MB6-06333

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 : MB6-06333 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 Date(s) of hearing January 31, 2018 Date(s) de l'audience Appeal heard at Ottawa, ON Appel entendu à Appeal considered at Ottawa, ON Appel instruit à Date of decision April 18, 2018 Date de la décision Panel Christina Harrison Baird Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal Dalwinder (D.S.) Hayer 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 [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, a citizen of Cameroon, appeals the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), which rejected her claim based on lack of credibility. The determinative issue in this appeal is whether the Appellant has an Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) in Yaoundé. [2] The Appellant requests to submit new evidence. The Appellant requests that the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) set aside the RPD decision and send the matter back to the RPD for re-determination by a different member. [3] The Minister did not intervene in the Appeal. DETERMINATION [4] The Appellant has a viable IFA in Yaoundé. Pursuant to subsection 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. [5] The appeal is dismissed. BACKGROUND [6] The Appellant came to Canada as a college student in 2013. She claims that in 2014, while she was studying here, a friend of her father asked to marry her. The Appellant refused the marriage and remained in Canada. On appeal, the Appellant says she learned only after her claim was rejected that her father accepted a bride price for her in 2014, and that her sisters' marriages were arranged similarly. She alleges that if she returns to Cameroon, she will not be safe anywhere in the country because her father's friend is a rich and influential man who does not accept her refusal to marry him. [7] She claims the man is a "XXXX", a member of a council of nine advisors to the Chief of her family's village. She states that, as a XXXX, her unwanted suitor has at his disposal the powers of both the traditional authorities and the police all over Cameroon. Although the Appellant's family members live in Douala and Yaoundé and not in the village of XXXX, the Appellant's entire family allegedly has been harassed, pursued by law enforcement, and banished from the village due to her refusal to marry the XXXX. Consequently, the Appellant alleges that all of her family members except her mother have pressured her to return to Cameroon and marry the XXXX. She asserts that if she does so, she will also be subjected to female genital mutilation (FGM). The Appellant alleges that her very life is in danger because she has flouted tradition and the traditional authorities. [8] The RPD found that the Appellant was not credible. To reach this overall conclusion, the RPD analyzed the evidence and found that the Appellant had failed to establish on a balance of probabilities the following essential elements of her claim: * that her family had been threatened by the XXXX and the Chief of the village of XXXX; * that her family was pressuring her to marry the XXXX; and * that the XXXX and the chief of XXXX exerted influence over the police and politicians. [9] The Appellant submits that the RPD erred by: * failing to examine the totality of the evidence; * engaging in an overzealous and microscopic examination of the Appellant's testimony; and * misconstruing the Appellant's testimony. [10] For these reasons, the Appellant requests that the RAD allow the appeal and send this matter back for re-determination of her credibility by a different member of the RPD. ANALYSIS [11] I have listened to the recording of the RPD hearing that took place on May 12, 2016. In addition, the Appellant appeared before me for a RAD hearing on January 31, 2018. I have considered the RPD record, the Appeal Record, the testimony at both hearings, and all of the arguments of the Appellant, including the additional written submissions of Counsel dated February 1, 2018. Neither the Appellant nor her Counsel responded to the RAD's invitation (dated March 27, 2018, with a deadline of April 10, 2018) to make further submissions on an IFA in Yaoundé. Decision on whether to Admit New Evidence [12] The RPD rejected the Appellant's refugee claim on June 24, 2016, for lack of credibility. In light of the RPD's negative credibility finding, the Appellant requests to submit the following new evidence on appeal: * Procès verbal de Notification de la Garde à vue dated January 23, 2015;1 * Medical Record dated January 23 to May 5, 2015;2 * Photographs (4) undated; 3 * Medical Record dated June 25 to 27, 2016;4 * Letter from the Appellant's mother dated August 1, 2016;5 * Letter from the Chief of XXXX dated August 1, 2016;6 [13] The test for admissibility of new evidence is provided in subsection 110(4) of the IRPA, which