MC2-12771

RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MC2-12771 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision [Translation of the original version] Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Date of decision May 12, 2023 Date de la décision Panel Marie-Lyne Thibault Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Stéphanie Valois Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] The appellant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, is a citizen of Algeria. [2] If he returns to Algeria, he fears abuse and for his life by real estate developers, specifically the owner of a XXXX XXXX who wants to take over his family's land, and an investor who works with him. He also fears persecution by the Algerian authorities because he does not want to do mandatory military service in Algeria. [3] He is appealing the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejecting his refugee protection claim. He argues that the RPD erred in its assessment of his credibility and in its analysis of his prospective risk. [4] For the reasons set out below, I conclude that the RPD's decision is correct. The appellant's credibility was undermined with respect to his allegations of threats by real estate developers. Moreover, he did not demonstrate the existence of a prospective risk by real estate developers or by reason of his refusal to perform his military service. [5] The appeal is dismissed. NEW EVIDENCE [6] Pursuant to subsection 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the appellant requests that I accept into evidence the following documents: 1. Article, "APN: le projet de loi sur la réserve militaire devant la Commission de la défense nationale," [APN: the military reserve bill before the national defence commission] published on June 30, 2022.1 2. Article, "Service national : Le Président Tebboune signe un décret dispensant les citoyens de 30 ans et plus," [National service: President Tebboune signs a decree exempting citizens over age 30] Radio Algérie, dated June 25, 2020.2 3. Travel advice, Government of Canada, updated August 25, 2022.3 [7] The admissibility of this new evidence is subject to the application of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA and the test in Raza,4 as applied by Singh.5 Exhibits "1" and "3" are admissible in evidence [8] I am of the view that exhibits "1" and "3" meet one of the criteria of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA, as well as the criteria in Singh/Raza. [9] The decision rejecting the refugee protection claim was issued on July 5, 2022. [10] I have considered the article dealing with an Algerian bill on the military reserve. I note that this article was published before the RPD rejected the claim, approximately five (5) days prior. However, I accept the appellant's explanations that this article did not come to his attention before the RPD rendered its decision, given the short amount of time between the publication of the article and the date on which the RPD signed the decision rejecting the refugee protection claim. [11] Therefore, I conclude that Exhibit "1" meets one of the criteria of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA. [12] Since these are new developments concerning the military reserve law, I am satisfied that this article meets the criterion of newness within the meaning of Singh/Raza. Since the appellant alleges a risk of persecution based on his refusal to perform his military service in Algeria, for the purposes of an analysis under Singh/Raza, I consider this article to be relevant. As for its credibility, I note that it is not clear from reading the document on which website this article was published. That said, a simple Internet search shows that this article was published on the Algérie Presse Service website.6 Therefore, I accept that this article meets the credibility test. [13] As for the Travel Advice issued by the Government of Canada, the document was updated after the RPD decision. [14] Therefore, I conclude that this document (Exhibit "3") meets one of the criteria of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA. [15] In the same vein, I find that it meets the criterion of newness according to Singh/Raza. I am also of the view that this document is credible since it was published by the Canadian government. Considering that it is indicated that dual Canadian-Algerian citizens were prevented from leaving Algeria because they were not exempt from doing their military service, I consider that it constitutes relevant evidence. [16] Based on the foregoing, I am of the opinion that exhibits "1" and "3" are admissible in evidence. Exhibit "2" is not admissible in evidence [17] I am of the opinion that the appellant did not demonstrate why he could not have provided, before the RPD rejected his refugee protection claim, the news article published in June 2020, concerning the signing of a decree by the Algerian president exempting Algerian citizens aged 30 or over from military service.7 [18] The decision rejecting the refugee protection claim was issued on July 5, 2022, nearly two years after the publication of this article. Contrary to the appellant's argument, this is therefore not an article