MB9-12821

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MB9-12821 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 October 28, 2020 Date de la décision Panel Susan Brown Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Jean Rousseau Dorismé 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] The Appellant XXXX XXXX XXXX is a citizen of Ghana who fears officers from the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) who extorted money from him. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) found that the evidence of the Appellant was not credible. The Appellant submits that the RPD erred in its credibility analysis. [2] Following my own review, I agree with the RPD that the Appellant did not credibly establish his claim for protection. 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. BACKGROUND [4] In 2011 the Appellant was deported to Ghana by American authorities after living and working in the United States since 1993 under a false identity. The Appellant claims that upon his return to Ghana two officers from the CID regularly extorted money from him. When he refused to pay in XXXX 2015 the CID officers beat him. The Appellant reported the two CID officers to the police three times. In XXXX 2015 the Appellant's work arranged a Canadian visa for him to attend a conference in XXXX 2016. [5] The Appellant's claim for refugee protection was received on April 7, 2016, His first hearing on June 6, 2016 was adjourned for the RPD to determine if the Minister of Public Safety (Minister) wanted to intervene pursuant to section 1(F)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). By letter dated June 28, 2016 the Minister advised that it would not intervene. The Appellant's counsel was not available at the next hearing date on July 7, 2016 and the hearing was adjourned with a continuation to be determined. It transpired that the Appellant's counsel was suspended. The Appellant received notice to return to the RPD on January 10, 2019 but his new counsel was not available, so the hearing was adjourned to March 15, 2019. ANALYSIS [6] The RPD identified the determinative issue as credibility. [7] The RPD made a negative credibility finding based on omissions in the Appellant's original Basis of Claim form (BOC) received on April 7, 2016, his delay in leaving Ghana after being beaten by the CID agents in XXXX 2015, inconsistent evidence about where he lived in hiding while still working after the alleged beating and his history of misrepresentation having lived in the United States for 18 years under a different identity. [8] The Appellant argues that the RPD made a number of errors. Regarding the omission, the Appellant amended his BOC on March 4, 2019 to add the information that he was beaten by CID officers. The RPD made an improper negative finding on the basis that the medical and police reports were presented a few months after the BOC. The RPD improperly rejected the medical report because it did not believe that the Appellant was beaten by the CID agents. The RPD failed to address the totality of the evidence and the "fond de sujet" background subject [trans]: pervasive corruption in Ghana. [9] I have reviewed the evidence on the record, including the June 6, 2016 and March 15, 2019 hearings, and considered the Appellant's submissions. As detailed below, I find that the Appellant did not, on a balance of probabilities, credibly establish his claim that he would be subjected to a risk to life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or a danger of torture from CID officers upon return to Ghana. Omissions [10] The RPD made a negative credibility finding because the Appellant omitted any reference in his original BOC: to being beaten by the two CID officers; that the CID officers continued to look for him after his departure; and, to his blog posts criticizing the government of Ghana. [11] The Appellant's original BOC received on April 7, 2015 said the following in response to questions 2a) and b): Après mon arrivé des USA d'où j'ai été expulsé, des policiers de " CID " ont commencé à me demander de l'argent du fait que ce sont eux qui m'ont reçu à mon arrivé à Ghana. Je devais à chaque mois leur remettre le tiers de mon salaire, soit environ XXXX dollars par mois. Devant mon refus on m'a emmené pour interrogatoire me faisant savoir que si je n'obéissais pas, on me rendrait la vie infernale. 1 J'ai dénoncé leurs agissements et eux m'ont accusé que je me livrais à des activités illégales pour justifier leur nombreuses visites à mon lieu de travail et ma résidence.2 [12] On March 4, 2019 the Appellant faxed a different response to question 2a)3 which said that XXXX days after he arrived in Ghana, on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2011, the Appellant went to the offices of the CID, was told that they were still waiting for the reports from the American authorities and that he should come back in XXXX days and every XXXX days thereafter. Upon leaving the office, the Appellant was asked for US$XXXX to regularize the situation. The Appellant gave them the money. He returned to CID offices on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2011 expecting everything to be finished but was told that the CID had not heard from the American authorities and "que je devis rester a leur disposition." At the end of XXXX XXXX the CID came to the