TB8-24233

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-24233 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 XXXX) Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision March 5, 2019 Date de la décision Panel Linda Hart Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal Micheal Crane Conseil(s) (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION INTRODUCTION [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the Appellant) is a citizen of Sri Lanka. He appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejecting his claim for refugee protection. DETERMINATION [2] The Refugee Appeal Division (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 paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF APPEAL [3] The Appellant alleged that in 2006 he transferred from his government position at the Sri Lanka XXXX XXXX to the XXXX XXXX of the Office of the XXXX XXXX. His job there was to handle special projects ordered by the president's secretary through the XXXX directors Mr. XXXX XXXX and Mr. XXXX XXXX. In 2009, the Appellant was asked by the president's private secretary to organize a photo exhibit in Australia, which angered the media director Mr. XXXX. [4] On XXXX XXXX, 2009, the Appellant met with a colleague at the Sri Lankan Foundation named XXXX XXXX who wrote articles against the government. While there, the Appellant met another journalist named XXXX XXXX who was said to be missing. [5] The Senior Assistant Secretary to the President, XXXX XXXX, met with the Appellant on XXXX XXXX, 2009, and questioned him about his presence at the foundation with the two journalists who were considered to be enemies of the government. He accused him of associating with XXXX XXXX. The Appellant was beaten severely and threatened by the presidential security that he would be killed if he did not speak the truth. He was returned to his home, and because he and his family were scared, they relocated to XXXX. The Appellant was transferred back to his job at the XXXX XXXX. His passport, which had earlier been sent to the Australian High Commission for a visa, was returned to him by XXXX XXXX with the visa missing. The Appellant complained to the Australian High Commissioner's office and was told that he could make a complaint to the police. XXXX XXXX called him and threatened him that if he complained to the police he would be killed, and that he should return to his media job because the Appellant knew all of the fraud activities XXXX XXXX and the goons of the government politicians had done. The Appellant believed that they had a blackmail weapon against him, which was the terrorist label they used against the journalist XXXX XXXX, whom he had earlier met. [6] The Appellant alleged that he was pressured in many ways and that he was unexpectedly arrested without any investigation and brought to the courts on a false complaint. However, the case was settled after he hired a lawyer. The Appellant decided to leave Sri Lanka after the presidential election in April 2010. He travelled to the United States (US) in XXXX 2011 on a multiple entry visitor's visa and remained in that country until 2017 when he came to Canada and made a claim for refugee protection. He alleged that he did not make an asylum claim in the US because he could not afford to do so. [7] The Appellant's refugee claim was heard on August 31, 2018. In an oral decision delivered the same day, the RPD rejected the Appellant's claim finding that there was not a serious possibility that he would face persecution or serious harm because of the change in government; because the journalist XXXX XXXX had been cleared of any links to the LTTE or criminal activities; and because of the overall changes in the climate in Sri Lanka. [8] The Appellant submits that the RPD made the following errors in coming to its conclusions: a. the RPD failed to deal with the risk from XXXX and XXXX; b. the RPD did not consider that he could no longer work in his profession of journalism, which is persecution under section 96 and mistreatment under section 97; c. the RPD failed to consider cumulative persecution; d. the RPD erred in finding that there was a change of circumstances; and, e. in the alternative, the RPD erred by failing to consider compelling reasons. ADMISSIBILITY OF NEW EVIDENCE PRESENTED ON APPEAL [9] As provided for in subsection 110(3) of the IRPA, with certain exceptions, the RAD must proceed without a hearing on the basis of the record of the proceedings of the RPD, and may accept documentary evidence and written submissions from the Minister and the person who is the subject of the appeal. Subsection 110(4) of the IRPA provides that the person who is the subject of the appeal may 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] The Appellant has submitted an article from The Economic Times dated October 26, 2018, which shows that the individual who was the president of Sri Lanka when the Appellant experienced his problems in 2009 was sworn in as the Prime Minister of the country in October 2018. He does not request an oral hearing as a result of this new evidence. [11] The RAD will accept this article into evidence as it was published after the rejection of the Appellant's claim, it contains new evidence that was not available when the claim was heard, and it is relevant to the allegations that he fears members of the government. [12] The RAD agrees with the Appellant that it is not necessary to have an oral hearing regarding this evidence as the RAD is able to consider such evidence and assess its