TB5-05046

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 : TB5-05046 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision July 10, 2015 Date de la décision Panel Lesley Mason Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Paul Vandervennen Conseil(s) du (de la/des) personne(s) en cause 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 (the Appellant), who claims to be a citizen of Ethiopia, appeals the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying his claim for refugee protection. The Appellant asks the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) to set aside the RPD's decision and replace it with a determination that the Appellant is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. [2] The Appellant provided no new evidence and is not requesting that a hearing be held with respect to the appeal, under subsection 110(6) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). DETERMINATION [3] Pursuant to ss. 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the RAD confirms the determination of the RPD that the Appellant is not a Convention refugee nor is he a person in need of protection. The RAD dismisses the appeal. Background [4] The Appellant alleges that he became a member of the Coalition for Unity and Democracy (CUD or Kinijit) party in XXXX 2005. On XXXX XXXX, while attending a political demonstration, the Appellant and two friends where captured by the police and taken to the police station. The following day they were sent to XXXX XXXX detention centre where the Appellant endured interrogation and physical abuse. He was released on XXXX XXXX, 2005 after having signed a statement under duress to never participate in any acts against the government. [5] In XXXX 2009, the Appellant joined the Unity for Democracy and Justice (UDJ) party. He attended meetings, donated money and participated in other party activities. [6] In XXXX 2011 the Appellant and his friends established a charitable organization called 'Rebirth of Ge'ez' in order to revive the endangered language of Ge'ez. In XXXX 2012 they began to teach the language of Ge'ez at XXXX XXXX XXXX. After the first graduation programme, held in XXXX 2013, the Appellant and two colleagues, who were also members of UDJ, were taken by police to the 3rd federal police criminal investigation centre. The Appellant was detained and then questioned about the political mission of the charitable organization. He was interrogated and physically abused while in detention. He was released on XXXX XXXX, 2013 after being forced to sign documents in which he agreed not to take part in anti-government political parties and also to close the Rebirth of Ge'ez organization. [7] The Appellant decided to leave the country. He was able to obtain a work permit through XXXX XXXX, an archbishop in Canada. The Appellant arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2014. He made a claim for refugee protection on December 29, 2014. [8] The Appellant's refugee determination hearing was held on March 9, 2015. In a written decision issued on April 15, 2015, the RPD rejected the claim. The RPD member found the determinative issues to be the identity and the credibility of the Appellant. [9] Appeal pleadings were received on June 3, 2015. In his appeal, the Appellant argues that the RPD erred in its findings with regards to his credibility and in the assigning of little weight to various documents he provided as evidence. ROLE OF THE RAD [10] As the Appellant stated in his appeal, the Federal Court decision in Huruglica1 has provided the RAD with guidance with respect to the role of the RAD. In this decision, Justice Phelan states: [54] 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. [55] 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." [11] Accordingly, the RAD has applied the reasoning as set out in Huruglica2 in its decision. ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE Did the RPD member err in her analysis of the Appellant's credibility? Resident Identity Card [12] The Appellant provided an Identity (ID) Card of Resident of District, issued XXXX XXXX, 2013, for his hearing before the RPD.3 Information contained on the card indicates that the Appellant's occupation is 'Government Employee'.4 [13] The RPD found it not reasonable that the Appellant had not noticed what he referred to as an error regarding his employment on the ID card until asked about it at the hearing before the RPD. The RPD found that the contradictions between the Appellant's testimony concerning his employment status with the government, together with inconsistencies in his explanation of that contradiction, go to the heart of the claim. The RPD found that as a result of the Appellant's occupation as a government employee one month after he was released from prison, his claim of government persecution