPD noted that while the Appellant alleges to have been persecuted over a long period of time as a politically active Kurd/Alevi, he continually re-availed to the country of alleged persecution, from 2014 until XXXX 2017, when he last entered Canada. It noted that the Appellant first came to Canada in 2014 and continued to visit Canada several times and had no problems exiting or entering Turkey, even though he alleges that he was politically active and had problems with the authorities since 1993 and that his fingerprints and photos were taken when he was allegedly detained in XXXX 2017. It noted that the Appellant came to Canada in XXXX 2016, after the attempted coup in July of 2016, and had no problems leaving Turkey. It noted that the documentary evidence indicates that many members of the HDP had been detained and banned from leaving the country after the attempted coup in July of 2016, and expected the Appellant to have had some issues leaving Turkey in XXXX of 2016 if he has the elevated profile of an HDP executive member. It noted that the Appellant was in possession of a valid Canadian visa and expected him to have left for Canada after being released from detention in XXXX of 2017. The RPD found the Appellant's delay in leaving Turkey to seek protection at the first opportunity, and his many re-availments, significantly diminish his credibility and indicates a lack of subjective fear. [44] The Appellant points out that he stated in his BoC narrative that he decided to flee Turkey after he was released in XXXX of 2017. He submits that the delay must be assessed from when the refugee claimant says a fear of persecution exists. He refers to decisions of the Federal Court indicating that if a fear is based on a cumulation of events, it is an error in principle to begin the "delay clock" at the point where the events start or some arbitrary point during that time. [45] Re-availments - I agree with the RPD that the Appellant's re-availments to Turkey on several occasions significantly diminish his credibility and indicates a lack of subjective fear. The re-availments undermine the Appellant's allegation he is being targeted by authorities due to his political profile. His allegation that his political profile is sufficiently high to be a target by authorities is also undermined by his ability to leave and re-enter Turkey without having any difficulties from the Turkish authorities. Specifically, I note that he was able to do so after the attempted coup as well, when he travelled to Canada in XXXX of 2016 and returned to Turkey in XXXX of 2017, without experiencing any difficulties. This is despite his allegation that his profile as an HDP member and his political involvement was heightened due to the crackdown on opposition forces, such as himself, after the attempted coup. I find the Appellant's re-availments to Turkey undermine his credibility with regards to his subjective fear of returning to Turkey, and further undermine the credibility of his allegations and his overall credibility. [46] Delay in Leaving - With respect to his delay in departing Turkey, I agree with the RPD that one would expect the Appellant to have left for Canada in XXXX of 2017, if he had been detained as alleged. The Appellant was in possession of a valid Canadian visa at the time. However, he did not leave Turkey for more than four months until XXXX XXXX, 2017. The Appellant's delay in leaving Turkey was not adequately explained. I draw a negative inference that the Turkish authorities are after him as alleged. I find the Appellant's delay in departure further undermines his credibility with regards to his subjective fear of returning to Turkey, his allegations and his overall credibility. [47] Ability to leave Turkey - I acknowledge that the Appellant stated that he had the assistance of an agent to facilitate his exit from Turkey. However, I find the Appellant's ability to leave Turkey on his own passport undermines the credibility of his allegation that the authorities are interested in him. [48] The Appellant indicates in his BoC narrative that, at the Istanbul airport, his agent spoke to the passport official on his behalf and he was allowed to proceed without incident. At his hearing, when asked what his agent did for him, the Appellant said that he assisted him getting through customs without any problem. I find the Appellant's description about how the smuggler assisted him in exiting Turkey to be vague and, in light of the documentary evidence, an unsatisfactory explanation for how he did not experience difficulties when exiting Turkey. [49] The documentary evidence shows that the passport issued to the Appellant was a passport that uses biometrics to authenticate the identity of the traveller. It uses contactless smart card technology, including a microprocessor chip (computer chip) and antenna (both to power the chip and for communication), which is embedded in the passport enabling security forces to scan the document without direct contact. Turkey's biometric passports are "second generation MRTD [machine-readable travel document] passports with photographic biometric capabilities". The