Appellant's place of work demanding US$XXXX and they came again at the end of XXXX. This continued each month until XXXX 2015 when the Appellant decided not to pay anymore. On XXXX XXXX XXXX 2015 the CID officers came to the Appellant's home and when he refused to pay, they hit him savagely in the face and on his body. Je me suis dirigé vers le bureau chef et demandais à parler au superviseur. Une fois devant lui, je l'informais de ce qui venait de m'arriver. Il me donna un formulaire d remplir et me demanda de me présenter à l'hôpital militaire afin que le médecin en charge m'examine et fasse son rapport. Une fois sorti de l'hôpital, je suis retourné le voir avec le formulaire rempli par le médecin responsable et il m'informa qu'il allait enquêter sur mon cas. Malgré que rien n'a été fait, j'allais recevoir un appel des deux officiers impliqués m'informant qu'ils allaient me tuer comme un sale rat et peu importe ce que j'allais faire contre eux. Entre XXXX 2015 et XXXX 2016, j'allais changer de résidence jusqu'à mon départ. En aucun moment les policiers n'ont été importunés et ce malgré mes appels pour savoir ce qui advenait de ma plainte.4 [13] At the RPD hearing on March 15, 2019 the Appellant testified that when he arrived in Ghana in 2011 he was handed over to the CID who interrogated him and found out that he had close to US$XXXX XXXX XXXX when they went through his personal effects.5 When the RPD asked him what happened to that money, the Appellant said "that when the extortion began, because when they saw I had the money on me, by law I was required to report to them the week after my arrival."6 When the RPD asked about the US$XXXX XXXX XXXX the Appellant said, "they allowed me to leave with the money."7 The Appellant testified that the same CID officers, XXXXand XXXX8 kept coming for the payments every month9 and that he filed a police report on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2012 with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX at the CID headquarters who said he was going to omit the names because there was going to be an internal investigation.10 The Appellant testified that nothing happened after the police report due to corruption in the Ghana Police Service and that the CID officers kept coming to his new place of work.11 The Appellant said that he reported the extortion a second time to the police headquarters on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2014 to same XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.12 On XXXX XXXX XXXX 2015 the CID officers came to his house with two more officers and demanded money. "The minute I said I wasn't giving up the money anymore, then all hell broke loose. They actually beat me up."13 "I had a neighbour drive me to police headquarters again. This time I did not meet XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. I met another, a different sergeant."14 [14] When the RPD asked the Appellant why he did not mention he was beaten by the police in the first BOC he filed, he said that he was narrating to a translator who was translating into French. "...I am surprised that that was not written in there because I presented them all the evidence, the hospital report and everything. So, I am surprised that it was not there."15 The RPD reminded the Appellant that at the beginning of the hearing he had testified that they translated the BOC back to him. The Appellant confirmed that and restated, "I explained everything that happened to me to the lawyer and the translator. So, I'm surprised that it's not in there...".16 [15] The Appellant testified that the police kept coming to his home after his departure. When the RPD asked why he did not say this in his BOC narrative, he said it was "just a slip" and "I believe that I have a few letters, from friends and co-workers, that I submitted when I first came, that they were still coming to my place of work and my residence."17 [16] The Appellant testified that he contributed to a blog site about corruption in Ghana. "I used to write blogs for them. I used to contribute in my free time and I started exposing the CID of the things they do in Ghana."18 When the RPD asked if he filed evidence, the Appellant said, "they shut down the Blogspot". When asked why he did not mention it in his BOC, the Appellant said it was after he came to Canada, it started in late 2017-2018 and reiterated that "they shut it down."19 When the RPD noted that the Appellant amended his narrative on March 4, 2019 he said it did not include it "because I was under the impression that the narrative is based on what has already been written...when I first came to the country".20 [17] Following my own review of the evidence, I note the following inconsistencies and omissions between the original BOC, amended BOC and the Appellant's testimony: Original BOC April 7, 2015 Amended BOC March 4, 2019 Testimony March 15, 2019 US$XXXX XXXX XXXX No No Yes Monthly $XXXX payment Yes Yes Yes XXXX XXXX XXXX 2012 police report No No Yes XXXX XXXX XXXX 2014 police report No No Yes XXXX XXXX XXXX 2015 beating No Yes Yes XXXX XXXX XXXX 2015 police report No Yes Yes Medical exam No Yes Yes Threatening phone calls No Yes Yes Police visits to home and office after departure No No Yes Contribution to blog No No Yes [18] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in finding the Appellant omitted his XXXX