was undermined and the RPD was led to draw a negative inference. [14] The Appellant argues that it was wrong of the RPD to draw a negative inference as a result of the discrepancy regarding his occupation on his ID card and that it was wrong of the RPD to reject his explanation that a mistake had been made on the card. The Appellant also argues that the RPD was wrong to state that the information found on the ID card regarding his occupation goes to the heart of the claim. [15] The RAD agrees with the RPD for the following reasons. [16] According to the recording of the hearing, when the Appellant was presented with the resident ID card, he testified that he had never worked for the government. He also testified that he had never noticed that his occupation was listed on the card as government employee. The RAD finds it highly unlikely that the Appellant did not notice the error. According to information contained in the independent documentary evidence, every citizen over the age of 18 is required to have a resident ID card and the resident should always hold this ID card.5 The RAD, thus, finds that from this evidence it is reasonable to expect that the resident ID card is one that an Ethiopian adult carries on his person every day. [17] During the hearing, the Appellant was asked to describe the procedure he followed to obtain the resident ID card. The RAD finds that the Appellant's testimony evolved as he provided an explanation. Examples are provided in the following two paragraphs. [18] When asked, the Appellant testified that the officer at the kebele (neighbourhood) office completed the application form for his ID card. The RPD member then asked the Appellant if the officer had asked questions to obtain information. The Appellant responded in the negative and then added that the officer used to see him go in and out of the XXXX and the officer thought he, the Appellant, worked at the XXXX. When the RPD member repeated the question, the Appellant testified that he was only asked for his full name and nothing else. The Appellant testified further that the officer knew him because they live in the same area and the officer might have thought that he was a regular employee of the XXXX. The RPD then asked why the Appellant thought the officer wrote that the Appellant is a government employee. The Appellant testified that people think that someone who teaches at the XXXX is a government worker. When the RPD asked the Appellant how the officer at the kebele office knew he worked at the XXXX, the Appellant testified that the officer watched him going in and out of the XXXX every day. The RPD then asked if the officer watched the Appellant from the kebele office. The Appellant repeated that he and the officer lived in the same area and then added that the officer sometimes saw him on the XXXX XXXX and sometimes in the XXXX library. The independent documentary evidence indicates that the population of Addis Ababa is 2.979 million (2011)6 and the Appellant testified that the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The RAD, thus, finds the numerous coincidences regarding the association of the officer in the kebele officer with the Appellant to be too fortuitous to be believable. In any event, even if such an officer assumed the employment of the Appellant to be that of a government employee, it is not reasonable that the Appellant was not asked about his employment to clarify the situation. The RAD notes that there is considerable information contained in the ID card, such as the name of the Appellant's mother, the Appellant's date of birth, place of birth and telephone number.7 The RAD finds it highly unlikely that the kebele officer, whom the Appellant testified asked him only his name, would have personal information about the Appellant such as his mother's name, his date of birth or his telephone number. [19] When the RPD asked the Appellant what documents were required to obtain his ID card, the Appellant testified that none were needed if you had witnesses who could verify where you lived. The RPD reminded the Appellant that he had earlier testified that the only thing he did in XXXX 2013 was to go back and forth to the Canadian embassy and that he had not mentioned going to the kebele office. The Appellant testified that there are many days in XXXX and on one day during March he went with a witness to get his ID card. Upon being asked, the Appellant testified that the witnesses were people who rented him his accommodation. The RPD reminded the Appellant that he had testified that he was constantly followed by security agents and then asked if the witness was not frightened to accompany him to the kebele office in such circumstances. The Appellant testified that the witnesses did not go anywhere because they worked at the kebele office. While possible, the RAD does not