probative value without holding an oral hearing. Moreover, as discussed below, the latest evidence available shows that this person ceased to be the Prime Minister after approximately a month, after two crucial Supreme Court decisions made his efforts to claim premiership untenable. ANALYSIS Failure to Assess the Risk from Agents of Persecution XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX [13] The RPD considered that the previous Mahinda Rajapaksa government had lost power in an election that was free and fair, and that the journalist XXXX XXXX has since been cleared of any suspicion of links to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The RPD found that there was no longer an objectively well-founded fear of persecution for the Appellant in Sri Lanka. The RPD considered that the Appellant's family had been in Sri Lanka for the last seven years and that no harm had come to them despite the Appellant's allegation that the people he fears are powerful. The RPD further considered that the situation for journalists has changed since the Appellant left the country; that the level of censorship has relaxed since the end of the war; and that journalists are now free to criticize the government. The RPD found that in addition to Sri Lanka having had a change of government, there has been a change of circumstances for journalists. [14] The Appellant argues that he had a conflict with XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, who threatened to kill him, and that the police refused to take his complaint about the mutilation of his passport because they would not make a case against the government. He submits that XXXX XXXX knew about his attempted complaint to the police. He submits that he stated at the hearing that he was aware that XXXX XXXX was still employed in the office of the President as he had seen him on TV at official events in Sri Lanka and at the United Nations (UN) conference for Sri Lanka in New York in 2016. [15] The Appellant argues that the RPD should have considered his fear of persecution from XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX under the ground of imputed political opinion given that these individuals are both agents of the state who have used the state to arrest him and to suppress his complaint to the police. [16] The RAD has considered the record and notes that the RPD did not specifically address the Appellant's fear of the agents of persecution, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, in its decision. However, the RAD is able to conduct its own assessment of the evidence and specifically address the Appellant's fear in this regard. [17] The RAD finds, after considering the record and the new evidence, that there is less than a mere possibility that the Appellant would suffer persecution or harm from these two individuals should he return to Sri Lanka. The RAD finds that the Appellant has not established, on a balance probabilities, that XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX remain employed in the office of the President or that they continue to have any interest in him. Although he has alleged that he had seen them on TV at official events in Sri Lanka, and Mr. XXXX at the UN conference for Sri Lanka in New York in 2016, he has not provided any details regarding where, when or in what context these events occurred. Although he has alleged that there was a UN conference for Sri Lanka in New York in 2016, he has not provided any documentary supporting evidence regarding the occurrence of this conference or the names of the participants. [18] The RAD has further considered that there is no evidence on the record that these individuals have shown any interest in the Appellant since 2009 when the alleged events occurred. The Appellant did not leave Sri Lanka until July 2011 and there is no evidence on the record that these individuals attempted to harm the Appellant or his family during this period of time. [19] The Appellant has alleged that he was picked up by the police on a false complaint; however, there is no evidence that these two men were involved. The Appellant has provided a letteri from the lawyer he hired to deal with these charges. The letter does not state why the Appellant was arrested. The lawyer does write that the Appellant was arrested due to personal rage, but does not state what the charges were and makes no mention of XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX in the letter. He states in the letter that the Appellant is another targeted journalist who faced many life threats. The RAD finds that this is not consistent with the Appellant's own evidence that his life was threatened once when he was detained by the presidential security, and one other time on the telephone. The RAD finds that the lawyer's letter is not probative in establishing the Appellant's allegations. The RAD notes that the only mention of why he was arrested at that time is contained in the Schedule A formii in response to question 6(J) which asks if the claimant has ever been detained, incarcerated or put in jail. The Appellant noted that he was arrested by the police in Sri Lanka for an alleged monetary transaction and by Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) when he entered Canada. The RAD notes that he does not mention his alleged detention by the presidential security in response to this question. [20] The RAD has further considered that the Appellant continued to work for the government in the XXXX XXXX until he left Sri Lanka, and that there is no evidence on