published a few days before the RPD rendered its decision. However, documentary evidence regarding the treatment in Algeria of persons with a profile similar to that alleged by the appellant, that is, those subject to mandatory military service, is evidence that the appellant could reasonably have been expected to present to the RPD. [19] According to the case law: "An applicant is required to put his or her best foot forward to the RPD."8 The appeal is not an opportunity to respond to an inadequacy identified by the RPD.9 [20] Consequently, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation regarding the admissibility of this new evidence, I conclude that Exhibit "2" does not meet any of the criteria of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA. It is therefore not admissible in evidence. THERE IS NO NEED FOR AN ORAL HEARING [21] While I accept Exhibit "1" and Exhibit "3," they do not raise any significant issue concerning the appellant's credibility. [22] Accordingly, I conclude that the conditions for holding a hearing under subsection 110(6) of the IRPA have not been met. ANALYSIS [23] I have applied the correctness standard.10 As I must do, I conducted an independent review of the evidence, including listening to the recording of the RPD hearing. The Refugee Protection Division did not err in its analysis of credibility and prospective risk Risk due to the refusal to perform military service [24] In my view, the RPD did not err in concluding that the appellant did not establish a serious possibility of persecution because of his refusal to perform his military service and/or because of his failure to regularize his situation with the Algerian authorities. I - Omission in the Basis of Claim Form [25] I am of the opinion that the RPD did not err in making a negative credibility finding based on the appellant's failure to declare, in the first version of his Basis of Claim Form (BOC Form),11 his fear of returning to Algeria because of his refusal to do his military service. [26] The appellant argues that the RPD erred in rejecting his explanation about why he did not state, in the first version of his BOC Form,12 that he feared returning to Algeria because he refused to do his military service. He reiterates that, initially, his refugee protection claim was filed as a family, including one written account. He also stated that the RPD erred in identifying an omission because he reported this fear in an amended BOC Form13 several months before the hearing and that he had also submitted into evidence a document confirming the postponement of his military service.14 He argues that the RPD had no valid reason to doubt his sworn testimony, which was presumed credible and trustworthy. [27] I take into consideration that when the refugee protection claim was made in January 2019, the appellant's mother was the principal claimant.15 Only one written account was provided for all the family members, including the appellant's parents, his sister and younger brother. Only allegations of threats by real estate developers were reported. However, the appellant's postponement of military service expired on XXXX XXXX, 2018,16 before his BOC Form was signed. The appellant was considered an adult at the time. I am of the view that if he feared returning to Algeria because of the mandatory military service, he should have reported it. [28] However, this fear was added in May 2021, in an amended written account filed for a hearing scheduled for June 2021.17 This hearing did not take place. Since then, all the family members, other than the appellant, have been granted permanent residence in Canada. In this amended written account submitted in May 2021, the appellant stated that in XXXX 2018, he was granted an extension of his postponement of military service because he was a student. At the same time, in May 2021, the appellant submitted into evidence an attestation of postponement.18 In this update to the BOC Form, the appellant states that the police told him that if he failed to report the day after his postponement expired, he would be summoned to the military court. The appellant stated that he does not want to do his military service because a friend died on duty at the border between Algeria and Mali. He fears that he will suffer the same fate. It is important to note that in this version of the BOC Form, the appellant does not allege that his refusal to perform military service stems from the fact that he does not want to be complicit in the human rights violations committed by the Algerian army. [29] I also note that it was not until the day of the hearing held in February 2022 that the appellant submitted an update of his BOC Form in which he states that in XXXX 2020, a police brigade came to the family home in Algeria and told his older brother that a wanted notice had been issued against him.19 [30] In my opinion, the fact that a wanted notice was issued against him and that the police visited his residence is important information that should have been declared in the update presented in XXXX 2021. On the one hand, in XXXX 2021, the police visit had occurred more than a year earlier. In addition, the appellant went through the trouble of