VB9-06634

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : VB9-06634 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Ottawa, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision December 14, 2020 Date de la décision Panel Julie Ryan Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Edward Bansah 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 (Appellant) is a citizen of Ghana. He is appealing the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) dated August 2, 2019, rejecting his claim for refugee protection. The Appellant claims that he fears he will be killed due to threats he received from a man named XXXX XXXX as a result of an unpaid loan taken by his deceased father. He also believes XXXX XXXX XXXX teamed up with XXXX XXXXand XXXX XXXX, his uncles, to kill him. The determinative issue in this case for the RPD was credibility. The Appellant is asking the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) to allow the appeal and substitute its own determination that the Appellant is a Convention refugee or person in need of protection or alternatively refer the matter back to the RPD for redetermination. [2] The determinative issue in this appeal is whether the RPD erred in its credibility assessment. No new evidence was submitted in this appeal nor a request for an oral hearing. My reasons are, therefore, based on all the documentary evidence and the oral testimonies before the RPD. The Minister intervened in writing at the RPD but did not do so at appeal. DECISION [3] I dismiss the appeal. The RPD was correct in finding that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. ROLE OF THE RAD [4] My role is to look at all the evidence and decide if the RPD made the correct decision.1 BACKGROUND [5] The Appellant bases his claim on the following allegations. The Appellant used to earn a living making XXXX XXXX. At one point, he lived with a woman for four or five years, and they had a daughter together. While working as a XXXX, the Appellant remembers people from a website called XXXX arriving at his village. They took pictures of the XXXX people and tried to interview them. He did not speak much English and could not communicate with them. He also did not know much about the internet at that time. Due to tourism slowing down because of Ebola and terrorism scares, he decided to start selling XXXX XXXX and accessories. Around 2013, the Appellant began working as XXXX XXXX XXXX assistant, earned XXXX XXXX a day on average working there. He was living alone at the time and he earned enough to live on. In 2015, the Appellant decided to open his own store. He needed XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to open his business. His father volunteered to provide the start-up money by taking a loan from XXXX XXXX XXXX by using his XXXX farm as collateral. His father took a loan with XXXX XXXX XXXX for the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and the Appellant opened his XXXX XXXX business in XXXX 2015. After three months of his business being open, and earning about XXXX XXXX, his father told him to pay XXXX XXXX to XXXX XXXX XXXX. On XXXX XXXX XXXX 2015, the Appellant's business was destroyed due to a nearby gas station explosion which killed over 100 people and surrounding businesses, including his. The next day, while telling his father that he lost his business over the phone, his father had a heart attack and died that day. At the father's funeral, XXXX XXXX XXXX told the Appellant that he would have to pay back his father's loan. XXXX XXXX XXXX did not tell him when to make payments or how much to pay. During this meeting at the funeral, tempers became heated, XXXX XXXX XXXX intervened and said he would expand his business to enable the Appellant to repay the loan to XXXX XXXX XXXX. The Appellant went back to work for XXXX XXXX XXXX; however, he did not expand his business or help the Appellant re-establish his own business. The Appellant came to learn that XXXX XXXX XXXX wanted to take possession of his father's farm and house. He, however, believed that his father's XXXX farm would be worth more than the loan. The house was in a good neighbourhood in town, rather than out in the bush like the farm. In XXXX 2016 in XXXX, the Appellant was attacked by a group of people including many members of the Appellant's family; particularly his two uncles identified previously. His neighbours intervened, during the distraction, the Appellant fled. He was injured and suffered permanent scars during the attack. He fled to Kumasi, where he stayed for three weeks with his friend XXXX XXXX XXXX. Around the third week there, on his way home to his friend's house he noticed uniformed police officers there, so he did not go home. It was later confirmed by his friend that the police were looking for him. He left Kumasi and returned to a different part of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX helped him to get a passport and paid for him to leave Ghana. He unsuccessfully sought refugee protection in the USA and rather than be deported back to Ghana, he came to Canada and made a refugee claim. THE RPD FINDING [6] In addition to the documentary evidence filed for this claim, the RPD heard three witnesses at the hearing: the Appellant, XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX. The RPD found that the Appellant's allegations were not credible for the following reasons: the death certificate of the Appellant's father and the burial permit are not reliable documents as they included discrepancies and internal inconsistencies; he was at times unresponsive in his answers and his testimony about the loan from XXXX XXXX XXXX was very vague; his evidence and that of XXXX XXXX XXXX was not consistent, specifically about the danger from XXXX XXXX XXXX; his knowledge of XXXX XXXX XXXX was vague and sparse; XXXX XXXX testimony did not corroborate the Appellant's allegations as XXXX XXXX XXXX did not have evidence about who is looking for the Appellant or why; and he did not provide sufficient documentation to corroborate his claim. Therefore, the RPD found that the evidence did not establish that the Appellant faced persecution or a risk of harm in Ghana. APPELLANT'S GROUNDS OF APPEAL [7] The Appellant submits that the RPD erred in its credibility analysis by relying on one element, namely that the Appellant's biography on the XXXX website stated the Appellant was married with one child, which was inconsistent with the Appellant's evidence that he lived with a woman for four or five years and had a daughter. The Appellant submits that the XXXX interview was conducted in English, but he is not fluent in English. Furthermore, the Appellant signed a declaration that he was able to read and understand English without verifying whether the person who provided him with the first Basis of Claim (BOC) form made available a qualified interpreter to assist the Appellant. The Appellant further submits that it was important to consider that the Appellant used an interpreter for the hearing. ANALYSIS [8] I have listened to the recordings of the testimonies of the Appellant and his witnesses which took place over three sittings on January 11, 31 and February 5, 2019; reviewed the transcripts of the RPD proceedings of January 31, 2019,2 and February 5, 2019;3 and considered all the documentation before me to conduct an independent assessment of the Appellant's claim, considering his arguments on appeal. I do not find that the RPD erred in its credibility finding. [9] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred because it found the Appellant not credible on the basis that the Appellant's biography on the XXXX website stated that he was married with a child, while his evidence was that he lived with a woman for four or five years and they had a daughter together. [10] The RPD considered the XXXX interview and the Appellant's response to the Minister's evidence when concluding on his identity.4 However, the RPD makes no mention of the XXXX interview in its credibility assessment, nor does it rely on the inconsistency of his marital status in its credibility finding.5 Therefore, I do not agree with the Appellant's argument that the RPD erred in its credibility finding on this basis. [11] The Appellant does not allege that the RPD committed any other errors in its credibility finding. Given that RAD appeals are Appellant driven and the burden rests with the Appellant to demonstrate the RPD was incorrect in its conclusion, having reviewed the RPD reasons for decision in full and the evidence before me, I find the RPD decision was correct. I therefore find that the Appellant does not face a serious possibility of persecution, nor on a balance of probabilities, a danger of torture or a risk to his life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, in Ghana. CONCLUSION [12] 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. (signed) Julie Ryan Julie Ryan December 14, 2020 Date 1 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145. 2 RPD-2, Transcript from RPD hearing dated January 31, 2019. 3 RPD-3, Transcript from RPD hearing dated February 5, 2019. 4 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD reasons for decision, paragraphs 59-63, pages 13-14. 5 Ibid., supra note 4, paragraphs 69-114, pages 15-23. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : VB9-06634 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