states that the person who is the subject of the appeal?here, the Appellant? may present only evidence that arose after the rejection of their claim, or that was not reasonably available, or that the person could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection. Rule 3(3)(g)(iii) of the RAD Rules requires the Appellant to make full and detailed submissions regarding how a proposed document meets the requirements of subsection 110(4). In addition, the jurisprudence requires the evidence to be new, credible, and relevant.7 [14] The Procès-verbal and the Medical Record commencing January 23, 2015, both predate the rejection of the Appellant's refugee claim. The Appellant has failed to provide any argument or evidence that they were not reasonably available, or that she could not reasonably have been expected to present them before the rejection of her claim. Therefore I find they do not meet the criteria in subsection 110(4) of IRPA. [15] The only submission regarding the undated photographs is the description on a fax cover sheet: "Pictures confirming that father at hospital and damage done to the house at the time of attack." There is no indication which alleged attack is being referenced. I am not able to determine when this evidence arose nor how it is related to the Appellant's refugee appeal. Therefore I find the photographs do not meet the criteria in subsection 110(4) of IRPA. [16] Since I have concluded that these documents do not meet the test in subsection 110(4) of IRPA, it is not necessary to pursue a further analysis of the jurisprudential criteria that they be new, credible, and relevant. If the evidence does not meet the statutory test, then I must not accept it.8 [17] The final three items in the list above appear in the Appellant's Record under the heading "Documentary Evidence provided to RPD." They do not appear in the RPD Record. They are not mentioned in the Memorandum of Argument. The Appellant has not explained how these documents meet the criteria in subsection 110(4) of IRPA, and has failed to follow Rule 3(3)(g)(iii). Based on their dates, I am prepared to find that they arose after the rejection of the Appellant's claim on June 24, 2016, and therefore meet one of the criteria in subsection 110(4). [18] Since there is no itemization of these documents in the Appellant's Record, the RAD is left to guess that the Medical Record dated June 25 to 27, 2016, is the one referred to in page 1 of the Letter from the Appellant's mother dated August 1, 2016. Neither the medical record nor the letter explains whose medical care is being described, nor how it is related to the Appellant's refugee appeal. For this reason, I cannot find that the medical record is relevant. The Medical Record dated June 25 to 27, 2016, is not admitted as new evidence. [19] The Letter from the Appellant's mother dated August 1, 2016, certainly purports to offer new and relevant information. The handwriting appears to be the same as that in previous declarations from the Appellant's mother. I find it credible to the extent that I believe the source is the Appellant's mother and so I admit it as Exhibit A-1 in this appeal, for further consideration whether its contents are credible. [20] The Letter from the Chief of XXXX dated August 1, 2016, also purports to offer new and relevant information. I find it credible to the extent that such a traditional chiefdom does exist in Cameroon and the letter is signed in the name of the current Chief. At the hearing on January 31, 2018, the Appellant identified as XXXX the language appearing at lines 8, 13-14 and 22, and she translated the contents of those lines. I admit the letter as Exhibit A-2 in this appeal, for further consideration whether its contents are credible. [21] In addition to the above-noted documents, the Appellant made an application under RAD Rules 29 and 37 on January 31, 2018, to admit a document not previously provided. The document dated December 18, 2017, was a printout of a digital photograph that the Appellant states she received by WhatsApp on December 18, 2017. The picture shows a woman's face with swelling and a bandage near her left eye. The Appellant submitted that it is a picture of her elder sister, XXXX, following an incident at XXXX's home in Douala on December 17, 2017. This document clearly arose after the rejection of the Appellant's refugee claim and she could not have provided it when she perfected her appeal. The Appellant alleges that the incident was another means to pressure her family to make the Appellant return to Cameroon and marry the XXXX. I find that the document is probative of the Appellant's risk of harm in Douala, and sufficiently relevant and credible to be admitted as Exhibit A-3. [22] The Appellant's request to adduce new evidence is granted in part. Decision on whether to Hold an Oral Hearing [23] The Appellant did not request an oral hearing before