presenting an update to add his allegations of fear of military service. He was represented by experienced counsel at the time. In such circumstances, the fact that the refugee protection claim was based primarily on his mother's allegations, that his parents had taken control of his refugee protection claim and that he was in shock, are not satisfactory. The appellant knew at the time of his refugee protection claim that his postponement had expired. While I accept that it is stressful to leave one's country because of threats, the claim was made approximately six (6) months after his arrival in Canada. The appellant therefore had time to prepare before filing his refugee protection claim with his family. Moreover, in this amended version of the BOC Form, the appellant did not allege that his refusal to perform military service stems from the fact that he does not want to be complicit in the human rights violations committed by the Algerian army. [31] In the absence of a satisfactory explanation, I find that the appellant's credibility is undermined by the omissions in the BOC Form, specifically his failure to declare in XXXX 2019 his fear of military service, in XXXX 2021, the visit from the police and that he was the subject of a wanted notice, and that his refusal to perform his military service stems from the fact that he does not want to be complicit in human rights violations. Consequently, I conclude that the appellant has not demonstrated that he is wanted by the Algerian authorities or that his refusal to perform his military service stems from the fact that he does not want to be complicit in human rights violations. The presumption of truthfulness of his sworn testimony was rebutted. II- The risk arising from his refusal to do military service [32] I also consider that the RPD did not err in concluding that the objective documentary evidence20 does not lead to the conclusion that there is a serious possibility of persecution by reason of the appellant's refusal to perform his military service if he returns to Algeria. [33] Contrary to the appellant's argument, the report relied on by the RPD in its reasons to the effect that "no publicly available statistics on the number of cases or the outcome of them"21 in relation to the failure to perform military service is still available in the National Documentation Package on Algeria. I also note that, contrary to what the appellant seems to argue, this report is based on several sources.22 I do not see what document the appellant is referring to when he argues that the link from a Norwegian site in the document "Landinfo Algeria: Conscription" concerns marriage and divorce in Algeria. [34] I have considered the objective documentary evidence regarding military service in Algeria.23 According to the law on military service (National Service Act) in Algeria, a person is considered to have evaded service if he has not completed his military service before he has turned twenty-five (25) years of age or if he does not meet for service after a second call-up.24 The same document indicates that the Algerian authorities have introduced amnesties in the form of presidential decrees for citizens over thirty (30) years old. [35] I note that the appellant is under 30 years old and therefore cannot benefit from this postponement. Moreover, although the appellant did not show that he was called up by the Algerian authorities, he did not serve before the age of twenty-five (25) years old and his education exemption was valid until XXXX 2018, when he was only twenty-two (22) years old. [36] The Military Criminal Code provides that persons who have evaded service may be sentenced to between three months and five years of imprisonment.25 [37] The question is therefore whether these legislative provisions are applied by the Algerian authorities. [38] However, the documentary evidence indicates that there are no publicly available statistics on the number of cases or the outcome of them. Every year, there are more conscripts than the Algerian national forces actually need. This is the result of recent provisions in the National Service Act that provide that service time now counts as work experience and that completed national service will therefore weigh positively in employment processes, particularly in the public sector. It also indicates that a salary is paid during service in addition to credits for pension. In a society where unemployment is very high, especially among young people, there are currently many more people who want to complete service than the armed forces need. The Landinfo organization, author of the document regarding military service in Algeria, finds it unlikely that a man of service age would be forced to service if he is not motivated to do so.26 [39] I take into consideration the reference in the same document to the effect that the Algerian administration is unpredictable and is known to apply "convenient" legal provisions to react against people who are considered "troublesome."27 According to Landinfo, it cannot rule out that Algerian authorities, in exceptional cases, when opportune, may apply the provisions of the Military Criminal Code to punish a person who has evaded their national service. That