TB8-18020

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 / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-18020 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, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision November 23, 2018 Date de la décision Panel G. Erauw Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal Aishah Nofal Barrister and Solicitor 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 OVERVIEW [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the "Appellant") is a citizen of Iraq and is appealing a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying his claim for refugee protection. The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in its credibility assessment and erred in assessing the documentary evidence that his profile places him at risk upon return to Iraq. After careful review of the evidence in the record, the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) finds that the Appellant is not credible and has not established he faces a forward-looking risk of persecution if he returned to Iraq. [2] For the reasons provided below, I am dismissing the appeal. BACKGROUND [3] The Appellant alleges that he is an Iraqi citizen, but that he was born in Kuwait and resided there most of his life. He does not have Kuwaiti citizenship and his residence status has expired in Kuwait. The Appellant alleges that in 2010 during a visit to Basra, Iraq, he was shot at. He also alleges that he has been threatened by his uncle and his mother's extended family members. If he returns to Iraq, the Appellant fears he will be killed by Shia militias because he is Sunni or because he is perceived to be Kuwaiti. He also fears he will be harmed or killed by his uncle or his mother's extended family. [4] In XXXX 2014, the Appellant went to the United States (U.S.) to study. After his Kuwaiti residence expired and his father informed him he could no longer afford his schooling, the Appellant filed a claim for asylum in September 2015. In March 2017, the Appellant abandoned his U.S. asylum claim and came to Canada. He made an inland refugee claim on March 20, 2017. Further details are provided in his Basis of Claim (BOC) Form, and his testimony at the RPD hearing.1 The RPD's Decision [5] The Appellant had a refugee determination hearing on May 4, 2018. In a written decision issued on June 8, 2018, the RPD rejected the claim. The RPD panel found the Appellant lacking in credibility and subjective fear, and that he was not at risk in Iraq from his family members, nor was he at risk as a perceived Kuwaiti or because of his Sunni faith. Therefore, the RPD concluded that the Appellant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution on a Convention ground, or that he would not personally be subjected to a risk to life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or a danger of torture upon return to Iraq. ROLE OF THE RAD [6] For questions of fact, mixed fact and law, and law, the RAD applies the standard of correctness. In assessing findings involving the credibility of oral testimony, I may defer if I find that the RPD had a meaningful advantage in the circumstances.2 Reasons will be provided in my analysis if I find that the RPD had a meaningful advantage. ISSUES IN APPEAL [7] The Appellant argues the following issues in his appeal: a. The RPD erred in its credibility assessment;3 b. The RPD erred in its subjective fear assessment;4 and, c. The RPD erred in its assessment of the documentary evidence.5 ANALYSIS Credibility The U.S. Asylum Claim The Appellant's Argument [8] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in its credibility finding based on discrepancies between the Appellant's U.S. and Canadian asylum claims, despite his explanations. The Appellant submits that the RPD's finding is unintelligible because the RPD gave him "credit" for outlining some of the inconsistencies in his BOC with the information in his U.S. asylum application. The Appellant claims that the RPD giving him "credit" supports his credibility, yet the RPD then rejects his explanation as to why these errors were made in his original U.S. asylum claim. Therefore, the RPD seemingly accepts that his U.S. claim includes false information, but rejects the reasons behind them. [9] The Appellant argues he is not at fault for the errors in his U.S. asylum claim because of his personal circumstances. When these circumstances are considered, the Appellant submits that it shows he was not at fault for the inconsistencies. His personal circumstances that should be considered include: his young age of 19 at the time of his asylum application, he was alone in a new country, surrounded by a foreign language and his English language skills were "severely compromised", he knew nothing of the asylum process, and deferred to those who were competent in the field to advise him. By divulging the potentially damaging information to the RPD about the inconsistencies, and by removing the exaggerations or embellishments in his BOC, this supports his credibility by being honest. The RAD's Assessment [10] I reject the Appellant's argument and find the