the record that he suffered any harm while working in that position or that there were any attempts to terminate his government employment, despite his allegations that XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX were powerful individuals in the government. Additionally, there is no credible evidence on the record that these individuals have shown any interest in the Appellant in the seven years since he left Sri Lanka. [21] The RAD has considered the Appellant's testimony at the hearing that Mr. XXXX had mentioned to some of the Appellant's friends that if the Appellant returned to Sri Lanka, he (the Appellant) would kill Mr. XXXX, and that Mr. XXXX would be believed by the government because he is powerful with the media. The RAD notes that this statement at the hearing was without detail. The Appellant did not state who the friends were who had received this information or when these comments were made by Mr. XXXX. The RAD notes that the Appellant has provided no corroboration from these friends who heard this alleged information. The RAD finds that it would be reasonable to expect some corroboration of the most recent threats from Mr. XXXX given that his fear of this man goes to the heart of his claim. The RAD finds that the Appellant has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that these statements were made about him by Mr. XXXX to the Appellant's friends given the lack of detail regarding these allegations and the lack of corroboration. [22] The RAD has further considered the reasons why these individuals sought to harm the Appellant, which were that XXXX XXXX was angry with him because he had been contacted directly by the private secretary to the president to organize a photo exhibition in Australia, and that the Appellant had knowledge of all the fraud activities of Mr. XXXX XXXX and the government goons. However, the only evidence on the record regarding the Appellant's knowledge of fraud activities was that an Australian visa sticker had been removed from his passport, and it is unclear from the evidence that this was actually done by XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX. Additionally, the Appellant assumed that XXXX XXXX had received information about his complaint to the police in 2009; however, other than telephoning the Appellant, it does not appear that XXXX XXXX harmed him in any way because of the police complaint. Although the Appellant stated in his BOC that XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX could blackmail him because he had met with the journalist XXXX XXXX, this person is no longer considered as having links to the LTTE.iii [23] The RAD finds that it has not been established, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant had any knowledge of fraudulent activities perpetuated by the government which would cause him to be a threat to former or present employees of the government, or that the agents of persecution, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, continue to have any interest in harming the Appellant, 10 years after the alleged events. Change of Circumstances [24] The RPD found that there was a change of circumstances given that the government that had been in power when the Appellant had his problems had changed, the situation for journalists has changed, and that the journalist accused of being linked to the LTTE had been exonerated. [25] The RPD found that the Appellant would no longer be considered as having links to the LTTE given that the journalist XXXX XXXX had been cleared of having links to the LTTE in 2016. The RPD noted that the Appellant did not provide an explanation at the hearing for why he thought he would still be in danger given that this person had been cleared by the government. [26] The RPD noted that the XXXX XXXX government that had been in power when the Appellant had his problems in Sri Lanka lost in an election that was free and fair. The RPD noted that the documentary evidence states that the situation for journalists has changed under the new government and that the level of censorship has relaxed since the end of the conflict in 2009 and journalists are free to criticize the government. [27] The RPD found, given this change of circumstances regarding the situation in Sri Lanka and the Appellant's personal circumstances, that there was not a serious possibility that the Appellant would face persecution or harm should he return to Sri Lanka today. [28] The Appellant argues that there were other contributing factors independent of his association with XXXX XXXX that caused him to be named as an LTTE supporter. He argues that he stated in his BOC that he had received information from Tamil people for the successful photo exhibition in Europe and that Mr. XXXX labelled him as a supporter. [29] The Appellant submits that should he return to Sri Lanka, he would still be labelled as a supporter of the LTTE, and that even if he was to be cleared of his association with XXXX XXXX, this would be done after an inquiry and examination by the authorities which could mean detention and torture. [30] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in finding that there has been a change of circumstances for journalists in Sri Lanka. He argues that reporting on the war, security issues, or the president invited harassment and intimidation. He argues that the RPD should have acknowledged that being a journalist, a person labelled as an LTTE supporter and having an association with a person considered to be an LTTE supporter was an ongoing risk factor