said, the same document also states that despite extensive searches over time, Landinfo has no information as to whether or not and to what extent this actually happens. It is indicated that lawyers and human rights organizations, such as Amnesty International Algeria and LADDH, state that they have not worked with these types of cases. Landinfo concludes that punishment in connection with evading service is not considered a general human rights problem in Algeria today.28 Since all the authorities cited in this document appear to point in the same direction, I agree with this conclusion. [40] I accept that the Algerian authorities are not transparent. However, there is no evidence to support a finding that the other sources consulted by Landinfo, namely lawyers, Amnesty International Algeria and LADDH, would not be transparent. I am of the view that if this were a real problem in Algeria, these agencies would mention it and investigate the matter. The objective documentary evidence is silent on the fact that persons who evade military service are allegedly detained and mistreated by the Algerian authorities. In addition, and regardless of the fact that the Algerian authorities are not transparent, we find in the National Documentation Package on Algeria various reports concerning human rights violations in Algeria.29 In such circumstances, that different organizations report concerns about human rights violations in Algeria, I am of the view that the fact that the documentary evidence does not indicate that imprisonment of persons who evade military service is a known problem is an indication that it would not be a problem in Algeria. [41] At the hearing held by the RPD, the appellant and his counsel raised the fact that the Landinfo report is from 2018. The appellant stated that the situation in Algeria has since changed because of the problems at Algeria's borders with Morocco, Libya and Niger.30 He submits on appeal an article dealing with an Algerian bill on the military reserve (Exhibit 1) and information found on the Canadian government's website (Exhibit 3), to the effect that dual Canadian-Algerian citizens were denied the right to leave Algeria because they were unable to provide a deferment card exempting them from military service, a certificate of census registration or evidence that they have completed their military service.31 [42] The article dealing with an Algerian bill on the military reserve (Exhibit 1) states that the proposed bill includes 68 provisions and that it defines the rules governing, among other things, evasion of service. That said, the article does not specify what changes have been made to these rules. I take into consideration that the article states that members of parliament have [translation] "welcomed the content of the bill, which comes at a time of unstable regional and global security conditions requiring the preparation of a military reserve capable of dealing with any threat..."32 I accept, as argued by the appellant, that this article does not lead to the conclusion that military service would no longer be mandatory or that there would no longer be sanctions for deserters. That said, the information in this article alone does not allow us to conclude that men of service age are now being forced to do so, nor that the Algerian army is short of volunteers. This article does not allow us to conclude that the punishments provided for in the law for persons who evade service are now applied. [43] I have also taken into consideration the information on the Canadian government website (Exhibit 3) to the effect that dual Canadian-Algerian citizens were denied the right to leave Algeria. According to the Canadian government website, they were unable to leave because they were unable to provide a deferment card exempting them from military service, a certificate of census registration or evidence that they have completed their military service.33 According to the Landinfo document, the consequence of avoiding national service primarily seems to be potential administrative difficulties.34 The evidence shows that permission is required to leave the country.35 The simple fact that people were refused the right to leave Algeria, without further information as to what happened to them afterwards, because they were not in possession of the documents required in relation to military service does not establish the existence of a serious possibility of persecution. [44] The appellant did not demonstrate that he was wanted by the Algerian authorities. He did not allege that he was an activist or that he had problems with the authorities in the past. In the absence of evidence to the effect that the appellant would be perceived by the Algerian authorities as problematic or embarrassing, I conclude that he did not demonstrate the profile described in the documentary evidence for which the Algerian authorities could decide to apply sanctions. [45] Considering all the above, namely that the evidence shows that the sanctions for evading service would be applied only exceptionally and that the appellant did not demonstrate a profile that would trouble the Algerian authorities, I conclude that the appellant did not demonstrate that he