TB5-00185

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 File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB5-00185 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX) Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision April 1, 2015 Date de la décision Panel M. Pettinella Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Johnson Babalola Conseil(s) du (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Barrister and Solicitor Designated Representative(s) N/A Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the Appellant), a citizen of Nigeria, appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying his claim for refugee protection. He has not submitted new evidence in support of his appeal and requests an oral hearing. The Appellant asks the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) to provide a positive substituted decision because of errors and omissions made by the RPD. DETERMINATION [2] Pursuant to Section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. This appeal is dismissed. Background [3] The Appellant alleged before the RPD that, upon return to Nigeria, he will be harmed by the chief priest of his village and idol worshippers because he refused to have his daughter circumcised. He also alleged before the RPD that he would be harmed by police in Nigeria because he was falsely accused of being bisexual. [4] The Appellant's application for refugee protection was heard on November 18, 2014. By a decision of December 15, 2014, the RPD rejected the claim. The RPD found that the Appellant was not credible. The Appellant submits that the RPD erred by impugning his credibility on implausibility and conjecture and the incorrect assessment of the evidence before it. He also submits that the RPD erred in law by basing its negative findings of credibility on omissions in his evidence. The Appellant further submits that the RPD, in a perverse or capricious manner, ignored and/or failed to take relevant evidence into consideration. ANALYSIS Role of the RAD [5] What is the role of the RAD in considering an appeal against a decision of the RPD? While the Appellant provides no arguments with respect to the role of the RAD, the RAD notes in Huruglica the Court considered the appropriate relationship between the RAD and the RPD.1 It found that the RAD had erred in simply reviewing the RPD's decision on a standard of reasonableness, rather than conducting its own independent assessment of the Appellants' refugee claims. The Court held that the RAD's application of a reasonableness standard curtailed the tribunal's appellate role, contrary to the purpose of the RAD and the provisions of IRPA. In the Court's view, the RAD should not even engage in a standard of review analysis; rather, it should consider the purpose of the appellate tribunal, the statutory provisions, comparable expertise, and comparative appellate regimes.2 [6] Justice Phelan stated the following in Huruglica: Having concluded that the RAD erred in reviewing the RPD's decision on the standard of reasonableness, I have further concluded that for the reasons above, the RAD is required to conduct a hybrid appeal. It must review all aspects of the RPD's decision and come to an independent assessment of whether the claimant is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. Where its assessment departs from that of the RPD, the RAD must substitute its own decision.3 In conducting its assessment, it can recognize and respect the conclusion of the RPD on such issues as credibility and/or where the RPD enjoys a particular advantage in reaching such a conclusion but it is not restricted, as an appellate court is, to intervening on facts only where there is an "overriding and palpable error."4 [7] The RAD will therefore review all aspects of the RPD's decision and come to an independent assessment of the Appellant's refugee claim, recognizing and respecting the conclusion of the RPD on such issues as credibility and/or where the RPD enjoys a particular advantage in reaching such a conclusion. Where the RAD's assessment departs from that of the RPD, the RAD must substitute its own determination. Application for an Oral Hearing [8] The Appellant asks that an oral hearing be held, pursuant to Section 110(6) of the IRPA.5 [9] Section 110(3) of IRPA requires that the RAD proceed without a hearing, on the basis of the RPD record, while allowing the RAD to accept documentary evidence and submissions from the Minister and the Appellant. The person who is the subject of the appeal may, pursuant to Section 110(4), present only evidence that arose after the rejection of their claim or that was not reasonably available, or that the person could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection. [10] According to Section 110(6), upon which the Appellant relies, the RAD may hold a hearing if, in its opinion, there is documentary evidence referred to in 110(3) that raises a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the Appellant, that is central to the RPD's decision, and that, if accepted, would justify allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claim. In this appeal, where there is no evidence from or in response to the Minister, the documentary evidence referred to in Section 110(3) must be understood in relation to Section 110(4). [11] When read together, Sections 110(3), (4), and (6) establish that the RAD must not hold a hearing in an appeal such as this unless there is new (Section 110(4)) evidence, in which case the RAD may hold a hearing if that new evidence raises