according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). [31] The RAD has reviewed the record and finds that the RPD did not err in its assessment of the change of circumstances. The Appellant has provided new evidence showing that the president who was in power when the Appellant had his problems had been named the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka on October 26, 2018.iv However, approximately one and a half months later, he was forced to resign from the position after two Supreme Court decisions made his efforts to cling to the premiership untenable.v The RAD finds that the political situation has not significantly changed since the RPD decision. There is no evidence on the record that any of the positive changes made by the current government no longer exist. [32] The RAD has considered the most recent newspaper articles submitted by the Appellant,vi which indicate that the former president remains in a position of influence as he is a member of the coalition party running the government. The RAD finds that the former president's political position does not significantly impact the findings in this decision. He was not directly an agent of persecution in regard to the claims made by the Appellant. As noted earlier, there is no probative evidence in the record that XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX continue to have any interest in harming the Appellant, 10 years after the alleged events. [33] The Appellant has submitted a letter from a priest associated with the temple that his family attends in Sri Lanka.vii This letter, dated December 2, 2018, talks about past events and notes that after the appointment of the new Prime Minister, there were inquiries about the whereabouts of the Appellant by police and others. It indicates that his family members are very much in fear. The RAD finds that it can put no weight on this document to corroborate that the agents of persecution continued to have an interest in the Appellant. The RAD notes that this letter is not an original document and that it is not accompanied by evidence of how it arrived in Canada. The RAD further notes that the events noted in the letter were not directly experienced by the author and that there is no indication of how he came to know that inquiries were made about the Appellant by police and others. The letter does not indicate when this happened or who the "others" were. The letter does not state the nature of the inquiries. The letter indicates that the Appellant's family is living in fear of danger because of these visits and the RAD finds it suspect that they would not have provided a letter, affidavit or email themselves stating what had happened in regard to people coming to look for the Appellant. The RAD has considered as well the other findings in this decision regarding the agents of persecution. [34] The RAD has considered the Appellant's allegations that he was believed to be associated with the LTTE for reasons other than his meeting with XXXX XXXX. Although the Appellant has alleged that he had received information from Tamil people for his successful photo exhibition in Europe, which caused him to be labelled as a terrorist supporter, the RAD notes that the purpose of this exhibit was to show the atrocities of the LTTE during the war, and that he was asked to organize another photo exhibition in Australia by the Sri Lankan government because of the success of the European photo exhibition. This request was made by the private secretary to the president and the RAD does not find it reasonable or plausible that the Appellant would be asked to organize another exhibit if he was considered to be a terrorist supporter. [35] The RAD has further considered that the Sri Lankan army and police authorities, including the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) and the Terrorism Investigation Department (TID) never approached the Appellant or accused him of having links to the LTTE, despite the fact that he remained in Sri Lanka for over two years after he had been accused of being a supporter of the LTTE. Furthermore, he did not have any problems leaving the country and he was able to renew his passport while he was in the US. The documentary evidence notes that citizens are not allowed to leave the country if they are charged with criminal or civil violations and that the airport maintains a list of persons of interest by law enforcement agencies that have violated Sri Lankan law and transfers nationals to law enforcement from the airport. Furthermore there is a "stop list" which includes names of individuals considered to be of interest.viii [36] The RAD has further considered that despite having been labelled an LTTE supporter and having been threatened with death on at least one occasion, the Appellant did not make a claim for asylum in the US where he resided for approximately seven years after leaving Sri Lanka in 2011. The RAD does not find his explanation that he could not afford a lawyer to be reasonable given that he resided in the US illegally after his first six months in that country and could have been returned to Sri Lanka at any time after that; that he has provided no evidence of any research or attempts made to acquire legal aid from the government or NGOs in the US to pay for legal expenses; that he could have submitted a claim for asylum without having the services of a lawyer as he initially did for his Canadian refugee claim; and because he has alleged that threats were made against him after he left Sri Lanka. [37] As noted