chip inside the passport contains information about the passport holder's face (such as the distance between the eyes, nose, mouth and ears), as well as the information contained on the personal details page of the passport. An individual will be stopped if he or she is wanted for anything (e.g., if the individual is a criminal wanted by Interpol or wanted within Turkey) through the government's database. Also, some passengers may be subject to random security check at the point of boarding. Turkish authorities also require a list of passengers on all incoming and outgoing flights prior to departure, which is sent to both the destination country's authorities and to the Turkish Ministry of Customs and Trade.16 [50] In light of the documentary evidence, and considering the Appellant's passport was stamped by Turkish border officials each time the Appellant exited Turkey,17 I find it is not plausible that the Appellant was able to exit Turkey if he was wanted due to his political activities as he has alleged. I find that the presence of the stamps indicate that the Appellant's identity was verified by border control officials. Furthermore, even if the agent assisting the Appellant was able to circumvent some of the security measures, I find the covert capabilities of the biometric passport would identify the Appellant when he exited and entered Turkey. Corroborating evidence [51] HDP letter - The RPD gave no probative weight to a short letter allegedly from the XXXX of the HDP XXXX XXXX XXXX. It noted that the letter does not contain a letterhead or identity document for the writer. It found that it is not reliable corroborating evidence since the Appellant could not provide any corroborating evidence about who the author is, how it came from Turkey by his brother-in-law, and whether it was genuinely issued by the HDP. [52] The Appellant maintains that, in the context of the tormented and fraught environment of opposition politics in Turkey, it is plausible that letters from the local chapter of the HDP might be less formal. He maintains that it is plausible that with many members and supporters being arrested, the party is losing experienced members and other resources, exactly as the government appears to intend. He points out that the letter contains a wet ink stamp, and submits that the RPD erred in finding that the stamp was printed. He also points out that there was no evidence regarding the format of HDP letters and points to jurisprudence indicating that the RPD has no special expertise in relation to foreign documents. [53] I give the letter from the HDP no weight in terms of establishing the Appellant's allegations and political profile. The Appellant was not credible in his evidence about his HDP membership and his executive committee member status within the HDP. He was inconsistent in his testimony regarding his membership with the HDP, including his membership in the executive committee. Moreover, his testimony was vague and lacking in detail regarding his alleged political activities. Also, that the lack of letterhead, or an address or any other contact information for the HDP branch and author of the letter, detracts from its credibility and trustworthiness, as there is no way to independently verify the content of the letter. One would expect the letterhead of a national political party to include the address and telephone number of the organization. [54] Furthermore, I note that the letter from the HDP states that police questioned the author about the Appellant in XXXX of 2017, and police threatened the author after he told police the Appellant had not resigned from the party. However, despite these significant details, the Appellant fails to mention anything about them in his BoC. The omission further undermines the Appellant's credibility and the credibility of his allegations. It also adversely impacts the weight I give the letter. I find on a balance of probabilities that the police did not question the author about the Appellant in XXXX of 2017. [55] HDP membership/receipt - The RPD considered a receipt from the HDP for the Appellant's membership. It noted that the Appellant testified that he obtained the receipt when he became a member in 2014; however he later testified that the XXXX of the HDP gave the receipt to his brother-in-law to bring to Canada. The RPD found it illogical that the HDP would have the receipt of the Appellant's membership, when the Appellant should have been in possession of it. The RPD also noted an inconsistency in the amount or frequency of membership fees between the Appellant's testimony and the receipt. It noted that according to the Appellant he provided photos to the HDP to become a member, however the Appellant's photo does not appear in the space for a photo on the receipt. The RPD gave no weight to the receipt as an indication of the Appellant's HDP membership. It found the receipt is not reliable corroborating evidence. It found it more likely than not that the Appellant fabricated the receipt to advance a claim in Canada. [56] The Appellant submits that the RPD erred in finding that it was illogical that the HDP had