the RAD. [24] The general rule is that the RAD must proceed without a hearing, on the basis of the record of the proceedings of the RPD.9 The RAD only has discretion to hold an oral hearing when there is additional documentary evidence and all of the conditions in subsection 110(6) of IRPA are met.10 I have held that some of the documents proposed by the Appellant meet the statutory and jurisprudential criteria for admission. In my view, the letters dated August 1, 2016 from the Appellant's mother (Exhibit A-1) and from the Chief of XXXX (Exhibit A-2); as well as the photograph of the Appellant's sister dated December 18, 2017 (Exhibit A-3), raise serious issues with respect to the Appellant's credibility. They represent a substantial change to the allegations, and touch on three of the central questions in this claim, i.e.: * whether the Appellant's family is threatened by the XXXX and the Chief of the village of XXXX; * whether the Appellant's family is pressuring her to marry the XXXX; and * whether the XXXX and the Chief of XXXX exert influence over police and politicians throughout Cameroon. [25] If I were to accept the contents of these documents and the Appellant's explanations of these documents as true, it would justify accepting this refugee claim. Since this new documentary evidence raises issues that are both serious and central to my decision, it does require examination at an oral hearing pursuant to subsection 110(6) of IRPA. The RAD hearing took place on January 31, 2018. Conflict with the traditional authorities of XXXX [26] The RPD found that the Appellant did not establish on a balance of probabilities that her family had been threatened by the XXXX and the Chief of XXXX. In particular, the RPD pointed out that the Appellant did not know the reason for her father's alleged detention in January 2015, and that three police convocations11 addressed to the Appellant's father did not mention the reason for convocation or the name of the complainant. Moreover, the RPD found that the several descriptions of an incident in February 2015 at the home of the Appellant's parents differed sufficiently that the RPD accorded no weight to two of these accounts from the Appellant's mother. [27] The Appellant has given consistent testimony before the RPD and the RAD that the cause of her problem in Cameroon is an arranged marriage that she has refused. The tribunal still has not received any admissible documentary evidence that reveals the complainant or the reason behind the convocations of the Appellant's father. However, the Appellant explained that convocations in Cameroon usually do not mention reasons.12 In addition, I now have the benefit of Exhibit A-1, the letter from the Appellant's mother explaining that the Appellant's father secretly accepted approximately C$XXXX XXXX XXXX as a bride price from the XXXX. The Appellant testified at the RAD hearing that, as a XXXX, her father could not have earned this amount in 5 ?or even 10? years of work.13 [28] I also have Exhibit A-2, the letter from the Chief of XXXX dated August 1, 2016, banishing the Appellant's entire family from the village of XXXX. The letter prohibits other members of that village ?wherever they may be in Cameroon? from interacting with the Appellant's family, due to the family's refusal to give the Appellant in marriage to the XXXX. This refusal, the letter confirms, is considered a violation of cultural norms. With the benefit of Exhibit A-2, I am prepared to accept that there is a conflict between the Appellant's father and the XXXX and Chief of XXXX, that this conflict relates to a marriage arranged for the Appellant, and that the Appellant's father received three police convocations ?two in Douala and a third in XXXX, near XXXX?that relate to this conflict. [29] I find that the several descriptions (in the Amended Basis of Claim,14 the Appellant's RPD testimony,15 and the documents from the Appellant's mother16) of the incident at the home of the Appellant's parents in February 2015 are largely consistent. In my view, the differences noted by the RPD are differences of emphasis, rather than of substance. The RPD did not enjoy a meaningful advantage to consider them and they do not justify a negative inference or according no weight to the corroborative documents from the Appellant's mother. [30] I find it is more likely than not that the Appellant's family is in conflict with the traditional authorities of their native village, XXXX. Internal Flight Alternative in Yaoudé [31] I find that the Appellant can live safely in Yaoundé. I do so, having considered and concluded that I am satisfied with respect to the Gender Guideline17 and this two-step test: A. on a balance of probabilities, there is no serious possibility of the Appellant being persecuted in Yaoundé; 18 and B. conditions in Yaoundé are such that it would not be unreasonable, in all circumstances, including those particular to the Appellant, for her to seek refuge there. 