XXXX, 2015 beating in his original BOC because he referenced it in the amended BOC and because it made a negative finding on the basis that the medical and police reports were presented a few months after the BOC. I agree with the Appellant that the RPD's finding about the timing of the filing of the medical and police reports is not clear or determinative. [19] The requirements for the completion of a BOC form are outlined in the RPD Rules21 and referenced in the RAD Rules.22 The BOC is intended to provide details about the reason refugee protection is being sought. The Federal Court "has confirmed on numerous occasions that all the important facts and details of a claim must be included and failing to do so can affect the credibility of all or part of a claimant's testimony."23 [31] This Court has confirmed on a number of occasions that all the important facts of a claim must appear in the PIF and that failing to mention them could affect the credibility of part or all of the testimony. Furthermore, the RPD is entitled to review the contents of the PIF before and after its amendment and may draw negative inferences about credibility if matters it considers important were added to the PIF by an amendment later (Taheri v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 886, [2001] F.C.J. No. 1252, at paragraphs 4 and 6; Grinevich v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (1997) 70 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1059, [1997] F.C.J. No. 444). [32] It was open to the panel to gauge the principal applicant's credibility and to draw negative inferences about the disparities between her statements in the original PIF, in the interview notes, in the amended narrative of the PIF and in the viva voce testimony, for which the principal applicant provided no satisfactory, plausible or credible explanation in the circumstances (He v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), (1994), 49 A.C.W.S. (3d) 562, [1994] F.C.J. No. 1107). In this case, and the Court agrees with counsel for the respondent, the evidence shows that the applicants' story and narrative changed over the last two years. 24 [20] I find that the Appellant's explanation that he was surprised that the police beating was not included in his original BOC is not reasonable in light of his testimony that the document was translated back to him and that it was prepared with all his documentary evidence. [21] The Appellant does not make any submissions about the RPD findings about other omissions in both the original and amended BOC: the CID officers continuing to look for him and his blog posts critical of the government of Ghana. [22] I agree with the RPD that the omissions relate to matters that are important elements of his claim and properly result in a negative credibility finding. I note in addition the omission of reference to the US$XXXX XXXX XXXX in both the original and amended BOCs is material since it was the reason the Appellant was allegedly targeted by the CID officers in the first place. As the Appellant was not asked by the RPD to explain this omission it is not determinative, but it is important and supports the negative credibility finding. Corroborative evidence [23] The RPD did not give any weight to the medical report25 filed by the Appellant citing his lack of credibility regarding the alleged beating by the police officers. [24] The Appellant submits that the RPD erred because the medical report is an authentic document from a third party which cannot be rejected simply because the RPD finds that he is not credible. "La Commissaire avait d'autres moyens à prendre advenant le cas où elle voudrait mettre en doute ledit document"26, the RPD had other means to question the document [trans]. [25] The Federal Court has clearly stated that a lack of credibility concerning central elements of a refugee protection claim can extend and trickle down to other elements of the claim and be generalized to all of the documentary evidence presented to corroborate a version of the facts. Similarly, it is open to the RPD not to give evidentiary weight to assessments or reports based on underlying elements found not be credible.27 [26] Following my own review, I also note some credibility issues on the face of the medical report28. It does not reference the Appellant by name, simply referring to a "patient". It describes his wounds as "mild abrasions on the face, chest pains [illegible] and generalized body pain" which is not consistent with the Appellant's amended BOC and testimony. In his amended BOC, the Appellant says that the CID officers "me frapperent sauvagement au visage et sur le reste du corps" hit him savagely in the face on the rest of his body [trans]. When the RPD asked the Appellant what injuries he sustained from the CID officers' beating, he said he had bruises on his face, they kicked him all over the place and he had pain in his ribs. He said that he received severe beating that day "which was very horrible."29 As the Appellant was not asked by the RPD to explain these issues, they are not determinative. [27] I agree with the RPD that the Appellant's claim that he was beaten by the CID officers was not credible and I find that the RPD did not err when it did not give evidentiary weight to the medical report which was based on the Appellant's alleged assault. [28] The Appellant also argues