would be subject to sanctions if he were to return to Algeria. Risk from real estate developers [46] In my view, the RPD did not err by relying on inconsistencies and omissions in the BOC Form to draw negative credibility findings regarding the nature of the alleged risk in Algeria from real estate developers. [47] The appellant argues that the RPD erred in its analysis of the risk from the XXXXowner and the investor who works with him. He argues that the risk he is subjected to, namely, a risk to his life is different from that of other family members. He submits that he has proven that he has been identified and targeted by the real estate developers who want to obtain the land owned by his family. He also stated that the subjective fear or behaviour of his mother and brothers should not affect the analysis of his own fear. [48] I do not agree with the appellant's arguments. [49] Like the RPD, I accept as credible the appellant's allegations that: * His mother took out a loan from an investor to obtain equipment for the family business; * His mother was unable to pay this debt; * The equipment was not returned to the investor; * Since then, tensions have remained between his mother and the investor. [50] That said, I am of the opinion that the RPD did not err in relying on the following inconsistencies and omissions to conclude that the appellant did not demonstrate that the risk he would be subjected to if he were to return to Algeria amounts to a risk within the meaning of paragraph 97(1)(b), that is, a risk to his life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. Two of the appellant's brothers remain on the land at the heart of the issues [51] I am of the opinion that the RPD did not err in finding that the appellant's credibility regarding his allegations of risks to his life is undermined by the fact that his two brothers, their spouses and children still live on the land coveted by the real estate developers. [52] Contrary to what the appellant argues, I am of the view that the behaviour of his brothers who remain in Algeria and the risk they themselves face are relevant to the refugee protection analysis. [53] Is it important to note that, according to the testimony of the appellant's mother, the problems in Algeria began in 2014 and stem from the fact that the owner of a XXXX adjacent to her land wants her to sell her land.36 It is on this land that the family home is located, including the XXXX operated by XXXX, the appellant's brother. In 2014, an investor proposed to XXXX equipment that would improve the performance of his XXXX. At XXXX insistence, the appellant's mother incurred a debt with the investor in question. To date, the debt has still not been paid, which has caused the appellant and his family to face threats and harassment since XXXX 2015. The appellant and his family eventually understood that the investor was connected to the XXXX owner and that the loan was merely a scheme to force them to sell their land.37 [54] I take into consideration that the harassment and threats stem from the refusal of the appellant's mother to sell the family lot and the debt she incurred with the investor introduced to her by her son XXXX to improve his XXXX. In these circumstances, the behaviour of the family members remaining in Algeria, and the treatment of them by the real estate developers, particularly that of XXXX, who operates the XXXX in which the investor-funded equipment is located, and which has not been paid for, are relevant factors in the analysis of the risk to the appellant if he were to return to Algeria. [55] However, on the one hand, two of the appellant's brothers, including XXXX, still reside in the family home on the land that has been coveted by the real estate developers since 2013. XXXX still operates the family business located on this same land. This is the business housing the equipment that was never returned to the creditor, who is also one of the real estate developers wanting to take the land from the appellant's family. [56] In her testimony before the RPD, the appellant's mother stated that she is the most targeted by the threats, in addition to her children. She then adjusted her testimony by stating that XXXX and XXXX are [translation] "not too threatened" since they were only somewhat complicit.38 When asked whether they have been threatened since he left Algeria, the appellant's mother again adjusted her testimony to state that they are threatened because that have nothing to give to the real estate developers.39 She stated that they work in the business to make a bit of money and then take refuge with their in-laws. She also explained that they cannot sell because the residence is mortgaged and that, consequently, her sons cannot afford to relocate.40 I draw a negative inference from the adjustments to the testimony. I find that the appellant's mother's credibility is undermined with respect to the fact that her two sons who remain in Algeria face threats. [57] The appellant testified that his brothers did not leave the family home because they are married, that they have to stay to earn a living and that their mother took steps to bring them to Canada.41 [58] However, I am of the opinion that the explanations