19 [32] The Appellant states her main fear is that the XXXX will find her anywhere in Cameroon, using black magic, his personal influence over police and politicians, and his network of connections with others from their ethnic group. According to the Appellant, Yaoundé is not safe because her sister XXXX was called to a police station there in March 2015, the XXXX has a store in Yaoundé,20 and there is general insecurity in the capital.21 A. Appellant faces no serious possibility of persecution in Yaoundé [33] With respect to Yaoundé, I find that the Appellant's subjective fear is not well-founded because she has failed to prove any of the following allegations on a balance of probabilities: * her sister was called to a police station in Yaoundé; * the XXXX has looked, is looking, or will look for her in Yaoundé; * the XXXX has a store, or any business or other interest in Yaoundé; * the XXXX would be able to find her in Yaoundé; * she could be forced to marry in Yaoundé. Insufficient proof of convocation in Yaoundé [34] The Appellant testified that she lived with her sister XXXX in Yaoundé for two years until 2011.22 She omitted to mention any police convocation of her siblings in her Basis of Claim or in the subsequent amendment. Evidence submitted prior to the RPD hearing suggested that the Appellant's sister XXXX had received convocations in Douala. At the RPD hearing, the Appellant alleged for the first time that XXXX had received a convocation in Yaoundé in March 2015, and that a brother in Douala had received one in May 2015. These late allegations are unsubstantiated by any documentary evidence. The Appellant explained that it was impossible to get the convocations of her siblings because she is only in touch with her mother, who informed her about them.23 The RPD was not satisfied with this explanation.24 [35] I agree. I draw a negative inference from the lateness of the allegations and from the absence of any documentary evidence to support them. I note that on appeal the Appellant has not produced any corroboration of the alleged convocations of her siblings, nor was any argument made on this point in the Memorandum of Appeal. In my view, the allegations about summonses addressed to her siblings constitute an embellishment to exemplify the pressure that the Appellant claims was being placed upon her family. Therefore I give no weight to the Appellant's testimony on this point. The Appellant has not shown, on a balance of probabilities, that her sister in Yaoundé received a police convocation. Insufficient proof of pursuit in Yaoundé [36] Exhibit A-3 is a picture of a woman with an injury to her forehead and left eye. The Appellant testified that the woman is her elder sister XXXX, who was attacked in her home in Douala-XXXX XXXX away from her parents' home-at around 10 p.m. on December 17, 2017. The Appellant noted that XXXX has moved to a different house since the time that the Appellant was last in Cameroon, that XXXX's situation is not stable, and that she sometimes stays elsewhere. [37] The Appellant affirmed that she had not spoken to XXXX since the April 2016 call that she testified about before the RPD. The Appellant testified about the December 2017 incident as related to her by her mother: three assailants entered the home while XXXX was there with her adult children aged 20 and 18. One assailant allegedly threatened the young people while another attempted to sexually assault XXXX. The assailants said, "You guys want to show that you're tough. Who do you think you are?" These words led the Appellant to believe that they were sent by the XXXX. The Appellant claims that in an effort to escape, her sister ran out into the street and was hit by a car, causing the injury to her head, which required surgery to relieve bleeding under the skin of her forehead.25 The Appellant testified that during the attack, the assailants did not refer directly to the XXXX, to the marriage, or to the Appellant.26 [38] At the RAD hearing, Mrs. XXXX XXXX, the mother of the Appellant, testified from Douala using her mobile telephone. She testified that in December 2017, three people broke into the home of her daughter XXXX in Douala. Upon fleeing into the street, XXXX was hit by a car, which resulted in swelling and scratches to her eye, head and hands. Asked by counsel whether she knew who these people were, Mrs. XXXXo testified that they kept demanding, "Give us XXXX! We are looking for XXXX."27 [39] Her mother's testimony does contradict the Appellant's assertion that there was no direct reference to her name during the incident at XXXX's house. However, I give the Appellant the benefit of the doubt and do not draw a negative inference. Considering that the Appellant's mother herself was the source of the Appellant's information about this incident, I prefer the more precise