RPD did not err. While the RPD's use of the word "credit" was perhaps not the best choice to describe the Appellant's disclosure in the circumstances, I do not agree that the Appellant's credibility was confirmed simply because he chose to disclose the inconsistencies between his U.S. claim and his BOC before his hearing. The Appellant's disclosure of the inconsistencies does not make him a more credible witness, nor does his BOC narrative become the accurate account of his allegations, especially considering the RPD found his explanation for the inconsistencies to be lacking in credibility, and as a result, found he knowingly provided false information in his U.S. asylum application. Essentially, given the inconsistencies between the two documents, and the Appellant's incredible explanation, the RPD and the RAD are in the position of not knowing what is true in either document. [11] Having reviewed the Appellant's explanation for the inconsistencies between his U.S. asylum documents and his BOC narrative, I agree with the RPD's assessment and find that the Appellant's explanation was not credible. Therefore, I agree with the RPD that the Appellant knowingly provided false information in his U.S. asylum form, which undermines his credibility. [12] I do not accept the Appellant's explanation that his circumstances explain the inconsistencies. First, it is easy to blame former counsel for the mistakes in one's claim; however, the evidence before me indicates on a balance of probabilities that the Appellant would have been aware of the content of his U.S. asylum documents at the time it was completed. This is demonstrated by the Appellant signing the U.S. asylum documents and it is indicated that the contents of the document were fully interpreted to him in his native language. As such, his limited English capabilities are not a reasonable explanation. That said, I reject his submission that his English abilities were "severely compromised". The Appellant studied at a college in the U.S. in the English language; he worked at a gas station in the U.S., which would have required him to communicate in the English language; he was able to research how to make a claim for protection in the U.S.; he did not require an interpreter for his interview with the immigration officer when he arrived in Canada; and, his BOC form and Canadian refugee application documents state that he can communicate in the English language.6 Considering the Appellant possesses some English language abilities, it is unlikely that the Appellant, upon reviewing his U.S. asylum documents five months after their completion, was unaware of the errors in his U.S. asylum documents and made no efforts to amend the erroneous content. [13] Second, I do not accept the Appellant's explanation that his young age and that he "knew nothing of the asylum process" explain the inconsistencies in his U.S. and Canada refugee application forms. The Appellant is not a minor child. Rather, he was 19 years of age at the time and was able to reside and study independently in the U.S. since November 2014. In addition, the Appellant states in his BOC narrative that it took a long time, but he managed to research how to make a claim for protection in the U.S. and identified a lawyer to assist him. In order to initiate his asylum claim in the U.S., he travelled 15 hours from North Carolina to Michigan in order to meet with his lawyer and commence an asylum claim. [14] For the above reasons, I find the Appellant does not provide a credible explanation for the erroneous and inconsistent information in his U.S. asylum documents, and that he knowingly provided false information in his U.S. asylum documents. Therefore, I find the RPD did not err and I find this undermines his credibility. Brother in Iraq The Appellant's Argument [15] The Appellant further argues that it was an error for the RPD to later impugn his credibility on the basis that he failed to outline "all" of the inconsistencies in his U.S. application, when he failed to correct information in his U.S. asylum document that his brother was living in Iraq. The Appellant submits that he provided an adequate overview of the major inconsistencies in his U.S. asylum claim, so it is clear from his BOC narrative that there were other discrepancies omitted. In his case, he argues there was no reason for the RPD to attack his credibility on the grounds that not every detail was included in his original refugee claim. By finding based on the U.S. asylum claim that his brother continued to reside in Iraq, even though his BOC stated otherwise, the RPD's decision lacks transparency and intelligibility because earlier the RPD accepted that there were mistakes in the U.S. application form, but later concludes that a selective portion of it regarding his brother's whereabouts was factually correct. [16] Had the RPD accepted his explanation for the information in his U.S. asylum file, it is reasonable to infer that he would have found the Appellant credible. In addition, the RPD did not have enough evidence before it to discredit the Appellant's credibility. The RAD's Assessment [17] I