of the appellant and his mother as to why two of the appellant's brothers stayed in Algeria are not satisfactory. The mere fact of being married does not explain why they stayed in the family home when they are allegedly the target of death threats. As for the statement that they cannot afford to stay elsewhere, I take into consideration that the appellant testified that they sometimes go to the family apartment in Oran on the weekend.42 They therefore have an alternative to their family home where they are threatened. [59] In the absence of satisfactory explanations, I find that the appellant's credibility is undermined to the effect that his brothers are threatened by the real estate developers. As raised by the RPD, the fact that two of the appellant's brothers remained at the family home that is the source of the family's problems is inconsistent with the allegations of risks to his life. The appellant's mother travelled to Algeria [60] I also conclude that the RPD did not err in relying on the fact that the appellant's mother returned to Algeria twice to conclude that this behaviour was inconsistent with the allegations of risks to his life. [61] As noted by the RPD, the appellant's mother is the main target of the real estate developers because she is the one who has incurred the debt and refuses to give up her land. At the hearing held by the RPD, she testified that the most significant threat occurred in the market in 2016 when two men threatened her with a knife and broke her car windows.43 However, after a first trip to Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2017, with the appellant's sister, the two returned to Algeria on XXXX XXXX, 2017.44 At the hearing, she testified that she came to Canada in 2017 only to change her mind.45 In my opinion, this justification does not explain why she returned to Algeria, where she feared for her life. [62] I take into consideration that the appellant, his father, his mother, his sister and one of his brothers left Algeria permanently in XXXX 2018. However, his mother returned to Algeria in XXXX 2018 and remained there for more than a month.46 At the hearing, she testified that she wanted to try to resolve the problem with the investors, but that they did not want to hear anything.47 Again, I find these explanations unsatisfactory considering the allegations of death threats. [63] I find that caution must be exercised in making adverse credibility findings based on the behaviour of third parties. That said, in this case, the main target of the threats is the appellant's mother, who owes a debt to the investor and refuses to sell her land to the XXXX owner. In this context, I consider that her behaviour is relevant to the analysis of the refugee protection claim. [64] However, in the absence of satisfactory explanations, I find that the appellant's mother's return trips to Algeria undermine the appellant's credibility regarding his allegations of risks to his life. The appellant's behaviour is inconsistent with allegations of death threats [65] I conclude that the RPD did not err in relying on the fact that the appellant did not leave the family home after the threats, and on his delay in claiming refugee protection in Canada to draw negative credibility findings. [66] The appellant alleges that he was the victim of several threats with a weapon starting in XXXX 2017.48 He left Algeria permanently in XXXX 2018. When asked by the RPD to explain why he did not leave his home following the threats, the appellant replied that he could not because the family is too important to him and that he wanted to protect them.49 [67] However, like the RPD, I do not consider this explanation to be satisfactory taking into account that the appellant alleges that he fears for his life in Algeria. Furthermore, I take into consideration that, according to his testimony and that of his mother, he faces the most threats of all of the children because he defended his mother.50 [68] Concerning the delay of more than five (5) months before claiming refugee protection in Canada, the appellant stated that his father and mother handled the procedures.51 I find this explanation, on its own, unsatisfactory. When he arrived in Canada, the appellant was of age and was twenty-two (22) years old. He was therefore in a position to make his own decisions. Furthermore, his mother came to visit Canada in 2017 to get away from the problems. She returned in 2018 with her husband and three of her children because of the problems in Algeria. [69] In these circumstances, in the absence of satisfactory explanations, I find that the appellant's credibility is undermined with respect to his allegations of risks to his life, considering his delay in claiming refugee protection and his failure to leave the family home when he had been receiving threats since XXXX 2017. Threats after leaving Algeria [70] I conclude that the RPD did not err by relying on an omission in the BOC Form and an inconsistency in the text message conversations52 to conclude that the appellant did not demonstrate the existence of threats after he left Algeria. [71] At the hearing held by the RPD, the appellant stated that since he left Algeria, he has received other threats