a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the Appellant, is central to the RPD's decision, and that, if accepted, would justify allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claim. [12] In this appeal the Appellant has not submitted any new evidence. As such, the RAD must proceed without a hearing and the Appellant's request for an oral hearing is denied. The RPD's Findings [13] Parents can refuse to have their daughters circumcised in Nigeria - The Appellant alleges that his problems in Nigeria began when his uncle and other members of his community wanted to circumcise one of his daughters and he refused to allow them to do so. The RPD noted the Appellant's testimony that his mother and father did not believe in female circumcision and his wife's family did not believe in practicing female genital mutilation (FGM) or female circumcision as they are Christians. It also noted documentary evidence indicating that parents can refuse to have FGM performed on their daughters, especially if both parents agree, and that nobody would walk into somebody else's home to perform FGM on their daughters. The RPD found that the Appellant's allegation that his uncle and members of his community were forcing his family to have his daughter circumcised to be inconsistent with the objective evidence before it. It did not accept the Appellant's allegation that he was being forced to have his daughter circumcised. The RPD found, on a balance of probabilities, that the events recounted by the Appellant surrounding the attempted forced circumcision of his daughter did not actually occur and were fabricated to form the basis of his claim for refugee protection. [14] The Appellant submits that the RPD's negative credibility findings are baseless, premised on implausibility and conjecture without any evidentiary basis. He argues that the RPD did not state the reasons for the conclusion in this regard neither did it state the basis upon which it drew its erroneous conclusion from. [15] The RAD is not persuaded by the Appellant's argument with respect to the credibility of the events surrounding the attempted forced circumcision of his daughter. The Appellant alleges his problems in Nigeria stem from his refusal to allow his daughter to be circumcised. As noted by the RPD, the documentary evidence on Nigeria indicates that parents can refuse to have FGM performed on their daughters, especially if both parents agree. [16] The RPD considered the consistency between the Appellant's allegations and the documentary evidence on circumcision in Nigeria. The RPD preferred the objective evidence in the National Documentation Package (NDP) which indicates that parents can refuse to have circumcision performed on their daughters and that nobody would walk into someone else's home and perform circumcision on their daughters.6 The Courts have indicated that the Board is entitled to rely on documentary evidence in preference to the testimony provided by a claimant.7 The RAD notes that the documents in the NDP originate from a variety of reputable independent sources. The Federal Court has upheld, in a number of decisions, the Board's reliance on documentary evidence originating from a variety of reputable independent sources, none of which can be said to have any vested interest in the claim at hand (and are to that extent free of bias), in preference to the claimant's testimony.8 [17] In the case at hand, the Appellant and his spouse are university educated and were living in Lagos. The Appellant was involved in the business of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and his spouse was self-employed XXXX XXXX. Their immediate families are both Christian and they do not support circumcision. The Appellant indicated that he and his spouse are against circumcision based on religious grounds and therefore it is reasonable to conclude that they are not influenced by tribal or traditional social beliefs regarding circumcision and promiscuity. Given the evidence, the RAD concurs with the RPD that the objective evidence does not support the Appellant's allegations. [18] Attack on the Appellant and his family in their home and his abduction - The RPD noted that the Appellant alleged that his home was invaded by seven heavily armed men on XXXX XXXX, 2013 who stated their intention to take his daughter away, yet the men took him rather than his daughter. The RPD did not accept the Appellant's explanation that they took him rather than his daughter because his daughter was unconscious and the men stated that they had to go through some rituals and he had to give his consent before they could proceed with the circumcision. The RPD also did not accept the Appellant's explanation that the men left his daughter behind because they thought she was dead and found it implausible that heavily armed men would not have checked to see if his daughter was still alive before departing, given that she was allegedly the reason they were in the home. [19] The RPD also did not accept the Appellant's explanation for being detained if his daughter was believed to be dead and his consent for her circumcision would no longer be required. The Appellant explained that the chief priest wanted to see the girl and wanted to be sure that the heavily armed men were not playing tricks. He further explained that the men continued their search for his daughter and kept him captive because they came to believe his daughter was not dead and went to Lagos to search for her. [20] The RPD noted that the Appellant indicated in his Schedule A Background/Declaration form9 that he was unemployed