testimony of the Appellant's mother on this detail. The Appellant has shown that her sister XXXX was harassed at her home in Douala, in relation to the matter of the Appellant's forced marriage. [40] Following the pattern of the XXXX's harassment of the Appellant's sister XXXX, it would be logical for the Appellant's sister XXXX also to have been approached if the XXXX were pursuing the Appellant or her family members beyond Douala. As of January 2018, XXXX still lives in the same residence she did when the Appellant departed Cameroon in 2013.28 The Appellant did not establish before the RPD that XXXX had any problems relating to the Appellant, and she is not aware of XXXX experiencing any related incident since the rejection of the Appellant's claim in June 2016.29 XXXX has lived safely in Yaoundé even though the travel time from XXXX is about the same to either Douala (XXXX XXXX XXXX hours by motor vehicle) or Yaoundé (XXXX hours), and Yaoundé is also readily accessible from Douala (4 hours). I draw a negative inference about the ability, the interest, and the willingness of the XXXX to pursue the Appellant in Yaoundé. Insufficient proof of XXXX's connection to Yaoundé [41] The Appellant has not established on a balance of probabilities that the reach and influence of her unwanted suitor extends to Yaoundé. She has given the XXXX's name and asserted that he is a rich XXXX magnate. She has not provided the name of his company nor any documentary information about the extent of his business holdings. There is no document to support her allegation that he has a store or any business interest in Yaoundé. There is no documentary or testimonial evidence that he has a residence in Yaoundé. The record contains neither clear and convincing evidence that that he has a connection to Yaoundé, nor information as to how it would impact the Appellant's problem if he did. Insufficient proof of XXXX's ability to find Appellant in Yaoundé [42] The Appellant has not established that the XXXX could find or pursue her in Yaoundé, a city of over 2.5 million people. Exhibit A-2, the letter from the Chief banishing the Appellant's family from XXXX, is copied to the head of the XXXX community in Yaoundé, which the Appellant estimates numbers 100,000 people. This is a sizable community but it amounts to only four percent of this urban population. The Appellant may experience social dislocation as a result of the banishment and her inability to turn to members of this community for support to establish herself in Yaoundé. Based on Exhibit A-2 and the evidentiary record, I am not satisfied that it is more likely than not that the XXXX community in Yaoundé would actively seek to persecute the Appellant by abetting a forced marriage. There is no evidence that her sister XXXX has been mistreated by members of this community, despite the fact that the Appellant previously lived for two years at XXXX's address and the family has been publicly banished. [43] As to the Appellant's fear of being found by black magic, the Federal Court has found that a person's fear of the spiritual may be genuine, and may constitute proof of subjective fear. However, the Court has acknowledged that the state can only provide effective protection from actions by people, such as participants in a ritual where the spiritual world is invoked. In that sense, the objective aspect of the refugee's fear of persecution must be with regard to someone or something tangible.30 [44] The RPD found that the Appellant had failed to establish that the XXXX and the Chief of XXXX exert influence over the police and politicians.31 I agree in part. There is no credible evidence that the police have approached any member of the Appellant's family since the incident at her parents' residence in February 2015.32 Although the Cameroonian police is a national force and is notoriously lacking discipline,33 the Appellant's family has not faced any further encounters with police in Douala, even following the family's banishment in August 2016. There is no indication that the XXXX has exerted his influence to coordinate or continue the police harassment initiated in 2015. There is no credible evidence that the police in Yaoundé has ever been involved in this matter. Insufficient proof Appellant could be forcibly married in Yaoundé [45] The Appellant has given neither names, nor media reports nor even a specific anecdote to substantiate her allegation that the XXXX has access to and influence over politicians throughout Cameroon. The independent evidence about the profile of Cameroonian women subject to rights violations such as forced marriage and genital mutilation is mixed. The documentary evidence indicates that forced marriages are most prevalent in rural areas and among less educated and poorer families. As a highly educated, middle class, urban woman, the Appellant does not fit this profile.34, 35 [46] Forced