reject the Appellant's argument and find the RPD did not err. The fact that the Appellant failed to also mention in his BOC that his U.S. asylum document was also incorrect regarding the whereabouts of his brother, does not detract from the RPD's finding. I also note the RPD did not conclude that all of the information in his U.S. asylum documents were false, but that he provided false information in his U.S. asylum documents that undermined his credibility. It is still open to the RPD to make additional credibility findings based on additional inconsistencies in his documents, and it could not be inferred from the Appellant's BOC that there were other errors in his U.S. asylum application. [18] Regardless, in this instance the Appellant indicates in his U.S. asylum documents that his brother XXXX resides in Basra, Iraq. This is inconsistent with his testimony at the RPD and his BOC that since 2010, only his eldest brother XXXX returned to Iraq, which he did in 2016, but for only one day. When the RPD put the inconsistency to the Appellant at the RPD hearing, he explained that he "thinks it is a mistake". I find the Appellant fails to provide a reasonable explanation for the inconsistency. His response that he "thinks it is a mistake" is ambiguous as to whether or not it was actually a mistake. Furthermore, for the reasons provided above, the Appellant's explanation for errors in his U.S. asylum documents due to blaming former counsel and his lack of English are not credible. The Appellant cannot simply blame his former counsel after the fact without any evidence beyond a general assertion that it was a mistake.7 I find it unlikely that the Appellant, who alleges to fear returning to Iraq on the basis of his Sunni and Kuwaiti identity, would have mistakenly indicated that his Sunni brother was in Iraq if he was not. He provides no evidence about how and why it was a "mistake". Therefore, I find that the inconsistencies between when, how long, and which brother returned to Basra undermines his credibility. I further find, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant's brother XXXX was residing in Iraq in September 2015 as indicated in his U.S. asylum application. Uncontested Credibility Findings [19] With respect to the Appellant's argument that the RPD's credibility findings about the U.S. asylum claim are insufficient to uphold its credibility findings, I respectfully disagree. In fact, the RPD made other credibility findings that are uncontested in this appeal. Specifically, the RPD found that the Appellant's allegation that he has been threatened by his uncle in Iraq was lacking in credibility. Considering the Appellant does not contest this finding, I see no reason to interfere with it. It is correct and based on the evidence in the record. The Appellant failed to mention these threats in his testimony about who he feared in Iraq, even though he mentioned this in his BOC that his uncle threatened him if he returned to Iraq. The Appellant was also unable to clearly state when such threats ended. I find a negative credibility finding is warranted based on the Appellant's failure to mention his fear in his testimony and his non-responsive testimony at the RPD hearing about being threatened by his uncle. [20] Furthermore, the RPD found that the Appellant failed to establish with credible and trustworthy evidence, other aspects of his claim. This includes the alleged shooting in 2010 and that his mother's family would harm him if he returned to Iraq. Since the Appellant does not contest these findings either, I see no reason to interfere with them. They are correct and based on the evidence in the record. Having reviewed the record, I concur for the same reasons as those provided by the RPD that the Appellant has not established crucial aspects of his refugee claim. Sunni Surname The Appellant's Argument [21] The Appellant argues that the lack of objective evidence does not negate the fact that his surname is well-known as a Sunni name. He submits his oral testimony and BOC narrative should be accepted on this point, since there is no evidence to the contrary and the presumption of truthfulness should stand. The RAD's Assessment [22] I reject the Appellant's argument and find the RPD did not err. The Appellant makes a simple assertion that he would be identified as Sunni because he has a well-known last name, which would identify him as Sunni. He provides no corroborating documents about whether his last name is well-known in Iraq. The RPD noted that there was no objective evidence in the National Documentation Package (NDP), nor were there documents provided by the Appellant to support that he has a well-known Sunni last name. I agree with the RPD that the Appellant provides insufficient evidence to support his profile based on his bald assertion that he would be identified as Sunni based on his last name.8 [23] Furthermore, the Appellant advances this argument to establish his profile based on his alleged interactions with soldiers at a checkpoint, where he and his brother claimed soldiers were disinterested in their claim that they were shot at. The