find it probable that not only was the interviewing officer at the kebele office acquainted with the Appellant, but the Appellant's landlords, who could act as witnesses, also worked in the kebele office. The RAD is guided by the words of Mr. Justice Mahoney in Orelien8 wherein he stated: It seems to me one cannot be satisfied the evidence is credible or trustworthy unless satisfied that it is probably so, not just possibly so. [20] The RAD finds that the Appellant's testimony regarding the acquisition of his ID to be an attempt to explain an error made on his ID card with respect to his employment. The RAD finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the ID card was not obtained in the manner in which the Appellant testified and that the Appellant was a government employee in XXXX XXXX in XXXX 2013. The Appellant states in his Basis of Claim (BoC) form9 and provides similar testimony, that he was detained on XXXX XXXX, 2013 and released on XXXX XXXX, 2013. If, as the Appellant alleges, he was detained by authorities for XXXX XXXX at the beginning of 2013 and accused of activities opposing the government, the RAD finds it unlikely that he would have been a government employee the following month. [21] The recording of the hearing indicates that after the Appellant provided testimony regarding the issuance of his ID card, he was asked to give an example when his ID card was used. He repeated his earlier testimony and stated that, when he was detained, the authorities took his ID card and later returned it to him. The RPD stated that the ID card returned to him after his detention was not the same ID card issued in XXXX 2013. However, the Appellant testified that when he was detained the authorities took two cards, his UDJ membership card and this kebele ID card. He then added that the ID card had been returned to him. The RPD member then asked the Appellant if it was the ID card he provided as evidence for his hearing that was returned to him once he was released from detention. The Appellant responded in the affirmative. The RPD reminded the Appellant that the card was issued in XXXX 2013, after he was released from detention. The Appellant testified that he cannot recall exact dates. The RAD does not find the Appellant's explanation satisfactory. He provided no evidence that he had been diagnosed or treated for any psychological disorder which could have affected his memory. The RAD finds that the Appellant could not consistently tell his story. An important indicator of credibility is whether a witness can consistently tell his particular story.10 The RAD, thus, finds the Appellant's credibility significantly undermined. [22] As a result of the above analysis, the RAD finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant was not detained from XXXX XXXX, 2013 to XXXX XXXX, 2013. Subjective Fear [23] According to the port-of-entry (POE) notes, the Appellant arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2014 and made a claim for refugee protection on December 29, 2014.11 Although not mentioned in the RPD's decision or by the Appellant in his appeal, the RAD notes that at the hearing before the RPD, the issue of delay in claim was raised by the RPD at the beginning of the hearing. During the hearing the Appellant was asked why he did not ask for refugee protection earlier than he did. The Appellant testified that he had no information on how to ask for refugee protection. He testified that he knew no one and that he did not know how to apply. He testified further that when he met a lady in the library, and when he heard she advised foreigners, he asked her for advice. When the RPD asked the Appellant if he had tried to obtain information earlier, he testified that he had no information and when he sought advice from the lady in the library he told her all of his problems. Upon being asked, the Appellant testified that Father XXXX helped him obtain a Canadian work visa, but that this had been done under false pretences and he had not worked upon arrival in Canada. The Appellant explained further that the visa was used only as a means of leaving Ethiopia. According to the recording of the hearing, in his oral submissions, counsel stated that the three month delay was not excessive and that it takes time to complete application forms. Counsel also submitted that at the time the Appellant made his claim for protection he had a work visa, valid for two years. [24] The RAD finds the Appellant's explanations for his delay in claim unsatisfactory. The RAD, also, respectfully, does not agree with counsel's submissions on this issue. The RAD's reasons are as follows. [25] The Appellant is a well-educated man; he has a Bachelor of Education in English12 Master's Degree in teaching the English language.13 The recording of the hearing indicates that although the Appellant