the receipt since the evidence is that his brother-in-law had been given the receipt from the local HDP office. The Appellant also submits that, in fairness, the alleged contradiction concerning the membership should have been put to him. He maintains that there was no basis to dispute his evidence that he had paid 500 Lira to the HDP. [57] In my view, considering the Appellant's testimony, the RPD was not wrong to find it illogical that the HDP would have the receipt for the Appellant's membership. The Appellant indicated at his hearing that he was given his HDP membership application form/receipt in XXXX of 2014. Since the Appellant alleges he had the application form/receipt, it does not make sense that the Appellant's brother-in-law obtained it from the HDP. While the Appellant alleges that he paid 500 Lira to the HDP, there is no indication of this payment on the application/receipt. The only indication of membership fees in the document is the monthly fee of 5 TL (Turkish Lira). [58] I give the HDP membership/receipt no weight in terms of establishing the Appellant's allegations and political profile. Besides the irregularities noted above, the Appellant was not credible in his evidence about his HDP membership and his executive committee member status within the HDP. The RPD was not wrong to find that the membership/receipt is not reliable corroborating evidence and more likely than not fabricated. [59] Alevi letter - The RPD considered a letter from the Alevi Cultural Association in XXXX. It noted that it was unclear how the letter was issued and given to the Appellant when he was allegedly in Istanbul on the date the letter was written. It also noted that the letter states that the Appellant was approved for membership in XXXX 2013, when the Appellant's evidence indicates he was raised in an Alevi religion and his brother is an elder in the Alevi religion. The RPD gave little weight to the letter as an indication that the Appellant's Alevi affiliation puts him at risk of persecution. [60] The Appellant makes no specific allegation of error in the RPD's findings regarding the Alevi letter and I see none. I agree with the RPD and give little weight to the letter as an indication that the Appellant's Alevi affiliation puts him at risk of persecution. [61] Photographs - The RPD considered photographs the Appellant provided of himself with other men and his family during Kurdish celebrations. It noted that there are no identifying indications on the photos such as whether the men are members of the HDP or are politically active. It noted that there is nothing to indicate the men are politicians or why the Appellant was in the photos. The RPD gave no weight to the photos as indicating the Appellant would be wanted by the authorities based on his political opinion. [62] The Appellant points out that when he was asked what was on the photos, he testified that they were members of parliament at May Day activities and the Maresh Massacre commemoration, and when asked about a particular photo, he said that it was a member of parliament and gave the individual's name. He admits he was silent when asked what he wanted the RPD to take from the photo. He submits that while it is true he did not put captions on the photos, there is no substantive difference between him testifying as to who is on the photos and writing it down. [63] In my view, the photographs deserve no weight in terms of establishing the Appellant's allegations. The photos merely depict individuals at various events in different locations.18 Even if some of the individuals depicted are politicians as the Appellant indicated at his hearing, there is no indication that they are linked to the Appellant or the allegations in his claim. The RPD was not wrong to give no weight to the photos in terms of indicating the Appellant would be wanted by the authorities based on his political opinion. New Evidence Letter from XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX of the HDP, dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, with an attached (undated) article or pamphlet [64] The Appellant points out that the letter from the HDP confirms a visit by authorities to the office of the HDP in XXXX of 2018. He submits that this evidence demonstrates that the authorities continue to search for him. [65] The new letter from the HDP states that police officers questioned the author about the Appellant in XXXX of 2018, and police insulted the author when they were told that the Appellant is still a member of the party. As mentioned above, the first letter from the HDP contained significant details about police questioning the author about the Appellant in XXXX of 2017 - an incident that was omitted from the Appellant's BoC. I have I found that police did not question the author of the first letter about the Appellant in XXXX of 2017. I note that the author of the new letter fails to mention the alleged incident in XXXX of 2017, even though the author of each letter allegedly held or hold the same office. While the author of the new letter confirms the details of the first letter, I have found that the alleged XXXX 2017 