and in hiding from XXXX 2013 to XXXX 2014 when he alleges he was being held captive from XXXX 2013 to XXXX 2013. It did not accept his explanation that it must have been the result of a typing error or a misunderstanding of the question. [21] The RPD found the Appellant's explanations regarding the above-noted anomalies implausible and internally inconsistent. It found, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant's home was not invaded by heavily armed men, his family was not assaulted and he was not kidnapped or held at a shrine. It drew a negative inference regarding the Appellant's credibility and his account for fearing persecution or harm. The RPD was not persuaded that the injury to a girl depicted in a photograph provided by the Appellant was as a result of the events described by the Appellant as it had found that it was more likely than not that they did not actually occur. [22] The Appellant submits that the RPD engaged in a line of reasoning that illuminated the flawed process utilized to arrive at its decision. He argues that the RPD findings are nothing more than conjecture, speculation and a foreign thought process alienating his culture, practices and procedure of his culture and country. He submits that the RPD erred by not assessing his claim within the socio-political and cultural context of Nigeria. The Appellant argues that actions that might appear implausible if judged by Canadian standards might be plausible when considered within the context of his social and cultural background. [23] The RAD is not persuaded by the Appellant's argument with respect to the credibility of his allegation that he and his family were attacked in their home and he was abducted. The RAD concurs with the RPD's conclusion noted above. The RAD finds it highly unlikely that seven armed men would go to the Appellant's home to take his daughter but leave the home without her. The RAD also finds it highly unlikely that seven armed men would go to the Appellant's home to take his daughter but abduct the Appellant instead and leave the person they intended to abduct behind. These are issues of common sense and rationality and are unrelated to the Appellant's culture, practices and procedures. If a person asserts their intention to do something and ends up doing something else, one would expect that there was good reason or a logical explanation for the change of plan. In this case, the change of plan for the seven armed men was without good reason and was not logical. The Appellant's attempts to explain the actions of the seven armed men led to even more illogical scenarios and were addressed by the RPD. [24] Considering that the seven armed men would have been directed by the chief priest to take the Appellant's daughter and considering that they had travelled a considerable distance to get to her home, it is highly unlikely that the seven men would have left the Appellant's home without taking her daughter if that is what they were directed to do by the chief priest. The RAD concurs with the RPD that the Appellant's explanations for the actions of the seven armed men were not credible. The RAD further finds that the Appellant's account of the attack at his home and his abduction is unconvincing. In Sung, the Federal Court stated: The other observation which might be made is that in the realm of a claimant's credibility, contradictions are not the exclusive factual source on which the presumption of truth in the claimant's evidence, as so ruled by the Federal Court of Appeal, may be rebutted. A tribunal may also conclude that a claimant's evidence is implausible, or improbable, or dubious, or untenable, or unreliable, or absurd, or unconvincing.10 [25] Furthermore, the RAD notes that the documentary evidence does not support the Appellant's allegations of violence, abduction, and beatings as reprisals for refusing circumcision as he alleged. The RAD finds that, if violent community-based reprisals for refusing circumcision were commonplace, it would be reasonable for the documents in the NDP to make some reference to such incidents. Reports of violent community-based reprisals for refusing circumcision were not noted in documents of the NDP such as the United States Department of State Report11 and the United Kingdom Home Office Report12 or in reports by Amnesty International13 and Freedom House.14 [26] Furthermore, the serious injuries the Appellant alleges that his daughter, XXXX, sustained in the attack such as being rendered unconscious and suffering a big knife cut to her back are not supported in her medical report.15 It would be reasonable to expect a medical report on the injuries she sustained in the attack to contain such information, especially when less serious injuries are included in the report. [27] As such, the RAD concurs with the RPD's finding that, on a balance of probabilities, the Appellant's home was not invaded by heavily armed men, his family was not assaulted and he was not kidnapped or held at a shrine. [28] Search for the Appellant's family at the hospital - The RPD found the Appellant's allegations surrounding the attendance of heavily armed men at the hospital searching for his family to be neither credible nor plausible. The RPD asked the Appellant at his hearing why the heavily armed men would pursue his wife and children at the hospital when they had been available to them earlier at his house. It did not accept the Appellant's explanation that the chief priest had been angry and told the men to go back to Lagos to get his wife and child. [29] The RPD noted that there was no