had the services of an Amharic interpreter, the Appellant could be heard speaking English on numerous occasions. The RAD, thus, infers that the Appellant is capable of making inquiring. [26] The RAD has considered the jurisprudence. In the Ilie decision the Federal Court held: The tribunal was entitled to consider the applicant's failure to claim refugee status in other countries, and to consider how the applicant's evidence was to be weighed in light of that failure.14 [27] Similarly, in the Case of Assadi, Nasser-Eddin v MCI, the Court held: Failure to immediately seek protection can impugn the claimant's credibility, including his or her testimony about events in his country of origin.15 [28] In Espinosa, the Court held: "... there are circumstances where the delay can be such that it assumes a decisive role; what is fatal to the applicant's claim is his inability to provide any satisfactory explanation for delay."16 [29] In Mesidor,17 Mr. Justice Shore pointed out that: "...the courts have consistently held that a claimant's delay in filing a refugee claim can justify the rejection of a refugee claim in a case where this delay was not satisfactorily explained." [30] The RAD appreciates that, as counsel submitted, when the Appellant arrived in Canada he had a worker visa valid for two years. However, in the Nijjer decision, Mr. Justice de Montigny declared: It is trite law that a delay in submitting a refugee protection claim, while not decisive, remains a relevant element that the tribunal may take into account in assessing both the statements and the actions and deeds of a claimant. The claimant knew upon his arrival that he was only authorized to stay in Canada for a specific and limited period of time. Under these circumstances it was reasonable to expect that he would regularize his status as soon as possible if he truly feared for his life and physical integrity in India.18 [31] The Appellant's behaviour in his delay in making a claim for over three months is not that of a person who fears persecution in their own country and the delay undermines the Appellant's allegation that he faces serious harm in Ethiopia if he were to return. Teacher of the Ge'ez language at XXXX XXXX XXXX [32] The RPD drew a negative inference because the Appellant provided no documents as evidence that he taught the Ge'ez language at the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The RPD did not find the Appellant's explanation, that a letter of authorization from the XXXX XXXX regarding the Ge'ez language courses had been written to the organization and not directly to him, to be reasonable. The RPD noted that the independent documentary evidence indicates that it is very difficult to obtain permission for teaching at the XXXX, especially outside the official curriculum. [33] The Appellant pleads that the RPD erred in disbelieving that he taught Ge'ez at the XXXX XXXX XXXX and that the documentary evidence cited by the RPD has nothing to do with it. [34] The RAD concurs with the RPD for the following reasons. [35] According to the recording of the hearing, when asked, the Appellant testified that no letter of employment at the XXXX had been provided to him. When asked to explain why this was the case, the Appellant testified that usually rooms are given for charities such as the one he helped to established, so there was no agreement paper. The RPD then asked if there had been an agreement paper for the use of the rooms. The Appellant responded in the negative. When asked who gave permission for the use of the rooms, the Appellant did not answer the question but instead testified that they submitted an application to the president of XXXX XXXX to be permitted to teach the Ge'ez language. The RPD asked if the president had not sent a letter of agreement. The Appellant then changed his earlier testimony and stated that a letter of permission had been sent by the president. Upon being asked the present location of the letter, the Appellant testified that it was in the possession of the chairperson of the board. When asked why the letter was not available as evidence for the hearing, the Appellant testified that the letter had not been written to him but to the organization. The RPD rephrased the question, and asked the Appellant why he had not thought to have the letter for his hearing as proof that he worked at the XXXX. The Appellant repeated his previous testimony, stating that the letter was not written to him but to the charity and was in possession of the board. The RAD does not accept the Appellant's explanation. According to his testimony, he was aware of the existence of the letter and its whereabouts. Instructions in the BOC advise the claimant to provide "any documents you have to support your claim".19 [emphasis in original] The Appellant was represented by experienced counsel at