incident mentioned in the first letter is not credible and did not occur. This undermines the credibility of the information in the new letter. [66] Furthermore, I find that the lack of letterhead, or an address or any other contact information for the HDP branch or author, also detracts from its credibility and trustworthiness, as there is no way to independently verify the content of the letter. One would expect a letter from a national political party to include a letterhead and the address and telephone number of the organization. In light of these concerns, and since the Appellant has been found to lack credibility with respect to his involvement with the HDP and its consequences, I give the new HDP letter no weight in terms of establishing he is a high profile member in the HDP party, or that he was arrested and detained in Turkey for his political activities as alleged. Letter from Appellant's wife, letter from Appellant's wife and daughter, and paragraph 4 of the Appellant's affidavit [67] The Appellant maintains that the letter from his wife shows that the authorities continue to seek him. He points out that his wife indicates in her letter that she was questioned by the police in XXXX of 2018 at a Newroz celebration organized by the HDP, she was slapped when she told police she did not know where the Appellant was, she was insulted by police, and she was told that the Appellant would be punished when he was caught by police. He submits that this evidence demonstrates that the authorities continue to search for him. He also submits that the letter from his wife and daughter and the WhatsApp message mentioned in his affidavit show that the authorities continue to seek him. [68] The Appellant and his allegations have been found to lack credibility. This extends to his new allegation that police are still looking for him in Turkey. It has been found that the Appellant was not detained in 2017, and the authorities are not searching for him in Turkey. The letters from his wife and daughter indicating that police are still searching for him do not make his allegations credible. Corroboration does not make an incredible story credible.19 I give the letters and evidence regarding the WhatsApp message no weight in terms of establishing the Appellant's allegations that the authorities are after him for the reasons he alleges and that he was detained and beaten by the authorities as alleged. Police report and document from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX [69] The Appellant maintains that the police report and document from the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX demonstrate that the authorities continued to search for him after his refugee claim was rejected. He submits that this evidence overcomes any infelicities in his testimony. [70] I disagree with the Appellant. The documents from the police and XXXX XXXX refer to correspondence requesting the address of the Appellant for the issuance of a summons. However, the correspondence referred to is not attached to the documents and there is no indication why a summons was requested. One would need to see the related correspondence to determine the relevance of the documents. The absence of the related correspondence undermines the probative value of the documents. The Appellant and his allegations have been found to lack credibility. The documents from the police and security department lack probative value. I find that the documents deserve no weight in terms of establishing the Appellant's allegations that the authorities are after him for the reasons he alleges and that he was detained and beaten by the authorities as alleged. Receipt from lawyer, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX [71] The Appellant maintains that the receipt from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX demonstrates that his wife and daughter retained a lawyer to obtain official documents - the police report and document from the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX noted above. He submits that this evidence overcomes any infelicities in his testimony. [72] I accept that the Appellant's wife and daughter retained a lawyer in Turkey. However, the official documents have been found to lack probative value and deserve no weight in terms of establishing the Appellant's allegations. For the same reasons, the lawyer's receipt also deserves no weight in terms of establishing the Appellant's allegations. Residual profile - cumulative persecution [73] The Appellant submits that his evidence regarding his fear due to his Kurdish ethnicity and Alevi faith, combined with any other evidence deemed credible, merits a finding that he merits protection under section 96 on a cumulative basis. He maintains that if his evidence is found to be credible, he is liable to being harassed, detained and/or arrested. He maintains that torture is a systemic practice in Turkey. He submits that this is sufficient to justify a finding that he merits protection. He points to documentary evidence which describes torture and mistreatment and rape and very difficult conditions of detention. [74] In my view, the