mention in the letters from the hospital, where his wife and children had sought treatment, about the attack on the hospital. The Appellant indicated that the owner of the hospital was angry and did not want to interfere with family matters. He also indicated that abductions were frequent in Nigeria, hospital staff did not want to be involved and that is why his family members were discharged and told to seek medical attention elsewhere. The RPD found it implausible that staff at a hospital would discharge injured patients and tell them to seek medical attention elsewhere because they did not want to interfere with family. [30] The RPD noted the Appellant's testimony that the hospital did not contact police when armed men attended the hospital in search of his wife and children. It found it implausible that the hospital would not have immediately contacted police when the armed men were ransacking the wards of the hospital. The RPD did not accept the Appellant's explanation that the hospital told his pastor to report the matter to police as they did not want any trouble and did not want to get involved. [31] The RPD noted the Appellant's testimony that his pastor went to police on XXXX XXXX, 2013 and was informed by police that they did not want to get involved. The RPD found it implausible, even given the culture of impunity and corruption within the police force in Nigeria, that the police would fail to respond to an armed attack at a hospital. [32] The RPD found, on a balance of probabilities, that the armed attack at the hospital did not actually occur. It found it more likely than not that the Appellant invented the events at the hospital to bolster his claim for refugee protection. [33] The Appellant submits that the RPD engaged in a line of reasoning that illuminated the flawed process utilized to arrive at its decision. He argues that the RPD findings are nothing more than conjecture, speculation and a foreign thought process alienating his culture, practices and procedure of his culture and country. The Appellant further submits that he does not have control over the writer of the hospital letter or the establishment. He argues that impugning his credibility and consequently denying his refugee claim on the account of the above is unlawful. [34] The RAD notes that the RPD did not impugn the Appellant's credibility due to the fact that there was no mention of the hospital attack in the letter from the hospital. The RPD noted the Appellant's response to the question of why there was no mention of the attack in the letter. The Appellant indicated in his response that the hospital was angry and did not want to interfere with family members, abductions were frequent in Nigeria and the hospital did not want to get involved, and his family was discharged and asked to seek medical attention elsewhere. The RPD found that the Appellant's allegations regarding the hospital's actions were implausible but did not impugn his credibility because there was no mention of the attack in the letter, but rather because it found it implausible that a hospital would discharge a patient prematurely and would not contact the police in those circumstances. [35] The RAD concurs with the RPD finding, on a balance of probabilities, that the armed attack at the hospital did not actually occur. The RAD concurs with the RPD that it is implausible that a hospital would discharge seriously injured patients prematurely and would not contact police in the Appellant's alleged circumstances. When viewed in combination with the anomalies in the Appellant's evidence regarding his refusal to allow his daughter to be circumcised, the attack at his home, his abduction, and his daughter's injuries, the RAD finds that they undermined the credibility of the alleged hospital attack. Since the initial event, which was the catalyst for all of the subsequent problems alleged by the Appellant, was not credible, the RAD finds that the remaining allegations, such as the hospital attack, were also not credible. This finding is further supported by the credibility concerns noted below. [36] Allegations of homosexuality - The RPD considered the Appellant's allegation that police were looking for him because they were informed that he was gay and they had a picture of him with another man. It noted the Appellant's testimony that he did not have a copy of the police report made against him because police would not provide a copy to his pastor as they said the Appellant had to report to the police station in XXXX, Lagos. It also noted documentary evidence indicating that it is possible to obtain a copy of a Nigerian police report from abroad. The RPD found the Appellant's failure to make an appreciable effort to obtain a document that should be readily available to him to be significant. The RPD noted that the police complaint made against the Appellant was related to the allegation of homosexuality made against him in Nigeria and formed part of the underpinnings of his claim. It drew a significant negative inference from the Appellant's lack of effort to obtain a document that should have been readily available to him if he were to request it through the appropriate channels. [37] The RAD notes documentary evidence indicating that homosexual acts are illegal in Nigeria and punishable by imprisonment for up to 14 years. Legislation criminalizing sexual acts between same-sex partners is found in Nigeria's Criminal Code Act. Documentary evidence also indicates that law enforcement agencies and other state authorities use the laws to further abuse and violate the human