through his Facebook account and that his brother XXXX car was vandalized in XXXX 2021. I am of the opinion that his explanations as to why he did not declare these threats in his BOC Form, including that his mother was handling the file and that he needed time to gather evidence,53 are not satisfactory. The appellant went to the trouble of submitting an update to his BOC Form in May 2021.54 He was represented by experienced counsel. In such circumstances, the appellant should have stated in the first versions of his BOC Form that he had been receiving threats since his arrival in Canada. [72] In the absence of a satisfactory explanation, I find that his credibility is undermined with respect to his allegations of threats since he left Algeria. [73] In addition, I considered the photographs of a car whose window was smashed.55 At the RPD hearing, the appellant testified that it was the family car. That said, as noted by the RPD, the appellant was unable to explain why he sent the photograph of the car.56 In the absence of a satisfactory explanation for this inconsistency, I give no probative value to the text message conversations. Documents submitted by the appellant [74] I have considered the certificates of filing a complaint issued on behalf of the appellant's mother.57 The first certificate states that the appellant's mother filed a complaint of assault on XXXX XXXX, 2016. However, there is no mention of the nature of the acts of aggression or the places where these acts took place. Moreover, as for the identity of the aggressor, it is indicated only that he is a person known to the police. [75] The other certificate indicates that the appellant's mother attended the police station on XXXX XXXX, 2016, in connection with mischief to her vehicle and insults. The suspects are identified. [76] That said, I am of the view that these documents do not provide a link between the incidents reported to the police and the allegations of threats by the real estate developers. In my opinion, these documents are insufficient to corroborate the allegations of risks to life, considering that the appellant's credibility was undermined regarding the nature of the risk in Algeria. [77] I have also considered the statement of two friends of the appellant.58 They stated that they witnessed acts of aggression towards the appellant by unknown persons outside the university. First, this statement does not make it possible to make the connection between the unknown persons and the real estate developers. In addition, this statement was made in XXXX 2017. It does not demonstrate the existence of a risk should the appellant return to Algeria more than five years later. [78] As for the attestation of complaint filed on behalf of the appellant,59 it indicates that the appellant filed a complaint on XXXX XXXX, 2017, for threats and insults. There is no mention of where these acts took place. As for the identity of the suspect, it is only indicated that he is known to the police. [79] In my view, this document does not make the connection between the insults and the allegations of threats by real estate developers. Moreover, in my opinion, this document is insufficient to corroborate the allegations of risks to his life, given that the appellant's credibility was undermined regarding the nature of the risk in Algeria. In addition, the complaint was filed in XXXX 2017. In my view, it does not demonstrate the existence of a risk should the appellant return to Algeria more than five years later. [80] I have also considered the psychological report issued in Algeria.60 It indicates a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress related to the appellant's experiencing physical and psychological abuse. The psychologist does not state what tools were used to make the diagnosis. The report is very succinct and refers only to a meeting on XXXX XXXX, 2017. Even if I were to accept this report as credible in terms of the diagnosis, I consider that this document is insufficient to corroborate the allegations of risks to life, given that the appellant's credibility was undermined regarding the nature of the risk in Algeria. Furthermore, even if I were to accept that the appellant was a victim of violence in 2017, more than five years have passed since then. Consequently, this report does not demonstrate the existence of a risk if the appellant returns to Algeria. [81] Considering all the above, I conclude that the RPD's decision is correct. The appellant did not establish a serious possibility of persecution on one of the five Convention grounds or demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that if he were to return to Algeria, he would be personally subjected to a danger of torture, a risk to his life or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA. DECISION [82] The RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the determination of the RPD that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is not a Convention refugee under section 96 of the IRPA or a person in need of protection under section 97 of the IRPA. (signed by) Marie-Lyne Thibault Marie-Lyne Thibault May 12, 2023 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 Appellant's record, article, "APN: le projet de loi sur la réserve militaire devant la Commission de la défense nationale," [APN: the military reserve bill before the national defence commission] published June 30, 2022, pp. 3-4. 