marriages in Cameroon may be a corollary of early betrothal, and may take place in localities where there remains "a lot of respect for traditional rulers or chiefs."36 The Appellant is now nearly 30 years old. The marriage arrangement was made by her father after she came to study in Canada as a 25-year-old woman in 2013. It was not an early betrothal or a longstanding arrangement at the time she refused it in November 2014. [47] The danger of forced marriage or FGM may still exist for women from urban areas when they are taken back to the village for summer vacation.37 However, the Appellant has never resided in XXXX. She testified that as a child, she used to go there once or less per year. Since the Appellant and her family have been banished from the village, there is no likelihood that she will return there for vacation. [48] Chiefs and other traditional leaders have been known to engage in power games with the parents of a woman they desire to wed, and several experts agree that a chief himself could likely act with impunity to force a marriage unless a political rival sought to enforce the law that prohibits this practice.38 By extrapolation, one might posit that a XXXX with the strong support of a chief?as alleged in this case?could also force a marriage. However, tempering that evidence, as the RPD noted, is documentary evidence that indicates traditional authorities in Cameroon are losing their influence. Legislative reforms in the 1970s made traditional chiefs into agents of the civil administration of Cameroon. The government assumed a new role?including a veto?in the selection of these local leaders, circumscribing their power and impacting their legitimacy. Moreover, particularly at the village level, the government does not pay for the chiefs' service, and their historical sources of wealth in the form of lands and remittances of produce from their subjects have become increasingly scarce. While the chiefs play an important role in rural communities, their influence in the South, in urban contexts, and where the central government has a strong presence, is notably degraded.39, 40 [49] I conclude that the influence of this XXXX does not extend to the capital city of Cameroon. Having made an independent analysis of the record, I find that the Appellant has failed to show on a balance of probabilities that she could be forced to marry or to undergo FGM if she lived in Yaoundé. Appellant's family is not in hiding [50] Also pertinent to my analysis of the Appellant's risk in Yaoundé is the testimony from Mrs. XXXX at the RAD hearing. I do not find credible the Appellant's allegation?or her mother's corroboration?that her family has been in hiding. This finding is pertinent to the pressure that the family allegedly is experiencing. [51] The Appellant testified that her parents have had to flee Douala repeatedly to escape the death threats, harassment, and spiritual attacks of the XXXX and the Chief. For example, the Appellant states that an attack occurred at her parents' home in Douala the day after the RPD decision dated June 24, 2016. The only admissible evidence about these events was Exhibit A-1, the letter from the Appellant's mother, the credibility of which was tested at the RAD hearing on January 31, 2018. At that hearing, the Appellant testified that some people broke into her parents' home and that there was a physical altercation where her father received a head wound which required medical attention to close. He was not admitted to the hospital. There is no evidence to link this break-in to the XXXX. The Appellant says she believes it is related but does not give a reason why. For example, there is no evidence about words uttered by the attackers during the break-in. Neither the assailants nor their motives were identified in the evidence of the Appellant or her mother. On this record, I cannot find it more likely than not that this incident is related to the forced marriage. [52] The Appellant stated that although her parents still have the same address, sometimes they "go east" and stay in a hotel to get some peace.41 The allegation that her parents hide periodically is repeated in her mother's letter, Exhibit A-1. [53] In her testimony before the RAD, Mrs. XXXX confirmed that she flees with her husband all the time, and they have no fixed residence.42 This assertion seemed to be consistent with her statement that they had sold their residence and attempted to pay the XXXX back the amount of the bride price.43 However, Mrs. XXXX later stated that her husband wanted to sell the house, but did not do so. She corroborated the Appellant's testimony that the XXXX refused an offer from the Appellant's father to refund the bride price. 