the POE20 and by the same counsel when he completed his BoC.21 Given the internal inconsistencies with the evidence, the importance of supporting corroborating documents is heightened. Where a claimant's story has been found to be implausible or otherwise lacking in credibility,22 a lack of documentary corroboration, or a lack of effort to obtain the documentation,23 can be a valid consideration for purposes of assessing credibility. [36] As the RPD cited in its decision, the independent document evidence24 provides the following information. The government restricted academic freedom, including through decisions on student enrollment, teachers' appointments, and the curriculum... According to sources, the ruling party via the Ministry of Education continue to give preference to students loyal to the party in assignments to postgraduate programmes,...Authorities limited teachers' ability to deviate from official lesson plans.25 [37] Given the restrictions on teachers and their curriculum, as well as the Appellant's lack of credibility, the RAD finds the lack of documentary evidence to support the Appellant's allegations that he taught at the XXXX XXXX XXXX diminishes his credibility. [38] The Appellant stated at the POE that he taught at the Ge'ez language at XXXX XXXX XXXX from XXXX 2012 to XXXX 2013.26 In his BoC narrative the Appellant states that he taught the Ge'ez language at XXXX XXXX XXXX from XXXX 2012 to XXXX 2013.27 [39] The RPD concluded that the Appellant's credibility was affected by his testimony regarding the discrepancy between information he provided at the POE and in his BoC regarding the dates of his teaching at XXXX XXXX XXXX. The RPD was not satisfied with the Appellant's explanation that someone else completed the form at the POE. The RPD agreed with the jurisprudence in which Justice Martineau wrote that "a person's first story is usually the most genuine and, therefore, the one to be most believed". [40] The Appellant pleads that the POE notes and BOC were completed at the same time and both dated December 29, 2014. He argues that it was simple human error in recording the dates. The Appellant argues further that if, as the RPD argues, his first story should be believed, then it follows that he did teach at XXXX XXXX XXXX. [41] The RAD concurs in part with the RPD's findings. In particular, the RAD agrees that the Appellant's explanation for the discrepancy is unsatisfactory. The RAD notes that, as the Appellant pleads in his appeal, he completed the POE notes and the BoC on the same day. The Appellant testified before the RPD that someone else filled in the form at the POE. However, the RAD notes that the Appellant signed the form as "truthful, complete and correct"28 The RAD also notes that in Question 8 of the POE notes, while other information with regards to the Appellant's activities for the past ten years were corrected and initialed by hand, the dates for the Appellant's teaching assignment at XXXX XXXX XXXX were left unchanged. However, the RAD finds that the RPD's reference to the jurisprudence as being such that the RAD cannot recognize and respect because the RAD is not persuaded that the Appellant taught at the XXXX. In this case, the RAD finds it is another instance where the Appellant could not keep his story straight. The RAD, thus, draws a negative inference. [42] As a result of the above analysis, the RAD finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant did not teach the Ge'ez language at the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Surveillance by Security Agents [43] While not referred to by the RPD in its written decision, the RAD wishes to comment on the Appellant's testimony regarding the surveillance by security agents. [44] The Appellant testified that once he was released from detention in XXXX XXXX XXXX 2013, he was followed all the time by security agents. He testified that he had little activity and did not work because of the constant surveillance. The RAD is not persuaded that the Appellant was constantly under surveillance for the following reasons. [45] According to the recording of the hearing, the Appellant was asked how he occupied his time in XXXX 2013, after he had been released from detention. He testified that he often attended the Canadian Embassy to check on the status of his visa application and added that he was followed by agents and police security. The Appellant was asked if he continued to go back and forth to the embassy. He testified that he was asking Canadian authorities about his case and added that he was under so much stress as a result of being followed. The Appellant was then asked if he was not afraid that the Ethiopian authorities would observe him attending the Canadian embassy. The Appellant's testimony became equivocal in an attempt to explain how he had no problems from the