that the RPD failed to address the totality of the evidence and pervasive corruption in Ghana but does not provide any examples or reference any specific documentary or objective evidence. [29] The RPD referenced the police reports30 and letters from friends and colleagues31 presented by the Appellant to corroborate that the CID officers were still looking for him but did not give them any weight due to his lack of credibility. The RPD found that the letters made general statements about the CID looking for him but did not provide any specific details about where and when and the authors did not provide any identity documents. When the RPD asked about identity documents the Appellant testified that he "was told that the envelope, the mailing envelope, was good enough...I didn't know that I needed photo ids or anything like that from them." [30] While the RPD did not address the objective evidence about police corruption in Ghana in its decision, it questioned the Appellant on some of the objective evidence he presented at the hearing.32 [31] I find that the RPD considered the totality of the evidence. Other credibility issues [32] The RPD identified other credibility issues including: that the Appellant waited until XXXX 2016 to leave after receiving a visa in XXXX 2015; the Appellant's failure to list the addresses where he lived in hiding from the CID officers from XXXX 2015 to XXXX 2016; that the Appellant continued to work at the same place until his departure; and, the Appellant's 18-year history of misrepresentation to the government of the United States. [33] The Appellant does not make any submissions about these other credibility findings. Following my own review, I do not find any reason to disturb the RPD's conclusions. While I do not find that these other findings are individually determinative, they contribute to the accumulation of contradictions, inconsistencies and omissions regarding crucial elements of the Appellant's claim and support a negative conclusion about his credibility.33 [34] Following my own review, I identified a few other credibility issues. The Appellant testified that he sought asylum at the airport when he arrived in the United States in 199334 but United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement reported that they had no record of him applying for asylum.35 The Appellant testified that his mother died in XXXX 2011. He was unable to explain why she was listed as the informant on his Certified Copy of Entry in Register of Births36 which was registered in XXXX 2012 and said that he obtained it himself.37 The Appellant presented objective evidence38 that complaints about police officers, including extortion, should be made to the Inspector-General of Police or the Director-General (DG) of the Police Intelligence and Professional Standards (PIPS) bureau but none of the three complaints allegedly made by the Appellant were to those offices. None of these issues are determinative, but they also support the negative credibility finding. CONCLUSION [35] 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) "Susan Brown" Susan Brown October 28, 2020 Date 1 RPD-1, RPD Record, page 13, Exhibit 2, BOC, question 2a). 2 RPD-1, RPD Record, page 14, Exhibit 2, BOC, question 2b). 3 RPD-1, RPD Record, pages 911, Exhibit 10. 4 RPD-1, RPD Record, page 11, Exhibit 10. 5 Transcript of hearing on March 15, 2019, page 21. 6 Transcript of hearing on March 15, 2019, page 22. 7 Transcript of hearing on March 15, 2019, page 23. 8 Transcript of hearing on March 15, 2019, pages 3234. 9 Transcript of hearing on March 15, 2019, page 27. 10 Transcript of hearing on March 15, 2019, pages 34, 3739 11 Transcript of hearing on March 15, 2019, page 43. 12 Transcript of hearing on March 15, 2019, pages 43 and 44. 13 Transcript of hearing on March 15, 2019, page 47. 14 Transcript of hearing on March 15, 2019, page 47. 15 Transcript of hearing on March 15, 2019, page 64. 16 Transcript of hearing on March 15, 2019, page 66. 17 Transcript of hearing on March 15, 2019, page 60. 18 Transcript of hearing on March 15, 2019, page 77. 19 Transcript of hearing on March 15, 2019, page 78. 20 Transcript of hearing on March 15, 2019, pages 78 and 79. 21 Refugee Protection Division Rules, SOR/2012256 (RPD Rules). 22 Refugee Appeal Division Rules, SOR/2012257 (RAD Rules). 23 Ogaulu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 547 at para. 18. 24 Zeferino v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 456 at paras. 31 and 32. 25 RPD-1, RPD Record, page 102, Exhibit 5. 26 P-2, Appellant's Record, page 5, Appellant's Memorandum, para. 41. 27 Lawani v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 924, at para. 24. 28 RPD-1, RPD Record, page 102, Exhibit 5. 29 Transcript of hearing on March 15, 2019, page 48. 30 RPD-1, RPD Record, pages 110114, Exhibit 5. 31 RPD-1, RPD Record, pages 84-92, Exhibit 9. 32 Transcript of hearing on March 15, 2019, pages 8487. 33 Lawani v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 924, at para. 22. 34 Transcript of hearing on March 15, 2019, pages 2529. 35 RPD-1, RPD Record, page 154, Exhibit 8. 36 RPD-1, RPD Record, page 79, Exhibit 11. 37 Transcript of hearing on March 15, 2019, pages 7072. 38 RPD-1, RPD Record, pages 127132, Exhibit 4. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MB9-12821 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