Appellant claims they were disinterested once the soldiers reviewed their ID cards. However, I find the Appellant's allegation that they were disinterested based on his last name to be speculative. There is no indication in the Appellant's description of his interaction with the soldiers that they noticed he had a Sunni name. First, his ID card does not state that he is Sunni. Second, the soldiers did not say anything to indicate they viewed them as Sunni. In fact, the soldiers encouraged them to go to a hospital and report the shooting to a police station. Finally, the RPD observed, and I agree, that it was not surprising that there was little the soldiers could do about the shooting incident. Since there was no ongoing attack at the time, there were no suspects, and the Appellant and his brother did not know who shot at them or why. I find the RPD's analysis of the shooting incident and the Appellant's allegation that he was treated differently because of his Sunni name to be correct and based on the evidence in the record. [24] For the above reasons, I find that the Appellant has not established with sufficient credible and trustworthy evidence that people in Iraq would be able to identify him as Sunni based on his "well-known" last name. Subjective Fear The Appellant's Argument [25] The Appellant argues that it was an error to impugn his subjective fear on the grounds that he abandoned his asylum claim in the U.S. The Appellant submits that the number of refugee claimants crossing into Canada via the U.S. is enough to demonstrate that asylum seekers are fearful of the political climate in the U.S. and that the anti-Muslim and anti-Arab policies are enough to create a fear for claimants. He claims that the abandonment of his U.S. asylum claim is indicative of his subjective fear of being removed to Iraq. Even though there was no guarantee that his claim in Canada would be accepted, he believed he had a better chance than in the U.S. and this was a reasonable course of action. The RAD's Assessment [26] I find it is not necessary to assess whether the RPD erred in its subjective fear assessment. Assuming without deciding that the RPD did err, this is not determinative and does not affect the disposition of the appeal. Well-founded Fear of Persecution The Appellant's Argument [27] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in finding that he could safely return to Basra. He submits that the presence and influence of Shia militias in the province, his profile as a long-term Kuwaiti resident, and his lack of support in Iraq establish a risk upon return to Iraq. [28] The Appellant argues that the RPD erred in its assessment of the documentary evidence in several respects. First, the Appellant submits that Basra, where his family originates from, is of no relevance to the issue of whether he can return there, as they have lived outside of Iraq for most of their lives, and therefore, they are of no help should he return there. Second, it was irrelevant whether the Appellant was born in XXXX, which is not the case, as he was born in Kuwait and his birth certificate and BOC narrative indicate this. Third, as indicated in his BOC narrative, his brother was not living in Basra and this was an error included in the U.S. asylum application and should have no bearing on whether or not he would be at risk if removed to Iraq. Fourth, there is no evidence to support the RPD's assertion that his uncle lives in Basra without difficulty. Since he and his father have no relationship with his uncle, he is unable to provide any recent information related to his uncle's treatment as a Sunni in Basra. The absence of such information cannot be used to support that his uncle has not faced harm, threats, or mistreatment due to his religion as a Sunni. Fifth, the Appellant argues that he explained that he has no ties to his extended family in Basra and his immediate family remains in Kuwait, and therefore, his familial or tribal links will be unhelpful or be able to provide support to him upon return to Basra. Finally, the Appellant argues the RPD ignored an abundance of objective documentary evidence that identifies Iraq as unsafe for Sunnis, particularly those of the Appellant's profile, that being he has never lived in Iraq, lived his entire life in Kuwait, he has no support network in Iraq, he is a young Sunni man of fighting age, all of which place him at risk of serious harm upon return to Iraq. The RAD's Assessment [29] I have reviewed the objective evidence in the NDP, as well as the objective documents provided by the Appellant and find the RPD did not err in its conclusion on the Appellant's risk profile. The Appellant has not established a forward-looking risk of persecution upon return to Iraq. Return to Basra [30] First, I reject the Appellant's argument that the RPD should not have assessed his risk upon return based on the city of Basra. The fact that his family has resided in Kuwait most of his life does not negate the fact that the Appellant's allegations link him and his family as originating from Basra. The Appellant claims that his family is from Basra, including both