MC0-04974

RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MC0-04974 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 March 24, 2021 Date de la décision Panel Normand Leduc Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Jamal Addine Fraygui 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, citizen of Angola, is appealing the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejecting his refugee protection claim. [2] For the reasons below, the appeal is dismissed. BACKGROUND [3] In his Basis of Claim Form, the appellant alleges that he spent part of his life in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) because of the war in Angola. [4] The appellant alleges that he returned to live in Angola in 1996 and that he suffered [translation] "defamation" and discrimination, particularly in the workplace, because he abandoned his country during the war. He alleges that he was detained by the immigration police in 2002 and in 2018, and by the authorities in XXXX 2018. They accused him of being a citizen of the DRC because of his Portuguese accent and his physical features. He was allegedly sent back to the DRC that month before returning to Angola in XXXX 2018. [5] The appellant left his country on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, for the United States, before coming to Canada in December 2018 and claiming refugee protection here. [6] Before the RPD, the Minister of Public Safety of Canada (the Minister), through his representative, intervened by filing documents and a notice of intervention, submitting that the appellant's allegations are not credible. [7] Following a hearing held on September 18, 2018, the RPD rejected the refugee protection claim on the basis that the appellant's allegations lacked credibility. [8] Before the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD), the appellant submits that the RPD erred in its credibility assessment for reasons that will be set out in detail below under the Analysis heading, if required. [9] For these reasons, the appellant is asking the RAD to set aside the RPD's determination and grant him refugee protection, or alternatively, to refer the matter to the RPD for re-determination. [10] The Minister did not intervene before the RAD. STANDARD OF REVIEW AND THE ROLE OF THE REFUGEE APPEAL DIVISION [11] The RAD's role is to review RPD decisions by applying the correctness standard of review after carrying out its own analysis of the record in order to determine whether the RPD erred, as the appellant submits. ANALYSIS [12] The issue to be determined in this case is whether the RPD erred in assessing the credibility of the appellant's allegations. [13] After analyzing all the evidence presented, including listening to the recording of the hearing held before the RPD, analyzing the reasons for its decision, and reviewing the appellant's submissions to the RAD, I am of the opinion that the answer to that question is no, for the reasons below. [14] The RPD's decision is mainly based on what it considers to be contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence presented, namely: A- When questioned about the acts of discrimination he allegedly endured, the appellant was unable to give any examples beyond stating that he lost his job. B- The appellant obtained a visa for the United States in XXXX 2017 by filing false documents and then did not leave his country until XXXX 2018. This behaviour is inconsistent with that of someone who claims to be persecuted in their country. C- The appellant's and his wife's Facebook accounts, copies of which were filed in evidence by the Minister, demonstrate that the appellant and his wife posted comments and photographs on dates when the appellant alleges he was detained in his country. [15] In his memorandum, the appellant basically repeats the same explanations he gave before the RPD to justify the contradictions and inconsistencies raised. I am of the view that he has not demonstrated to me that the RPD's decision is erroneous. [16] With regard to the discrimination he claims to experience in his country, the appellant is in fact unable to give any examples whatsoever. He mentions his dismissal (which allegedly occurred in XXXX 2017), claiming to have been a victim of [translation] "jealousy," but it must be noted that he had worked there since 2003 (see question 6 of the document Appendix A, page 58 of the RPD record). Furthermore, the appellant does not indicate any employment end date in his answer to the same question on the form. [17] With regard to his American visa, which was obtained through misrepresentation, in his testimony, the appellant explained that he wanted that visa [translation] "merely for the prestige of having a visa for the United States," but that he did not want to use it. I am also of the view that this explanation is not reasonable in this case. I do not see how it would be [translation] "prestigious" to have a visa for the United States if the appellant did not want to use it, or why, for that matter, he would not want to use it when he claims that he is a victim of persecution and discrimination in his country. [18] Lastly, with regard to the appellant's and his wife's Facebook accounts, where photographs and comments were posted on dates when the appellant alleges he was detained, the appellant explains that it was the website's algorithm that re-posted old photographs, and also that his wife posted them to [translation] "reassure his family." [19] Like the RPD noted, after analyzing the exhibits filed by the Minister, it is clear that nothing indicates that these photographs and comments were posted on the appellant's Facebook account by the website's algorithm. Furthermore, it does not strike me as reasonable that the appellant's wife would have posted the photographs to [translation] "reassure his family," when his family knew that the appellant was detained or hospitalized. [20] The RPD does not give any credibility to the medical document filed by the appellant (Exhibit P-2), as it indicates that the appellant was supposedly detained starting in XXXX 2018, whereas the appellant alleged that he was detained starting in XXXX 2018. In my opinion, this contradiction, paired with the contradictions mentioned above, results in there being no reason to give the document in question any credibility. [21] Considering everything above, I conclude that the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the RPD made errors that would warrant the RAD setting aside the RPD's decision. 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 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) or a "person in need of protection" under section 97 of the IRPA. [23] The appeal is dismissed. (signed) Normand Leduc Normand Leduc March 24, 2021 Date IRB translation Original language: French RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MC0-04974 RAD.25.02 (January 2020) Disponible en français 5 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