constant surveillance on him even though he continued to attend the Canadian embassy. He first testified that he changed his route to the embassy each time he went. The RPD asked the Appellant why, if the Ethiopian authorities were so interested in him, they said nothing to him if they observed him going back and forth to the Canadian embassy. The Appellant then testified that he went mostly in the early morning and security work in Ethiopia starts at 10 a.m. in his area of the city. Other than his testimony, the Appellant provided no evidence of this bald assertion. He repeated his testimony that he left home before 10 a.m. and didn't see the security agents at that time. Upon being asked where and when he saw security agents, the Appellant testified that they sat beside him when he had lunch in a café. The RPD referred the Appellant to his BoC narrative in which he states he "was afraid to go anywhere alone"29 and then asked him to explain his testimony that he went out to cafés where he encountered security agents. The Appellant testified that in fact he was scared but sometimes he wanted to hide where there were lots of people. He testified further that the security agents wouldn't do anything with other people around. [46] Besides the Appellant's testimony, which the RAD finds to be reactive and manufactured, the documentary evidence does not support the Appellant's allegations. According to independent documentary evidence, the government reportedly uses a widespread system of paid informants to report on the activities of particular individuals.30 Government security agents subject those who oppose the government to surveillance and harassment, arbitrary arrest and detention. The impunity with which security operatives work remains a serious problem.31 The government gives great discretion to the security forces, allowing the detention of suspects, such as those who oppose the government, for up to four months without charge.32 There were periodic reports throughout the year police carried out nighttime raids of homes in Addis Ababa to collect evidence against persons they alleged to be terrorists. Those who oppose the government are labelled terrorists.33 The RAD, thus, believes that it is highly unlikely that a person, who was held in detention for six weeks on suspicion of opposing the government, when released and kept under constant surveillance, would have no problems from Ethiopian authorities when he attended the Canadian embassy on numerous occasions. [47] The RAD therefore finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant was not under surveillance by Ethiopian authorities in 2013. Letter from the Unity for Human Rights & Democracy [48] The Appellant provided for his hearing before the RPD, a letter from the president of Unity for Human Rights & Democracy, Toronto, Ontario, dated XXXX XXXX, 2015.34 [49] The RPD gave little weight to the letter from the Unity for Human Rights & Democracy because of a discrepancy between information contained in the letter and the Appellant's BoC, as well as oral testimony. In particular, the letter states that the Appellant was a lecturer at XXXX XXXX XXXX which is something the Appellant never claimed. The RPD also gave little weight to the letter because of its credibility concerns. [50] The Appellant argues that this discrepancy is minor and that the letter is written to attest to the Appellant's political participation, not to confirm his job title. The Appellant argues further that the minor discrepancy provide no valid basis to give little weight to the document. [51] While the RAD agrees with the Appellant, the use of the term 'lecturer' may have been one of semantics, the RAD concurs with the RPD's assignment of little weight to the document for the following reasons. [52] The RAD notes that the opinion of the president, Yousuf Omer, of Unity for Human Rights and Democracy, is based on evidence provided to him by the Appellant. Given that the Appellant lacks credibility on several pivotal elements of his claim, the RAD is unable to conclude that the conclusions drawn by Mr. Omer with regards to the Appellant's political profile are valid. Letter of Power of Attorney for the Rebirth of Ge'ez Non-Profit Organization [53] The Appellant is named as the deponent of the letter of Power of Attorney for the Rebirth of Ge'ez Non-Profit Organization.35 According to the recording of the hearing, the Appellant testified that before he left Ethiopia, the Power of Attorney was drawn up and he left the original document in Ethiopia. The RPD gave little weight to the letter because there was an altered date and because of the RPD's other credibility concerns previously mentioned. [54] The Appellant argues that the first slash in the handwritten date of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX07 (Ethiopian Calendar) was