of his parents and his extended family. In addition, he indicates that when he and his family returned to Iraq, they returned to Basra. I also note that on the Appellant's U.S. asylum documents he indicates that he resided in Basra from 1996 to 2002.9 Finally, contrary to the Appellant's submission, I have found above that the Appellant's brother has resided in Basra in recent years, and there is no indication that he has faced any difficulties in residing there. Therefore, I find it was not an error for the RPD to assess his objective risk of return to Basra, Iraq. Support Network in Iraq [31] Second, I reject the Appellant's argument that he possesses a heightened risk profile due to having no support network in Iraq. The Appellant has not established that he does not have a support network in Basra. In addition, the Appellant's brother has recently resided in Basra, without any indication of facing difficulties. The Appellant's brother possesses the same familial support structures as him. In addition, I note that although the Appellant contends that he no longer is in communication with his uncle in Basra, his allegations of threats of harm from the uncle were not credibly established. Furthermore, while the objective evidence indicates that relocation to the Southern part of Iraq, including Basra, without familial, tribal or political networks could face difficulty assimilating into the community, Iraqis who have sought asylum overseas have returned to southern Iraq without significant difficulty.10 Therefore, I find that the Appellant has not established he would face difficulties due to a lack of a support network should he return to Basra, Iraq. Perceived as a Kuwaiti [32] Third, the Appellant has not established that a profile of having resided in Kuwait for a substantial amount of time establishes a risk upon return to Iraq. In this regard, I observe that the Appellant does not contest the RPD's assessment of the risk based on being perceived as a Kuwaiti. Considering the Appellant does not contest this finding and the objective evidence relied on by the RPD in assessing his risk as a perceived Kuwaiti, I see no reason to interfere with it; it is correct and based on the evidence in the record. Nowhere does the documentary evidence suggest that Kuwaitis or those perceived to be Kuwaiti have been mistreated in Iraq based on their country of origin. One would expect that if they were, the documentary evidence would mention this. On the contrary, the documentation shows that the relationship between the Iraqis and Kuwaitis have improved significantly in recent years. Moreover, the RPD's finding is buttressed by the fact that the Appellant's allegation that people in Iraq would be able to know he is from Kuwait because of his accent, is contradicted by the information in his U.S. asylum document, which states that he has an Iraqi dialect.11 I find the Appellant has not established that he would be perceived as Kuwaiti placing him at risk upon return. Youth [33] Third, with respect to his allegation that he is a young man, the Appellant points to no documentary evidence showing that he is at heightened risk of harm as a young Sunni man returning to Basra. I have reviewed the NDP and the evidence provided by the Appellant and there is no objective evidence for this assertion that his age of 22 establishes a risk profile, such as risk of forced recruitment. While I have seen documentary evidence about children possessing a risk profile and that militias and ISIS forcibly recruit children to do various tasks, including using them as suicide bombers,12 the Appellant, as a 22 year old man, is not similarly situated. I could find no support that as a young Sunni man he would be forcibly recruited into Sunni militias in Iraq or more likely be targeted on that basis. Sunni Profile [34] I have reviewed the documents cited by the Appellant in his memorandum stating that Sunnis are at risk in Iraq. However, in my view these do not undermine the RPD's assessment of the objective documentary evidence. The passages relied on by the Appellant can be distinguished in two respects. First, these passages note the need to assess one's profile based on their personal circumstances other than their Sunni faith, which I have done above and found the Appellant has not established factors heightening his profile. Second, the documents cited by the Appellant about the risk to Sunnis, largely refer to the risk in areas of Iraq that the Appellant does not originate, nor an area that he would be returning to. Specifically, these documents refer to the risk to Sunnis fleeing territories controlled by ISIS and where the government believes persons are involved in terrorist activities. These are persons fleeing areas in disputed areas of Central and Northern Iraq, rather than Southern Iraq which is more secure.13 [35] Generally, the security situation in Southern Iraq, and in particular Basra, is described with crime being a growing concern as well as tribal violence, while less of a concern is sectarian violence. Item 1.19 states that: 5.17 Southern Iraq (including Basra, Karbala, Wasit, Qadisiyah, Maisan, Dhi War, Muthanna and Najaf provinces) has been and remains more secure than other parts of the country, although recent reports suggest a deterioration of law and order in Basra. Generalised criminality occurs, but at a lower level than in Baghdad. Intra-Shia violence between different Shia armed groups occurs in southern Iraq and is influenced by political and / or criminal factors. Credible in-country contacts suggest that the risk of being caught up in intra-Shia violence is predominantly borne by those who are actively involved in a militia or tribal group. 