earlier, the RAD has found that the Appellant has not credibly established that his alleged agents of persecution, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, continued to work for the government or have any interest in harming him at the present time. Additionally, the RAD agrees with the RPD that the Appellant would not be considered a supporter of the LTTE because of his brief meeting with the journalist XXXX XXXX as this individual has now been exonerated. The RAD finds, on a balance probabilities, that this brief meeting would not be used against the Appellant as proof that he had an association with the LTTE given the particular circumstances. [38] The RAD finds that the Appellant's allegations that he was considered an LTTE supporter while in Sri Lanka have not been established on a balance of probabilities. The RAD further finds that should he return to Sri Lanka, he would not be considered to be an LTTE supporter by the authorities and he would not be investigated or detained for this reason given his personal circumstances. The RAD finds that there is not a serious possibility that the Appellant would be arrested and tortured upon return to Sri Lanka because of perceived links to the LTTE. [39] The RAD has considered the Appellant's profile as a journalist and agrees with the RPD that the documentary evidence indicates that the situation for journalists has changed in recent years. Recent documentary evidence states that the constitution provides for freedom of expression, including for the press, and that the government generally respects those rights. It is stated that an independent press, an effective judiciary and a functioning democratic political system combine to promote freedom of expression, including for the press. It is noted that the independent media were active and expressed a wide variety of views.ix It is stated that journalists in the Tamil majority North reported harassment and intimidation;x however, the RAD notes that there is no evidence on the record that the Appellant ever resided in or reported about the North of Sri Lanka. The censorship regime has been officially dismantled by the current president and previously inaccessible content on the Internet has become accessible, except for pornography.xi Authorities have renewed investigations into past crimes against journalists and have detained nearly a dozen suspects in the 2010 disappearance of XXXX XXXX.xii [40] The RAD has considered the documentary evidence and the Appellant's personal circumstances. The RAD finds that there is less than a mere possibility that the Appellant would be persecuted in Sri Lanka if he chose to work as a journalist in that country. Failed Refugee Claimant and Residual Profile [41] The Appellant argues that the RPD did not address his residual profile as a failed asylum-seeker and that there is evidence that there is a risk for all returnees to Sri Lanka. [42] The RAD has reviewed the record and agrees that the RPD did not consider this aspect of the claim. However, the RAD is able to conduct an independent assessment and consider this aspect of the appeal. [43] The RAD has considered the documentary evidence which states that returnees are processed by different agencies, including the Department of Immigration and Emigration, the State Intelligence Service, and the Criminal Investigation Department. It is noted that these agencies check travel documents and identity information against the immigration databases, intelligence databases and the records of outstanding criminal matters. It is further noted that for returnees travelling on temporary travel documents, police undertake an investigation process to confirm identity, which often involves interviewing the returnee, contacting their home town police, their neighbours and family, and checking criminal and court records.xiii [44] The RAD notes that the Appellant has his own permanent Sri Lankan passport which was issued while he was out of the country, and that he was able to leave Sri Lanka without any problems. The RAD has already found that he has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that he had been or would be associated with the LTTE by Sri Lankan authorities. There is no evidence on the record to indicate that his name would appear on immigration, intelligence or criminal databases given that he was able to leave the country without any problems at the height of the time that he believed he was considered an LTTE supporter or associate. There is no evidence in the record that the Appellant has had any association with LTTE diaspora organizations while outside of Sri Lanka, or that he has written about or criticized the Sri Lankan government in any way while outside of the country. The RAD finds that while remaining outside of Sri Lanka for a long period of time may subject the Appellant to higher screening at the airport in the form of questioning about his activities abroad, this in and of itself does not amount to persecution. [45] The documentary evidencexiv indicates that arrests and detentions of those with alleged links to the LTTE continue, but that they have been reduced; and, according to the Executive Director of the Northern Provincial Council (NPC), arrests and detentions are not common unless for some reasonable suspicion of criminal activities. As noted earlier, the RAD has found that the Appellant would not be perceived as someone associated with the LTTE. There is no evidence on the record that he was ever been involved in any criminal activity. Given his particular