Appellant's argument fails for the following reasons. I have found above that the Appellant is not credible in the central allegations of detention and mistreatment by Turkish authorities, and that he has not credibly established he is involved in the HDP as alleged. [75] I note the following in relation to the Appellant's Kurdish ethnicity. The Appellant indicated at his hearing that he is a successful businessman in Turkey. He has been able to provide higher education for his children. He owned land in Turkey which he sold before he last came to Canada. He co-owns an apartment in Turkey with his elder sister. He travelled to Canada on four occasions prior to his last entry in XXXX of 2017, and had also travelled to Switzerland, France and Cuba between 2013 and 2016. He had no difficulties leaving Turkey or returning to Turkey. As found above, the Appellant's circumstances do not indicate that his Kurdish ethnicity has been an issue in his alleged treatment by the Turkish government, and the Appellant did not provide credible evidence that he was persecuted because of his Kurdish ethnicity or that he would be at risk of persecution if he were to return to Turkey. [76] The Appellant is not deeply involved in the Alevi religion. He did not allege that he fled Turkey because of his religion or the alleged harassment he experienced because of his religion. While the objective evidence confirms that Alevis with the Appellant's profile may face discrimination in Turkey, it would not amount to persecution. As found above, the Appellant does not have a forward-facing risk of persecution due to his Alevi religion if he were to return to Turkey. [77] The documentary evidence the Appellant points to is in relation to torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment against detainees. However, the Appellant's allegations regarding his detention and mistreatment, and being pursued by the authorities has been found to be not credible. Also, there is no indication in the record that the authorities have specifically targeted the Appellant because of his Kurdish ethnicity or Alevi religion. [78] With respect to the Appellant's cumulative experiences in Turkey allegedly amounting to persecution, since I find that the Appellant was generally not credible and that he failed to establish with credible and trustworthy evidence that he was detained and mistreated in Turkey, I find there is no need to consider this issue. [79] After reviewing the totality of the evidence in the record, I find the Appellant is not a credible witness and has not established with sufficient credible and trustworthy evidence that he is of interest to Turkish authorities if he returned to Turkey. The Appellant has not credibly established that he is an HDP member, or one who possesses a political profile that would put him at risk. Nor has he credibly established that he was arrested, detained and physically assaulted by Turkish authorities in XXXX or XXXX of 2017. Therefore, I conclude the Appellant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution on a Convention ground, or that he would not personally be subjected to a risk to life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or a danger of torture upon return to Turkey. Conclusion [80] After conducting my own analysis of the record, I find that the RPD did not err in its credibility findings or in its assessment of the Appellant's residual profile. DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL [81] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection, pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA.20 (signed) "M. Pettinella" M. Pettinella April 25, 2019 Date 1 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93, para. 103. 2 Ibid., paras. 69-74. 3 Exhibit P-3, Application to receive new documents and submissions received June 20, 2018, at pp. 3-4, 15A-15B. 4 Ibid., at pp. 5-7. 5 Exhibit P-4, Application to receive new documents and submissions received August 17, 2018, at pp. 4-5. 6 Ibid., at pp. 6-7. 7 Ibid., at pp. 8-9. 8 Ibid., at p. 1, para. 4. 9 Exhibit P-5, Application to receive new documents and submissions received November 1, 2018, at p. 5. 10 Exhibit P-3, at p. 21, para. 2. 11 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), S.C. 2001, c. 27, ss. 110(6). 12 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 50, section 6. 13 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 52, section 12. 14 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 131-132. 15 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Turkey, 31 March 2017, item 14.3, at p. 3. 16 Ibid., items 3.4, and 14.3. 17 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 63-72. 18 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 144-156. 19 Gomez, Hector Cisneros v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-5741-04), Harrington, June 16, 2005, 2005 FC 859. 20 Paragraph 111(1)(a), Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27. [IRPA]. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-07226 RAD.25.02 (April 04, 2018) Disponible en français 21 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