5.18 A wide range of ethnic and religious minority groups reside in southern Iraq. The overwhelming majority is Shia, although there are approximately 400,000 Sunnis (in-country contacts suggest that the number of Sunnis may have since declined), as well as Iraqis of African descent, Christians and Sabaean-Mandeans. While ongoing conflict has seen religiously mixed areas becoming more mono-religious, usually Shia or Sunni, in-country contacts claim that tolerance of religious minorities remains higher in southern Iraq than in central Iraq.14 [36] This is corroborated by information from the U.K. Home Office, which states that there are a few reports that Sunnis experience human rights abuses at the hands of Shia militia or unknown perpetrators in the southern governorates, but it does not appear to form part of a consistent or systematic risk to Sunnis. It goes on to state that in general Sunnis in the southern governorates are not subject to treatment which would be persecutory or cause serious harm. However, decision-makers must consider whether there are particular factors specific to the person which would place them at real risk.15 The onus is on the person to demonstrate this, and I have found above that he has not established there are particular factors placing him at real risk. [37] The Crime and Safety Report for Basra further states that while inter-sectarian tensions exist in Basra, there has been little religiously motivated inter-sectarian violence aside from ISIS activities. Religious minorities complain of governance, legal, and commercial grievances but have not spotlighted violent acts against their communities.16 [38] I have also reviewed the documentary evidence with a particular eye on specific incidences of violence involving Sunnis in Basra, where the Appellant is from. Groups active in Southern Iraq since 2011 include several Shia militia, which typically target USF, engage in kidnapping, extortion, oil smuggling, rocket attacks against U.S. diplomatic and security personnel in Basra, and target profiles of Baathists, security personnel, government officials, political and religious rivals, and collaborators of the U.S.17 The documents also mention that Al-Qaida and ISIS/ISIL have a small presence in Basra, but the evidence indicates that they target Shiites and civilians at large.18 [39] The documentation also mentions that the south of Iraq is quieter than the rest of the country, but there have been a number of IED attacks by ISIS/ISIL leading to civilian casualties in Basra among other southern cities. ISIL claimed responsibility for all these attacks. Including a suicide bomber in 2016 in central Basra with busy shops, restaurants and offices - killing six civilians and wounding others. Also in April 2016, a suicide bomber detonated an explosive belt inside a restaurant, on the highway between Basra and Nasiriya.19 These attacks do not appear to have targeted Sunnis specifically, but civilians generally. With regard to specific attacks on Sunnis in Basra, the documents make reference to Sunni imams and religious leaders, and individuals looking to "settle scores" with political/religious rivals and tribal disputes involving kidnappings.20 As well, one document mentions a young Sunni man found in Basra with his throat cut, the abduction of Sunni men accused of ties with Al-Qaida after being released from prison, and a Quran reciter (religious figure) shot outside his home.21 Other documents about attacks in Basra refer to attempted murder of judges hearing terror charges and the targeting of a journalist,22 as well as the targeting of perceived LBGT persons.23 None of these profiles the Appellant shares. [40] I observe that the Appellant's documents submitted in support of his objective risk refers to 19 Sunnis being killed in Basra. However, it is unclear based on these purported killings that they were killed because they were Sunni. There is no elaboration of the circumstance of these deaths and whether they just happened to be members of the Sunni community who were killed.24 As a result, I give this document limited weight to establishing a serious possibility of persecution for Sunnis in Basra. With respect to the Appellant's citation that government officials used religion as a determining factor in employment decisions, I agree that this is discriminatory, but does not amount to persecution, especially in light of evidence that Sunnis are still represented in government, and the above cited documentary evidence does not foreclose the ability of the Appellant