44, 45 [54] The Appellant's mother confirmed that the house in question is the same house where she and her husband first were harassed by a delegation of notables and police in February 2015. She stated that her family had not lived in their house for months because they had to flee all the time, and their tormentors found them. Yet, when I asked her where she was at the time of our call, Mrs. XXXX stated that she was in that same residence where the previous harassment and attacks had occurred. [55] It took several minutes of persistent questioning to get a complete answer from her about the approximate location of her residence in Douala, and about the locale to which she alleged she was constantly fleeing.46 Even recognizing that her home may not have the kind of municipal address to which we are accustomed in Canada, on a balance of probabilities, I find that the Appellant's mother was being evasive about these basic details. I find that her credibility about the danger that she faces-and ultimately, that the Appellant would face if she returned to Douala-is diminished by the inconsistency of her presence in the very house where she alleges she is most clearly in danger. Furthermore, I do not believe her allegations that she is continually forced to flee that home or that she was found in a hiding place near the border of Cameroon and Gabon. Appellant's family supports her refusal to marry [56] In addition, I find as a fact that the Appellant's family supports her refusal to marry the XXXX. This is important because if her family were actively coercing her to marry the XXXX the Appellant would be more vulnerable. I find this is not the case. [57] The RPD found that the Appellant had failed to establish that her family was pressuring her to marry the XXXX. The RPD noted that there was no documentary evidence to support the Appellant's testimony that her family cut off their financial support to her when she refused to return to Cameroon in the autumn of 2014.47 The Appellant argues that this is irrelevant, and no such evidence has been adduced on appeal.48 In my view, this lack of evidence remains pertinent to the Appellant's allegation that her family is coercing her to marry. The Appellant was expected to produce any document in her possession to prove her allegation that her family had withdrawn their financial support as a means to pressure her to return to Cameroon.49 The Appellant did not explain why she failed to do so and I draw a negative inference. [58] The RPD accorded no probative value to an audio recording, allegedly of an April 2016 conversation between the Appellant and her sister XXXX, in Douala. The Appellant provided the RPD a summary of this telephone conversation, which suggests: that XXXX urged her to return to Cameroon to marry the XXXX as a matter of obligation; that XXXX and their father had received police convocations; and that their father's health was suffering due to the pressure from the Chief of XXXX and the XXXX. The RPD found that this evidence was of very poor quality because the sister's voice was inaudible on the recording, the summary was less probative than a transcript would have been, and the evidence was self-serving. [59] Like the RPD, I accord this evidence no probative value, for an additional reason. Since it relates to a conversation in 2016, it is not as probative as the testimony from Mrs. XXXX on January 31, 2018, regarding the family's current support for the Appellant's refusal to marry the XXXX. Moreover, the conversation is not probative of the risk in Yaoundé, since it does not refer to any convocations, problems or danger faced by the Appellant's family there. [60] The Appellant claimed that all of her siblings support her marriage to the XXXX and would advise him of her arrival if she returned to Cameroon because they are being pressured.50,51 In addition to the convocations she alleged they had received in 2015, the Appellant claimed her family members were currently receiving death threats and were being attacked spiritually. She said that the threats were verbal, but could not answer how they were delivered, for example whether by telephone or in person.52 The Appellant also stated that in her culture, the family knows best and that her family believes it is best for her to marry the XXXX because he is rich. However, she admitted that she had not been in contact with anyone but her mother since April 2016. [61] The Appellant's mother asserted that neither the Appellant's father nor her siblings want her to marry the XXXX, and that they support her opposition to FGM.53 In particular, the Appellant's mother denied that her husband says the Appellant must marry and in fact, she testified that he supports her refusal. Moreover, Mrs. XXXX stated that no one in the family wants the Appellant to marry the XXXX because he is already old and has three wives of his own, plus the five wives whom he inherited from his father. [62] Having made an independent analysis of all the evidence, I find that the testimony from the Appellant's mother represents a significant contradiction that