rights of sexual minorities.16 Further documentary evidence indicates that police in Nigeria have a police communications service called POLCOM to assist police to monitor unlawful activities.17 Considering the documentary evidence noted above, if the Appellant was wanted by police in Nigeria for unlawful homosexual activity, it would be reasonable to expect police to have information on this. [38] The RAD attaches great importance to the absence of reliable police documents that may have supported the Appellant's allegations regarding their interest to arrest him for his alleged unlawful homosexual activity. The documentary evidence suggests that the police obtain and retain information on unlawful activities for monitoring purposes. [39] The Appellant made little, if any, effort to obtain police documents regarding their interest in him for his alleged homosexual activities. As such, the RAD draws a strong negative inference from the Appellant's lack of effort in acquiring the police documents to corroborate central elements of his refugee claim and finds that it further undermines his credibility. The Federal Court has established that the burden of proof to establish a claim lies with the claimant. A claimant must come to a hearing with all of the evidence that they have to offer and believe necessary to prove the claim.18 The Board may draw a negative inference from a refugee claimant's lack of effort in acquiring evidence to corroborate central elements of a claim since Rule 11 of the Refugee Protection Division Rules clearly states that the applicant must provide such documents. It is entirely reasonable for the Board to attach great importance to documentation which would have supported the allegations.19 Also the Appellant could have attempted to obtain police documents to submit to the RAD, however, there is no indication that he did so. [40] The objective evidence confirms that Nigerian police obtain and retain information on unlawful activities and the Appellant has alleged that police in Nigeria became aware of allegations of his unlawful homosexual activity. The Appellant entered Canada in XXXX 2014 and has had approximately nine months to obtain appropriate supporting documentation from police regarding the allegations of his homosexual activity. It is clear that the Appellant knew that supporting documentation was important to his claim as he provided the RPD with a number of supporting documents. It was clear at his hearing before the RPD that credible supporting documentation from police regarding the allegations of homosexuality was important to his claim. His conduct and failure to make reasonable efforts to obtain police documents over the nine months that he has been in Canada, when they appear to be reasonably available, reflects adversely on the credibility of the events which he alleges. [41] Photograph of the Appellant - The Appellant considered a photograph presented by the Appellant depicting him embracing another man. The Appellant alleged that it was the evidence in the police complaint accusing him of being homosexual. The RPD noted that the name on the back of the photograph was XXXX, however, when asked about the name of the person in the photograph, the Appellant said it was XXXX XXXX. When asked by the RPD to explain the discrepancy, the Appellant said that the man in the photograph had two names and XXXX was his English name. The RPD found the Appellant's response not credible, particularly given that the name XXXX was also an English name. It drew a significant negative inference and found, on a balance of probabilities, that no allegation was made about the Appellant's sexual orientation in Nigeria and that he fabricated the story of a police complaint to bolster his refugee claim. [42] The Appellant's allegation that he was falsely accused of being bisexual is a significant element of his story. It would be reasonable to expect him to provide consistent evidence about this element of his story. The photograph of the Appellant embracing another man presented in evidence was allegedly the evidence in the police complaint accusing him of being bisexual. The RPD asked the Appellant at his hearing who the person was in the photograph. He indicated that it was his friend XXXX XXXX. When asked why, on the back of the photograph, it read that it was a picture of him and his friend XXXX in Nigeria, the Appellant indicated that XXXX was his English name but he called him XXXX. The RAD finds that the Appellant's explanation for the above-noted discrepancy unreasonable. If XXXX XXXX also had an English name, it would be reasonable to expect the Appellant to have indicated such in response to the question of the person's name. It was only when confronted with an apparent inconsistency that the Appellant indicated that XXXX also had an English name. The RAD finds that the inconsistency, without a reasonable explanation, damages the Appellant's credibility. [43] Psychological report - The RPD considered the Appellant's psychological report. It noted that it could not conclude, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant's symptoms, as described in the report, were as a result of the alleged persecution or harm in his home country as it did not believe they occurred and there could be other reasons why he may be experiencing the symptoms. The RPD gave the psychological report little weight. [44] In the RAD's view, a psychological report presented by a refugee claimant does not serve to prove the events related to the alleged persecution suffered by that individual. Of course, such a report may establish that the Appellant suffers from a condition or exhibits symptoms that are consistent with the alleged trauma. Further, a psychological report might assist the RPD in conducting the hearing in an appropriately sensitive manner or to consider whether apparent credibility problems are instead the result of a psychological condition. [45] The Federal Court has commented that "Just because a patient is suffering from psychological problems and manifests symptoms associated with those problems does not mean that the patient's account of past persecution as the cause of those problems can be believed."20 The RAD has reviewed the Appellant's psychological report, and there is nothing in the document to suggest that the psychologist independently verified any of the allegations reported by the Appellant. It is the RPD's responsibility to determine whether the Appellant is credible, and the RPD is not required to defer to a psychologist's report when making findings of fact in respect to alleged past persecution. [46] The RAD concurs with the RPD assigning little weight to the Appellant's psychological report as his account of past persecution being the cause of his psychological problems cannot be believed. [47] Other supporting documents - The RPD considered the other documents the Appellant provided in support of his allegations including a number of sworn affidavits, photographs and police reports. It found that the documents did not allay its concerns regarding the Appellant's credibility or the reliability of his story. The RPD ascribed little weight to these documents based on its various findings regarding the Appellant's credibility and the veracity of material aspects of his evidence and testimony, and considering the easily available fraudulent and non-genuine documents from Nigeria. [48] The Appellant submits that the RPD's reasoning with respect to its findings on his other supporting documents has no basis in law. He argues that the RPD did not carry out any analysis of these documents that are important to the claim before reaching such a negative decision. [49] The RAD notes that the RPD is presumed to have considered all of the evidence before it, and there is no requirement for the panel to refer to each document in the record.21 However, where there is evidence which is contrary to its decision, the RPD must analyze that evidence and provide reasons why it does not consider it relevant or trustworthy, or why it chose to disregard it.22 [50] In the reasons for its decision, the RPD notes some of the Appellant's corroborating documents such as photographs, hospital documents, and his psychological report. At his hearing before the RPD, the Appellant was questioned with respect to those documents and others, such as the police documents and e-mail message he provided. Photographs [51] In paragraph 33 of the reasons for its decision, the RPD notes that it considered a photograph of a young girl with an injury to her XXXX and was not persuaded that the injury to the girl was as a result of the events described by the Appellant. In paragraph 28, the RPD notes that it considered a photograph that depicts the Appellant embracing another man. [52] The RAD considered all of the photographs presented in evidence.23 They were submitted with the following descriptions: supporting photographs; additional supporting photographs; and photographs regarding marriage, family, hospitalization, etc. The photographs are undated and without context. As such, when viewed as part of the totality of the evidence, including the credibility concerns with the Appellant's testimony and evidence, the RAD finds that the photographs have little probative value in supporting the Appellant's allegations. Hospital documents [53] In paragraph 37 of the reasons for its decision, the RPD notes asking the Appellant why there was no mention of an attack on the hospital in the letters from the hospital where certain events were alleged to have occurred. [54] The RAD considered the medical documents24 submitted in evidence to support the alleged attack of the Appellant and his family members in their home by seven heavily armed men. The RAD notes that the medical report for XXXX,25 the Appellant's daughter, who was allegedly being forcibly circumcised, does not mention she had been unconscious as a result of the attack on her as the Appellant alleged in his Basis of Claim form (BoC) narrative and at the hearing. Loss of consciousness is a very serious medical issue, and it would be reasonable to expect a medical report to indicate this if she had suffered a loss of consciousness. [55] The RAD also notes that XXXX's medical report was not consistent with the Appellant's oral testimony at his hearing. When asked by the RPD at his hearing what had happened to his children in the attack, the Appellant testified that he told XXXX not to come out but a man took a knife and struck her and she hit the wall and passed out. The Appellant also testified that XXXX sustained a big cut on her back. When asked by the RPD to point out the location of the cut in the photograph26 of XXXX, the Appellant said it was in the back. The medical report does not reflect this. One would expect a medical report to list all the injuries a patient was treated for. It would be reasonable to expect the medical report for XXXX to mention a serious injury such as a big cut to her back, especially when it mentions less serious injuries such as pain on the elbow, bruises on the forehead and knee area and a cut on the lower lip. [56] The RAD also notes that the medical report does not differentiate what injuries were received for each of the Appellant's two daughters and what treatment was provided for each child. It is highly unlikely that both of the Appellant's daughters received the exact same injuries and medical treatment when their alleged beatings differed significantly. [57] The RAD also notes anomalies in the medical report27 for the Appellant. The letterhead on the report reads XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX while the stamp at the bottom of the report reads XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. It would be reasonable to expect a hospital's correspondence to contain the correct and consistent spelling of the name of the medical facility. [58] Given the concerns listed above, the RAD finds that the medical reports and photographs do not support the Appellant's allegations of the home invasion and beatings. The RAD also finds that the reports were not genuine documents and were presented to bolster the claim. As such, the RAD also finds that the Appellant has failed to establish that he and his family members were injured and treated in hospital and that the hospital was raided by a group of men looking for XXXX. Police documents [59] The RPD noted at the hearing that the police station diary extract dated XXXX XXXX, 2013 mentions that there was an attack by idol worshippers, however there were no details that the Appellant's uncle was involved or was one of the ones involved. The Appellant testified that he told police. When asked by the RPD if he knew why police did not write it down in the report, the Appellant said that his uncle was part of the idol worshippers as he is a XXXX. [60] The RAD finds it highly unreasonable that the Appellant would seek protection from police against an attack and threat to his life and fail to mention that his uncle, XXXX XXXX, was one of his persecutors. The Appellant writes in his BoC narrative that his life is in danger in Nigeria at the hands of the XXXX traditional authorities, his uncle (XXXX XXXX) and the chief priest of his community. However, the police station diary extract28 indicates that the Appellant sought protection against an attack and threat on his life by idol worshippers of the XXXX community, the chief priest and traditional leadership of the XXXX community. [61] The Federal Court has established, with respect to state protection, that a refugee claimant must provide the police with sufficient evidence to mount a successful investigation and information as to the criminals, is a key tool.29 If the Appellant knew the name or names of those he feared, it would be reasonable to expect him to provide police with the name or names. The Appellant knew the name of at least one of his alleged persecutors, his uncle (XXXX XXXX). If he had true intentions of seeking state protection from police in Nigeria, one would expect him to have provided police with the name or names of those who were allegedly pursuing him and his family members. The RAD is not persuaded that the Appellant provided police with such information as he alleges. One of the primary roles of police is to collect evidence and to identify the perpetrators of crimes for investigation purposes. It would be absurd for police not to note the names of alleged perpetrators if the names were provided to them by the victims as it would assist in their investigation. [62] The RAD also notes that the Appellant's uncle, XXXX XXXX, is not named in the other police document dated XXXX XXXX, 2013.30 Considering that XXXX XXXX is allegedly one of the main agents of persecution, it would be reasonable to expect him to be named in a police report filed to obtain protection from the agents of persecution. [63] Given the concerns listed above, the RAD finds that the police documents do not support the Appellant's allegations that he and his daughter were pursued by his XXXX XXXX, the XXXX XXXX of his community or XXXX XXXX. The RAD also finds that the police reports are not genuine documents and were presented to bolster the claim. As such, the RAD also finds that the Appellant has failed to establish that he was wanted by police in Nigeria because he had been falsely accused of being a bisexual. E-mail message from XXXX XXXX [64] The Appellant submitted an e-mail message from XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX indicates in the message that he is a long-time friend of the Appellant and that they have known each other since childhood. He also indicates that he referred to the Appellant in a sworn declaration31 as the Appellant's brother because in many ways he is like his brother and they considered each other brothers, although they were not related biologically. XXXX XXXX indicates in the message that he was also aware of the problems the Appellant and his family were facing in Nigeria. [65] Given that XXXX XXXX attested to being the Appellant's brother in a legal document, when he was not, and given that it is unknown what problems he is referring to in his message, and given that it is unknown how he came to know of the Appellant's problems, the RAD assigns no weight to this document. [66] The RPD found the Appellant and his documents were not credible. The RPD noted documentary evidence indicating the ease of availability of fraudulent and non-genuine documents from Nigeria. The RAD notes that the Appellant's supporting documents, including the affidavits,32 are based on his allegations which have been found not to be credible. The RAD finds his supporting documents also not credible. As noted in Gomez, corroboration does not make an incredible story credible.33 [67] Based on a review of the totality of the evidence, including the credibility concerns which go to the core of the claim, the RAD concurs with the RPD's credibility findings. The RAD has also made further credibility findings. The RPD and RAD's credibility concerns with the Appellant as a witness and his allegations extend to all aspects of his claim as per Shiekh.34 Disposition [68] The Appellant has alleged that the RPD erred by impugning his credibility on implausibility and conjecture and the incorrect assessment of the evidence before it. He has also alleged that the RPD erred in law by basing its negative findings of credibility on omissions in his evidence and ignored and/or failed to take relevant evidence into consideration. The RAD finds no such errors in the RPD's findings and, upon review of the evidence, has reached the same conclusion as the RPD - that the Appellant's allegations were not credible. [69] As a cumulative result of the above-noted anomalies, the RAD finds that the Appellant lacks credibility. The RAD does not accept, on a balance of probabilities, that the events, as described by the Appellant in his Basis of Claim Form and at his hearing with the RPD, occurred as described. The RAD also finds the Appellant's evidence lacking in credibility with respect to the events material to his refugee claim. Therefore, the RAD finds that there is not a serious possibility of persecution should he return to Nigeria. The RAD therefore concludes that the Appellant has failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution under section 96 of the IRPA, and, for these same reasons, the RAD finds that the Appellant is not a person in need of protection or at a risk to life, or at risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or in danger of torture as set out in section 97 of the IRPA. CONCLUSION [70] Pursuant to Section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Refugee Appeal Division confirms the decision of the Refugee Protection Division and dismisses the appeal. (signed) 'M. Pettinella' M. Pettinella April 1, 2015 Date 1 Huruglica, Bujar v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-6362-13), Phelan, August 22, 2014; 2014 FC 799. 2 Huruglica, para. 45. 3 Huruglica, para. 54. 4 Huruglica, para. 55. 5 Exhibit P-2, at p. 17. 6 Exhibit RPD-1, National Documentation Package, Nigeria, at p. 68, item 5.12, Response to Information Request NGA104220.E,-Whether parents can refuse female genital mutilation for their daughters; protection available to the child. 7Zhou, Ting Yu v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-492-91), Heald, Desjardins, Linden, July 18, 1994; Victorov, Alexey v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-5170-94), Noel, June 14, 1995; Andrade, Pedro Aleksei Marchant v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., IMM-2361-96), Noel, May 5, 1997. 8 Zvonov, Sergei v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3030-93), Rouleau, July 18, 1994, Reported: Zvonov v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1994), 28 Imm. L.R. (2d) 23 (F.C.T.D.); Villalba, Juan Francisco Massaffero v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-7172-93), Rothstein, October 19, 1994; Chkliar, Ekaterina v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2991-94), Wetston, January 21, 1995; Mihelcic, Nicola v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1010-94), Gibson, March 16, 1995; Varga, Sava v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-790-94), Heald, June 8, 1995. 9 Exhibit RPD-1, at p. 42. 10 Sung, Wei Hao v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. T-3070-92), Joyal, February 6, 1996 as reported in X (Re), 2005 CanLII 77801 (IRB). 11 Exhibit RPD-1, at p. 60, item 2.1. 12 Exhibit RPD-1, at p. 60, item 2.2. 13 Exhibit RPD-1, at p. 61, item 2.6. 14 Exhibit RPD-1, at p. 61, item 2.9. 15 Exhibit RPD-1, at p. 241. 16 Exhibit RPD-1, at p. 69, item 6.1, Response to Information Request NGA103958.E. 17 Exhibit RPD-1, at p. 73, item 10.5, Response to Information Request NGA103997.E. 18 Kante, Abdoulaye v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2585-93), Nadon, March 23, 1994. 19 Luzi, Tshongo Ngongo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (F.C., no. IMM-4183-03) Pinard, June 28, 2004; 2004 FC 916. 20 Mico, Aleksander v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-6477-10), Russell, July 29, 2011, 2011 FC 964, paragraph 54 . 21 Hassan v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1992] FCJ No 946. 22 Nasufi, Udi v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-5925-10), Scott, May 19, 2011, 2011 FC 586; Khan Mostafa v. M.C.I. (F.C, no. IMM-5685-02), Tremblay-Lamer, September 17, 2003, 2003 FC 1076;; Cepeda-Gutierrez v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] FCJ No 1425. 23 Exhibit RPD-1, at pp. 91, 95-97, 248-256, 293. 24 Exhibit RPD-1, at pp. 240-241. 25 Exhibit RPD-1, at p. 241. 26 Exhibit RPD-1, at p. 95. 27 Exhibit P-2, at p. 48. 28 Exhibit RPD-1, at p. 114. 29 Karaseva, Tatiana v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-4683-96), Teitelbaum, November 26, 1997. 30 Exhibit RPD-1, at p. 113. 31 Exhibit RPD-1, at pp. 92-93. 32 Exhibit RPD-1, at pp.183-191. 33 Gomez, Hector Cisneros v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-5741-04), Harrington, June 16, 2005, 2005 FC 859. 34 Sheikh v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1990] 3 F.C. 238 (C.A.), at 244, per MacGuigan, J.A. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB5-00185