to find employment in the private sector.25 As such, I find this information on religious profiling in employment does not amount to persecution. [41] Finally, Basra is a large city with over a million inhabitants,26 and there is a Sunni community there.27 Even though there is a Shia majority in Basra, his Sunni brother was able to reside there without any apparent difficulties. His brother is similarly-situated as he would have been in his mid-20s when he resided there, is Sunni, and has the same familial network as the Appellant. Moreover, the Appellant has a Sunni uncle who has resided in Basra throughout his life, also without apparent difficulties. While the Appellant argues that his uncle and his father cut ties and had a falling out, so he is unaware whether his uncle has experienced difficulties in Basra on account of his Sunni identity, I do not fully accept this evidence. Based on the Appellant's evidence, his family was in regular contact with his uncle at least until 2015 when there was a falling out. Until 2015, the Appellant's family made regular trips to Basra and his father communicated regularly with his uncle about the sale of some land in Basra. At the very least, I believe that had the Appellant's uncle faced any difficulties in Basra on account of his Sunni identity prior to 2015, the Appellant would have heard about it. [42] Having reviewed the totality of the objective evidence about the risk to the Appellant, I find that there is a possibility of persecution, but not a serious possibility of persecution if the Appellant returned to Iraq. While there are some examples of Sunnis being mistreated in Basra, the preponderance of the evidence shows that sectarian violence on the basis of his Sunni faith would not rise to the level of serious possibility of persecution. In coming to this conclusion, I find the Appellant has not established that his personal circumstances of having resided in Kuwait most of his life, his youth, or his lack of a support network in Basra heightens his risk profile along with his Sunni identity. The specific examples of individuals harmed in Basra appear to be the civilian population generally, which is a generalized risk, or Sunni individuals who possess other characteristics the Appellant does not share. For these reasons, I find the Appellant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. CONCLUSION [43] After conducting its own analysis of the entire record, the RAD finds that the RPD did not err in its credibility findings or in its assessment of the documentary evidence. As a result, the RPD's final determination that the Appellant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection is correct. Therefore, I must dismiss the appeal. DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL [44] 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).28 (signed) "G. Erauw" G. Erauw November 23, 2018 Date 1 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Appellant's Basis of Claim (BOC) Form, at pp. 17-37; and Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Audio Recording. 2 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93, paras. 70 and 103. 3 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at pp. 18-26, at paras. 4-31. 4 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at pp. 26-27, at paras. 32-33. 5 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at pp. 27-34, at paras. 34-56. 6 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, BOC Form, at p. 18; POE Interview, at p. 50; Generic Application Form for Canada, at p. 64. 7 Gabriel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 232, at para. 13. 8 Bushati v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 803, at para. 24. 9 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, U.S. Asylum Documents, at p. 127. 10 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Iraq, 30 April 2018, at item 1.19, at p. 30. 11 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, U.S. Asylum Documents, at p. 124. 12 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, NDP for Iraq, 30 April 2018, at item 1.7, at pp. 15, 40-41. 13 Ibid., at items 2.1, 10.4, and 12.1. 14 Ibid., at item 1.19, at p. 30. 15 Ibid., at item 1.20, at p. 6. 16 Ibid., at item 7.9, at pp. 6-7. 17 Ibid., at item 1.7, at pp. 12-13. 18 Ibid., at item 1.7, at p. 11. 19 Ibid., at item 1.11, at p. 20, and item 7.3, at p. 2. 20 Ibid., at item 1.7, at pp. 27 and 47; and item 12.1, at p. 17. 21 Ibid., at item 1.11, at p. 42. 22 Ibid., at item 2.1, at pp. 15, 20, and 23. 23 Ibid., at item 2.8, at p. 30. 24 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, "Iraqi civilians suffering "horrific" widespread and systematic persecution", p. 145. 25 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, NDP for Iraq, 30 April 2018, at item 1.20. 26 Ibid., at item 1.3, at p. 1. 27 Ibid., at item 1.20, at p. 9. 28 Paragraph 111(1)(a), Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27. [IRPA]. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-18020 RAD.25.02 (September 18, 2018) Disponible en français 18 RAD.25.02 (September 18, 2018) Disponible en français