circumstances, the RAD finds, as noted earlier, that although the Appellant may be subjected to a higher level of screening at the airport because he has lived abroad, there is not a serious possibility that this treatment would amount to persecution. The RAD notes that there is no evidence on the record that the Sri Lankan authorities would be aware that the Appellant had made a refugee claim in Canada and had been rejected. [46] The RAD finds that the Appellant may face some harassment upon return to Sri Lanka; however, the RAD finds that it would not be sufficiently serious to amount to a serious possibility of persecution. [47] The RAD finds that the Appellant would not face a serious possibility of persecution in Sri Lanka as a failed refugee claimant. Loss of Profession [48] The Appellant argues that he would not be able to return to his profession as a XXXX in Sri Lanka and that there is more than a mere possibility that he will have been permanently deprived of his profession, which is persecutory and merits protection under sections 96 and 97. [49] The RAD has reviewed the record and finds that there is insufficient information in the documentary evidence that the Appellant would be banned from practising his profession as a XXXX throughout Sri Lanka. The RAD notes that he returned to his job in the XXXX XXXX in 2009 and remained working there until 2011. There is no evidence in the record that he was fired or dismissed from this job. The recent documentary evidence, as noted earlier, states that independent media are active and express a wide variety of views. The RAD has further considered the other findings in this decision regarding the agents of persecution and risk upon return and finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant would be able to work in the profession of his choice in Sri Lanka. [50] The RAD has considered whether the Appellant would experience discrimination when seeking employment because of his past or for any other reason and whether this would amount to persecution. The RAD has considered that the UNHCR Handbook states in Article 54 that differences in treatment of various groups do indeed exist to a greater or lesser extent in many societies and that persons who receive less favourable treatment as a result of such differences are not necessarily victims of persecution. This would be so if measures of discrimination lead to consequences of a substantially prejudicial nature for the person concerned, such as serious restrictions to his right to earn his livelihood, his right to practice his religion, or his access to normally available education facilities. The RAD finds that the Appellant would not be subjected to this sort of discrimination and that even if he did have difficulties finding work as a XXXX because of his past, this would not amount to persecution. The RAD finds that there is no evidence in the record that the Appellant would not be able to find work in Sri Lanka. Compelling Reasons [51] The RPD did not address the issue of compelling reasons in its decision. The Appellant argues that the RPD implicitly accepted that he had been persecuted or subjected to previous torture or previous mistreatment in its decision. He submits that if it has accepted that he was detained and tortured in March 2016, he merits protection in that being tortured by itself is a compelling reasons meriting protection.xv [52] The RAD has reviewed the record and has conducted its own assessment of whether the Appellant merits a positive determination of his claim on the basis of compelling reasons. The RAD finds that the claim does not merit being accepted for compelling reasons. [53] The RAD has considered that the threshold necessary to demonstrate compelling reasons is a high one. In Nimo Ali Hassan,xvi Justice Rothstein stated: While many refugee claimants might consider the persecution they have suffered to fit within the scope of subsection 2(3) [of the Immigration Act] it must be remembered that the nature of all persecution, by definition, involves death, physical harm or other penalties. Subsection 2(3), as it has been interpreted, only applies to extraordinary cases in which the persecution is relatively so exceptional, that even in the wake of changed circumstances, it would be wrong to return refugee claimants.45 [54] In Shahidxvii the Federal Court set out the relevant considerations for determining whether compelling reasons exist: The board, once it embarked upon the assessment of the applicant's claim under subs. 2(3) [of the Immigration Act], had the duty to consider the level of atrocity of the acts inflicted upon the applicant, the repercussions upon his physical and mental state, and determine whether this experience alone constituted a compelling reason not to return him to his country. [55] The RAD finds that the Appellant has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that there have been any repercussions upon his physical and mental state. The RAD has considered that the Appellant has not provided any medical documentation regarding his condition after being beaten while in detention for approximately two and half hours on April 11, 2009. He has not provided any documentation or evidence regarding any long-term issues stemming from the beating. The Appellant has also not provided any evidence regarding any subsisting psychological problems resulting from his experiences in Sri Lanka. The RAD notes that the Appellant resided in the US for many years after leaving Sri Lanka and maintained employment in that country. There