impugns both the Appellant's credibility and her risk upon return to Cameroon. Her mother, who is present among the other family members in Cameroon and sees them and speaks to them more often than the Appellant, asserted more than once that they support the Appellant in her refusal to marry the XXXX. Given her close proximity to the problem and to the people involved, I prefer the evidence of the Appellant's mother to that of the Appellant on this point. In light of this evidence, I do not accept that the Appellant's family members are under sufficient pressure that they would turn her over to the traditional authorities of XXXX if she returned to Cameroon. [63] Having received notice of the proposed IFA in Yaoundé, the burden was the Appellant's to show that the capital would not be safe. I find that the Appellant has given insufficient credible evidence to provide an objective basis for her fear that the XXXX is interested, capable or willing to pursue and find her in Yaoundé. On a balance of probabilities, I find there is no serious possibility of the Appellant being forced into marriage or to undergo FGM in Yaoundé. B. Yaoundé is a reasonable IFA for the Appellant [64] I also find that it is reasonable for the Appellant to seek refuge in Yaoundé. She has lived there before. Her sister XXXX lives there in safety and supports her refusal to marry the XXXX. Most importantly, the Appellant herself is a fully grown woman with several years of post-secondary education and work experience, who has lived on her own in Canada for more than four years. As such, I find she is among the Cameroonian women who, "know their rights, are more or less independent and, consequently, have more opportunity to choose their future husband."54 In these circumstances, a representative of the Ministry of Women's Empowerment and the Family opined that while forced marriages are "common" in Yaoundé, "[g]enerally, it is impossible for women aged 18 years and over who are well educated and/or have a good economic situation to be forced into marriage ... because she has acquired a minimum of [life] skills necessary for survival." 55 [65] The Appellant holds a diploma in XXXX XXXX, a bachelor's degree in XXXX XXXX, and postgraduate qualifications in XXXX XXXX. She is currently studying for a diploma in XXXX XXXX XXXX.56 She has work experience in Cameroon, and in Canada as a worker for XXXX XXXX XXXX.57 The record shows that she is intelligent and resourceful, with many transferable skills to offer an employer. It is true that Cameroonian women face challenges in employment, including a 10.8% rate of urban unemployment as of 2010. However, as of 2014, Yaoundé was the region boasting the second highest percentage of women in non agricultural paid employment (34%).58 Moreover, in 2010, women represented a significant proportion of the employed workers having undergone professional training in the following sectors: wholesale trade (31.4%), agriculture (37%), food (51.5%), and retail trade (57.7%). Women represented the largest proportion of professional workers in catering (74.5%) and tailoring (84.6%).59 [66] The Appellant testified that she would not be able to work in Yaoundé since this is a place where the Chief and the XXXX hold influence and because most of the jobs are administrative government jobs. She concluded that she would be exposing herself to get caught if she sought employment in Yaoundé.60 I do not find this allegation to be supported by the evidence. For the reasons cited above, I find that she has not made out the influence that she claims for the XXXX in Yaoundé. Moreover, a person of her qualifications could seek a position in either government or business. I find it more likely than not that the Appellant will be able to earn a livelihood in Yaoundé. [67] The Appellant would not encounter any undue hardship to travel to the international airport in Yaoundé from Canada, and there is no evidence that she would come to the attention of the XXXX upon arrival. Although she mentioned street crime, which is an acknowledged problem in metropolitan areas such as Yaoundé, the Appellant did not raise any documentary evidence to demonstrate that it would subject her to undue hardship, or that it would be unreasonable for a woman to live there on her own. [68] The Appellant speaks both English and French fluently. She did not testify to any impediment to practicing her Catholic faith in Yaoundé. Neither the Chief nor the XXXX is Catholic. It is open to the Appellant to join a Catholic church, which may offer her some assistance to settle again in Yaoundé. DISPOSITION [69] Having considered all of the evidence, I find that Yaoundé presents a safe and reasonable internal flight alternative. [70] There is no serious possibility that the Appellant will be persecuted by the XXXX in Yaoundé by means of kidnapping, forced marriage or female genital mutilation. [71] