TB8-14876

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-14876 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 July 27, 2020 Date de la décision Panel Joel Bousfield Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Sunny Vincent Conseil de la|des 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] This is the decision in the appeal of XXXX XXXX XXXX (the appellant). The appellant is a citizen of Pakistan from XXXX. He appeals a Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decision dated May 25, 2018, rejecting his claim for refugee protection. He is requesting that the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) set aside the RPD's negative determination and find that he is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. In the alternative, he requests that the RAD refer the matter back to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel. He has not requested to submit new evidence. DETERMINATION [2] The RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the decision of the RPD that the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection, pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).1 BACKGROUND Basis of Claim [3] The appellant fears persecution by Daesh because he provided information to Pakistani police which led to the arrest of Daesh terrorists. The rest of the central allegations in the case are summarized in paragraphs [2] - [8] of the RPD decision. RPD Decision [4] The RPD rejected the claim because it found the central allegations not credible. ANALYSIS Determinative Issue [5] The determinative issue in this appeal is therefore whether the RPD erred in assessing the appellant's credibility. For the following reasons, the RAD finds that the RPD's decision is correct. [6] In rendering this decision, the RAD has done an independent assessment of the record. The RAD is reviewing the RPD decision on a standard of correctness. Contradiction [7] The RPD drew a negative credibility inference because the appellant's oral testimony and his Basis of Claim (BOC) form narrative differed as to what happened on December 28, 2015 - see paragraphs [14] through [19] of the RPD decision. His oral testimony indicated that the driver of the vehicle noticed that the appellant had seen the weapons in the trunk of the vehicle and therefore took off from the appellant's XXXX XXXX XXXX. By contrast, the appellant's BOC narrative indicated XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. When the RPD confronted the appellant with this discrepancy, he did not provide an explanation so the RPD therefore drew a negative credibility inference. [8] The appellant argues that there was no discrepancy here and that the RPD should therefore not have drawn a negative credibility inference. The RAD disagrees with this argument. Having reviewed a transcript of the hearing and the contents of the BOC narrative, the RAD agrees with the RPD that there was a discrepancy here just as the RPD identified and that it is a major discrepancy concerning a central allegation. The RAD also agrees that the appellant did not provide an explanation for it when the RPD confronted him about it. The RAD therefore draws a substantial negative inference as to the appellant's credibility and the central allegations in the case. Lack of reasonable corroboration [9] The RPD drew another negative credibility inference because the appellant failed to provide a corroborating letter or declaration from XXXX XXXX XXXX who allegedly witnessed what allegedly occurred on December 28, 2015, and because the appellant admitted that he had not even tried to get anything from XXXX XXXX XXXX when the RPD asked him about it during the hearing. [10] The appellant argues that the RPD should not have drawn this inference because the appellant did not want to involve XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX The RAD disagrees with the argument because it contradicts the appellant's testimony in the hearing. When he was asked about this matter, the appellant did not testify that he did not want to involve XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. He testified that he could get a letter or a declaration if the RPD wanted it, thereby indicating only that he had not bothered to attempt to get one in preparation for the hearing. The RAD therefore concurs with the RPD that the appellant failed to provide reasonable corroboration from XXXX XXXX XXXX in regard to the alleged December 28, 2015 incident without a reasonable explanation. The RAD therefore draws another negative inference as to the appellant's credibility as a witness and the central allegations in the case. [11] The RPD drew another negative credibility inference because the appellant failed to provide any corroborating documents from the police about the alleged event on December 28, 2015 even though he allegedly dealt with several police officers and assisted them in apprehending Daesh terrorists and in foiling a major terrorist attack. The RPD rejected his explanation that the police in Pakistan would not provide any documents for security reasons because the appellant did not try to obtain these documents and because the police allegedly wanted him to be a witness and warned him that his life was in danger thereby indicating that they probably would have provided documents if they had been asked. [12] The appellant argues that the RPD should not have drawn this negative inference. He argues that the Pakistani police are corrupt and would not give him a report without a bribe and would not want to identify informants for security reasons. The appellant also argues that he does not trust the police because they work alongside terrorist organizations and because they want to be seen as solving cases all by themselves. The RAD rejects this argument because the appellant admitted that he did not even try to get this corroboration from the Pakistani police and because it contradicts the appellant's explanation for the lack of this corroboration in the hearing. The appellant testified only that he thought that the police would not provide this corroboration for security reasons and that they want to be seen as solving cases themselves. He did not testify that the police are corrupt and would want a bribe nor that they work for terrorist organizations. Moreover, the RAD concurs with the RPD that the appellant's admission that they allegedly wanted him to be a witness contradicts his explanation that they would not want to identify his information for security reasons. The RAD therefore concurs with the RPD that the appellant failed to provide reasonable corroboration from the police in regard to the alleged December 28, 2015 incident without a reasonable explanation. The RAD therefore draws another negative inference as to the appellant's credibility as a witness and the central allegations in the case. [13] The panel drew another negative credibility inference because the appellant failed to provide any corroborating letters or declarations from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and because a first information report (FIR) concerning it - see below, did not mention that there were any witnesses. The RPD rejected his explanation that he did not realize that such corroboration would be helpful because he was represented by counsel. The RPD also rejected his alternative explanation that they would not want to get involved, because it was pure speculation considering that he had not even attempted to obtain this corroboration. [14] The appellant does not challenge this finding. In its independent analysis, the RAD concurs with the finding for the same reasons. The RAD therefore concurs with the RPD that the appellant failed to provide reasonable corroboration from employees in regard to the alleged XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX without a reasonable explanation. The RAD therefore draws another negative inference as to the appellant's credibility as a witness and the central allegations in the case. Letter and FIR not credible [15] The RPD dismissed a letter and a FIR2 purporting to corroborate the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX because the letter does not bear the stamp of the police station and was written by the appellant, because the contents indicated, contrary to the central allegations, that this incident was a random attack rather than retaliation for what the appellant did to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and because the country documents3 indicate that fraudulent FIRs are available in Pakistan. [16] The appellant does not challenge this finding. In its independent analysis, the RAD concurs with the finding for the same reasons. The RAD is therefore placing no positive weight on the letter and the FIR as proof of the central allegations. The rest of the evidence [17] The appellant did provide a number of other documents to support his claim - several news articles, an affidavit from his brother, an affidavit from his wife, letterhead from his workshop, and a business card.4 Only three of these documents are directly probative of the central allegations - the two affidavits and the newspaper article from the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. With respect to that newspaper article, the RAD is assigning little weight to the newspaper article as proof of the central allegations in light of the availability of fraudulent documents in Pakistan.5 Moreover, the RAD finds these last three documents insufficient to counterweigh all of the negative credibility inferences that the RAD has drawn above in the overall final credibility assessment balance. [18] The RAD therefore finds that the appellant is not a credible or trustworthy witness and that the central allegations in this case are not true, on a balance of probabilities. CONCLUSION [19] The RAD finds that the RPD's credibility analysis is correct. After its independent analysis of the evidence before the RPD, the RAD finds that it has insufficient credible evidence upon which to determine the appellant to be a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. [20] The RAD therefore finds that the appellant does not face a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground and, on a balance of probabilities, would not be personally subjected to a danger of torture or to a risk to his life or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if he returned to Pakistan. [21] The RAD therefore dismisses the appeal and confirms the decision of the RPD that the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection, pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA. (signed) JOEL BOUSFIELD Joel Bousfield JULY 27, 2020 Date 1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended. 2 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, at pp. 78-81. 3 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, National Documentation Package for Pakistan (January 31, 2018), Response to Information Request PAK105021, Item 3.6; Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 64. 4 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibits 5 and 6, at pp. 68-100. 5 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, National Documentation Package for Pakistan (January 31, 2018), Response to Information Request PAK105021, Item 3.6; Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 64. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-14876 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