is no evidence in the record that he sought medical or psychological help as a result of his Sri Lankan experiences during that period of time. [56] The RAD has considered the level of atrocity of the acts inflicted on the Appellant, and whether the Appellant's experiences in Sri Lanka would constitute a compelling reason not to return to that country. The RAD notes that the Appellant was detained on one occasion for 2 1/2 hours and that according to his BOC he was severely beaten. He has not provided any evidence regarding the necessity of seeking medical treatment due to the severity of the beating. He remained in Sri Lanka for over two years after the incidents in 2009 and continued to work for the Port Authority until he left the country. There is no evidence on the record that he sought medical or psychological help during that period of time. The RAD has considered that he was arrested and brought to the courts on a false complaint, which was settled with the help of a lawyer. The Appellant has not provided any evidence regarding any period of detention at the time of this arrest, or harm experienced when arrested. After considering the evidence on the record regarding the level of atrocity of the acts inflicted upon the Appellant, the RAD finds that they do not not rise to such a level as to constitute a compelling reason for the Appellant not to return to Sri Lanka. Cumulative Persecution [57] The Appellant argues that the RPD did not consider the cumulative aspect of his experiences in Sri Lanka and whether they amount to persecution. He submits that he was subjected to arbitrary arrest and mistreatment and threats. He argues that cumulatively, he merits protection under section 96. [58] The RAD has conducted its own assessment of whether there is a serious possibility that the Appellant would experience persecution in Sri Lanka based on cumulative grounds. The RAD has considered the earlier findings in these reasons. The RPD has found that there is insufficient evidence to establish that the Appellant would not be able to practice his profession upon his return; that although the Appellant may be questioned by the authorities upon return to Sri Lanka, he has not established that he would be arrested or physically mistreated; that there is insufficient evidence on the record to establish that his previous agents of persecution retain any interest in harming him; and that he has not established that the Sri Lankan authorities perceive him to be associated in any way with the LTTE. The RAD finds that the Appellant does not merit protection on cumulative grounds. CONCLUSION [59] The RAD has conducted its own assessment of the evidence and has considered the above noted findings regarding the Appellant's credibility, profile, and risk upon return to Sri Lanka, which it finds to be determinative in this claim. The RAD finds that the RPD did not err in concluding that there was not a serious possibility that the Appellant would suffer persecution upon return to Sri Lanka or that there are substantial grounds to believe that he would be tortured, or at risk of losing his life or being subjected to cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if he is returned to his home country. [60] 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 paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). (signed) "Linda Hart" Linda Hart March 5, 2019 Date i Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, p. 128. ii Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, p. 42. iii Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Sri Lanka (30 April 2018), Item 2.1, United States. Department of State (20 April 2018). iv Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pp. 1-3. v Exhibit RAD-1, RAD Disclosure, Article Rajapaksa resigns as Sri Lanka's PM, Wickremesinghe to be reinstated, Dated December 15, 2018. vi Exhibit P-3, Response to RAD Disclosure, Submissions and Articles, Received 28 January 2019. vii Ibid., pp. 2-3. viii Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, NDP for Sri Lanka (30 April 2018), Item 14.1, Response to Information Request (RIR) LKA106007.E, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (10 November 2017). ix Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, NDP for Sri Lanka (30 April 2018), Item 2.1. x Ibid. xi Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, NDP for Sri Lanka (30 April 2018), Item 11.4, Freedom House (2017). xii Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, NDP for Sri Lanka (30 April 2018), Item 11.2, Freedom House (2016). xiii Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, NDP for Sri Lanka (30 April 2018), Item 1.13, Australia. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (24 January 2017). xiv Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, NDP for Sri Lanka (30 April 2018), Item 13.1, RIR LKA105041.E, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (11 February 2015). xv Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, p. 23. xvi Hassan, Nimo Ali v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. A-653-92), Rothstein, May 4, 1994. xvii Shahid, Iqbal v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-6907-93), Noël, February 15, 1995. Reported: Shahid v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1995), 28 Imm. L.R. (2d) 130 (F.C.T.D.). --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-24233 RAD.25.02 (September 18, 2018) Disponible en français 18 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 (September 18, 2018) Disponible en français