MC0-08701

RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MC0-08701 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 Montréal, QC Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision April 20, 2021 Date de la décision Panel Normand Leduc Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Odette Desjardins 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 [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX, a citizen of the Dominican Republic, is appealing the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decision rejecting his refugee protection claim. [2] The appeal is dismissed for the following reasons. BACKGROUND [3] In his Basis of Claim Form (BOC Form), the appellant alleges that he fears the police in his country who would ask him to cooperate in their scheme to extort individuals and small business owners. He alleges that his brother XXXX, a former XXXX XXXX, cooperated with the police, but that he refused. [4] The Minister of Public Safety Canada intervened before the RPD and argued that the exclusion clause 1F(b) applied to the appellant because he committed serious non-political crimes in the United States, where he lived illegally from 1980 to 2013. [5] The appellant left his country on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2015, for Canada and claimed refugee protection here in May 2017. [6] Following a hearing on March 19, 2019, and February 11, 2020, the RPD concluded that the exclusion clause 1F(b) did not apply to the appellant. However, the RPD rejected the refugee protection claim on the basis that the appellant's allegations were not credible. [7] Before the RAD, the appellant submits that the RPD erred in its assessment of his credibility, for reasons that will be detailed below in the Analysis section, if necessary. [8] For these reasons, the appellant is asking the RAD to set aside the RPD's determination and grant him refugee protection, or return the matter to the RPD for re-determination. [9] The Minister of Public Safety Canada did not intervene before the RAD. STANDARD OF REVIEW AND ROLE OF THE REFUGEE APPEAL DIVISION [10] The RAD's role is to review RPD decisions by applying the correctness standard of review after conducting its own analysis of the record to determine whether, as submitted by the appellant, the RPD erred. ANALYSIS [11] The issue in this case is whether the RPD erred in assessing the credibility of the appellant's allegations. [12] After analyzing all of the evidence presented, the reasons for the RPD's decision, and the appellant's submissions to the RAD, I am of the opinion that the answer to this question is no, for the following reasons. [13] The RPD's decision is based primarily on what it considered to be inconsistencies and implausibilities in the evidence presented, as follows: A. It is implausible that the police would try to persuade the appellant, who is not well known to them, to participate against his will in acts of extortion against individuals and small business owners. B. There is a contradiction or an inconsistency between the appellant's testimony, according to which his brother was forced to welcome police officers into his home and to be their accomplice, and his BOC Form, in which he wrote that his brother was a police [translation] "associate" and had a good relationship with them. [14] Asked about this contradiction, the appellant replied that, for him, [translation] "having a good relationship is the same as good communication." Like the RPD, I also find that this response does not explain the contradiction. C. Although the police asked him a few times to meet with their boss and he refused, there was never any retaliation against the appellant. [15] In his brief memorandum before the RAD, the appellant submits that the police are corrupt in his country and that he does not want to participate in this corruption, as it goes against his values. [16] While it may be true that police officers are corrupt in the Dominican Republic, this explanation is nonetheless unreasonable in this case. It does not explain the inconsistencies identified by the RPD and the RAD. D. The fact that the appellant came to Canada in XXXX 2015 and voluntarily returned to his country, in addition to the delay in claiming refugee protection after returning to Canada in XXXX 2015, is behaviour that is inconsistent with that of a person who allegedly fears for his safety and his life in his country. [17] Asked about this voluntary return to his country, the appellant replied that he was hoping things had changed in his country. I am also of the view that this explanation is unreasonable. The appellant does not explain how or why the situation might have changed when he returned to his country, given his statement that he was being harassed by police officers. [18] Also, when asked about the delay in claiming refugee protection in Canada, the appellant responded that he had wanted to regularize his status but that he had received bad advice from the counsel he had hired. Like the RPD, I also conclude that this explanation is unreasonable, given the absence of evidence to corroborate this allegation. [19] In his memorandum, the appellant submits that his voluntary return and the delay are not, in any way, determinative to the refugee protection claim. [20] Although they are certainly not fatal on their own, I consider that his return and the delay are nonetheless important factors to consider among all the factors that undermine the appellant's credibility. [21] After analyzing the evidence presented, I therefore reach the same conclusions as the RPD and find that the appellant did not demonstrate that the RPD made errors that would warrant the RAD setting aside its determination. REMEDY [22] For these reasons, I confirm the RPD's determination that XXXX XXXX XXXX is not a "Convention refugee" under section 96 of the IRPA or a "person in need of protection" within the meaning of section 97 of the IRPA. [23] The appeal is dismissed. (signed) Normand Leduc Normand Leduc April 20, 2021 Date IRB translation Original language: French RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MC0-08701 RAD.25.02 (January 2020) Disponible en français 3 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