written quickly and may be written over something else, but it is not at all clear that the date has been altered. The Appellant argues further that the written date is more consistent with the writer of the letter having written over something to make the date more clear. [55] The RAD agrees with the RPD's assigning of little weight to the letter for the following reasons. [56] The date has been obviously altered from XXXX/07 to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX07.36 The translation of the letter indicates that the date of issuance of the letter is XXXX XXXX, 2014.37 The Appellant arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2014. This puts in question whether the letter was written by the Appellant before he left Ethiopia. [57] In any event, the original document was not provided at the hearing before the RPD as required by Rule 42. In addition, given the RAD's adverse credibility findings stated above, the RAD finds that this document is not sufficient to offset the RAD's adverse credibility findings. The RAD is supported in this finding by jurisprudence.38 DISPOSITION [58] On the basis of the findings noted above, and after its own assessment of all the evidence in the record, including the recording of the hearing, the RAD agrees with the RPD's finding that the Appellant is not credible and has not satisfied his burden of establishing a serious possibility that he would be persecuted or that he would be personally subjected to a risk to his life, or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or a danger of torture in Ethiopia. The RAD confirms the determination of the RPD as per s. 111(1)(a) of IRPA. [59] The RAD, thus, dismisses the appeal. (signed) "Lesley Mason" Lesley Mason July 10, 2015 Date 1 Huruglica, Bujar v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-6362-13), Phelan, August 22, 2014, 2014 FC 799. 2 Ibid. 3 RPD's Record, Exhibit 4, Package from Claimant, pp. 134-135 4 Ibid. 5 RPD's Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Ethiopia, (30 January, 2015), Item 3.7. 6 Ibid., item 1.3 7 RPD's Record, Exhibit 4, Package from Claimant, pp. 134-135 8 Orelien, Joseph v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-993-90), Heald, Mahoney, Stone, November 22, 1991. Reported: Orelien v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) [1992] 1 F.C. 592 (C.A.); (1991), 15 Imm. L.R. (2d) 1 (F.C.A.). 9 RPD's Record, Exhibit 2, Basis of Claim Form, p.16 10 Dan-Ash, Taysir v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-655-86), Marceau, Hugessen, Lacombe, June 21, 1988. Reported: Dan-Ash v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1988), 93 N.R. 33 (F.C.A.). 11 RPD's Record, Exhibit 1, Port of Entry Notes, pp. 30-34. 12 RPD's Record, Exhibit 1, Port of Entry Notes, p. 36, question 7; RPD's Record, Exhibit 4, Packcage from Claimant, p. 129. 13 RPD's Record, Exhibit 1, Port of Entry Notes, p. 36, question 7; RPD's Record, Exhbit 4, Package from Claimant, p. 128. 14 Ilie, Lucian Ioan v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-462-94), MacKay, November 22, 1994 15 Assadi, Nasser-Eddin v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2683-96), Teitelbaum, March 25, 1997. 16 Espinosa, Roberto Pablo Hernandez v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-5667-02), Rouleau, November 12, 2003. 2003 FC 1324. 17 Mesidor, Josue Peterlee v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-2233-09), Shore, December 4, 2009, 2009 FC 1245. 18 Nijjar, Yadhwinder Singh v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-340-09), de Montigny, December 9, 2009, 2009 FC 1259, at para 24. 19 RPD's Record, Exhibit 2, Basis of Claim Form, p. 14. 20 RPD's Record, Exhibit 1, Port of Entry Notes, p. 45. 21 RPD's Record, Exhibit 2, Basis of Claim Form, p. 24. 22 Syed, Naqeeb-Ur-Rehman v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1613-97), MacKay, March 13, 1998. 23 Rocha Quichindo, Esperanca v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3225-01), Lemieux, March 28, 2002. 24 RPD's Record, NDP for Ethiopia (30 January 2015), item 2.1. 25 Ibid. 26 RPD's Record, Exhibit 1, Port of Entry Notes, p. 36, question 8. 27 RPD's Record, Exhibit 2, Basis of Claim Form, p. 16, lines 32-35. 28 RPD's Record, Exhibit 1, Port of Entry Notes, page 39 29 RPD's Record, Exhibit 2, Basis of Claim Form, p. 16, line 51 30 RPD's Record, Exhibit 3, NDP for Ethiopia (30 January 2015), item 2.1. 31 Ibid. 32 Ibid., item 1.2, s. 2.2.6 33 Ibid., item 2.1 34 RPD's Record, Exhibit 5, Letter from Unity for Human Rights & Democracy, p. 156. 35 PRD's Record, Exhibit 4, Package from Claimant, pp. 138-139 36 Ibid., p. 138 37 Ibid., p. 139 38 Garcha, Jaswant Singh v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-5526-01), Blais, September 27, 2002 --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB5-05046