2 Appellant's record, article, "Service national : Le Président Tebboune signe un décret dispensant les citoyens de 30 ans et plus," [National service: President Tebboune signs a decree exempting citizens over age 30] Radio Algérie, dated June 25, 2020, pp. 6-9. 3 Ibid., Travel Advice, Government of Canada, updated August 25, 2022, pp. 10-25. 4 Raza v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FCA 385. 5 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, 2016 FCA 96. 6 "APN: le projet de loi sur la réserve militaire devant la Commission de la défense nationale (aps.dz)" [APN: the military reserve bill before the national defence commission (aps.dz)]. 7 Appellant's record, article, "Service national : Le Président Tebboune signe un décret dispensant les citoyens de 30 ans et plus," Radio Algérie, dated June 25, 2020, pp. 6-9. 8 Eshetie v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1036. 9 Abdullahi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 260, para. 15. 10 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93. 11 RPD Record, Basis of Claim Form (BOC Form), pp. 22-31 and pp. 56-62. 12 RPD Record, BOC Form, pp. 22-31 and pp. 56-62. 13 RPD Record, P-3A, update, May 26, 2021, p. 352. 14 RPD Record, P-43, attestation of renewal of postponement, p. 411. 15 RPD Record, BOC Form, pp. 50-62. 16 RPD Record, P-43, attestation of renewal of postponement, p. 411. 17 RPD Record, P-3A, update, May 26, 2021, p. 352. 18 RPD Record, P-43, attestation of renewal of postponement, p. 411. 19 RPD Record, P-60, amended written account, pp. 19-20; Recording of the RPD hearing held on February 23, 2022, between approximately 00:11:50 and 00:20:30. 20 National Documentation Package (NDP) on Algeria, August 31, 2022, Tab 8.2.: Algeria: Conscription. Norway. Norwegian Country of Origin Information Centre, Landinfo. May 31, 2018. 21 NDP on Algeria, August 31, 2022, Tab 8.2. 22 NDP on Algeria, August 31, 2022, Tab 8.2, pp. 7-8. 23 NDP on Algeria, August 31, 2022, Tab 8.2. 24 NDP on Algeria, August 31, 2022, Tab 8.2. 25 NDP on Algeria, August 31, 2022, Tab 8.2, p. 4. 26 NDP on Algeria, August 31, 2022, Tab 8.2, pp. 4-5. 27 NDP on Algeria, August 31, 2022, Tab 8.2, p. 6. 28 NDP on Algeria, August 31, 2022, Tab 8.2, p. 6. 29 NDP on Algeria, August 31, 2022. 30 Recording of the RPD hearing on February 23, 2022, at approximately 00:40:30. 31 Appellant's record, Travel Advice, Government of Canada, updated August 25, 2022, p. 22. 32 Appellant's record, Article, "APN: le projet de loi sur la réserve militaire devant la Commission de la défense nationale," published on June 30, 2022, p. 3. 33 Appellant's record, Travel Advice, Government of Canada, updated August 25, 2022, p. 22. 34 NDP on Algeria, August 31, 2022, Tab 8.2, p. 5. 35 NDP on Algeria, August 31, 2022, Tab 8.2, p. 5. 36 Recording of the RPD hearing held on March 30, 2022, at approximately 00:29:30. 37 RPD Record, BOC Form, written account, pp. 58-60; Recording of the RPD hearing held on March 30, 2022, at approximately 00:29:30. 38 Recording of the RPD hearing held on March 30, 2022, at approximately 00:46:30. 39 Recording of the RPD hearing held on March 30, 2022, at approximately 00:48:00. 40 Recording of the RPD hearing held on March 30, 2022, at approximately 00:49:10. 41 Recording of the RPD hearing held on February 23, 2022, at approximately 02:13:55. 42 Recording of the RPD hearing held on February 23, 2022, at approximately 00:29:00. 43 Recording of the RPD hearing held on March 30, 2022, at approximately 00:42:40. 44 RPD Record, passport of the appellant's mother, p. 186. 45 Recording of the RPD hearing held on March 30, 2022, at approximately 00:45:15. 46 RPD Record, BOC Form, written account, p. 62. 47 Recording of the RPD hearing held on March 30, 2022, at approximately 00:51:00. 48 RPD Record, BOC Form, written account, p. 19. 49 Recording of the RPD hearing held on March 30, 2022, at approximately 00:59:00. 50 Recording of the RPD hearing on March 30, 222, at approximately 0:54:15; Recording of the RPD hearing on February 23, 2022, at approximately 02:43:00. 51 Recording of the RPD hearing on February 23, 2022, at approximately 02:11:30. 52 RPD Record, P-61, text message conversations, pp. 440-442. 53 Recording of the RPD hearing on February 23, 2022, at approximately 02:25:45. 54 RPD Record, P-3A, update, May 26, 2021, p. 352. 55 RPD Record, P-61, photographs, p. 440. 56 Recording of the RPD hearing held on February 23, 2022, at approximately 01:09:15; RPD record, P-61, text message conversations, p. 441. 57 RPD Record, certificates of filing a complaint, pp. 362-363. 58 RPD Record, attestation of testimony for assault, XXXX 2017, pp. 410 and 448. 59 RPD Record, attestation of filing a complaint, XXXX-XXXX-2018, p. 409. 60 RPD Record, psychological report, 4-11-2018, p. 424. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MC2-12771 RAD.25.02 (August 20, 2021) Disponible en français 2 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 (August 20, 2021) Disponible en français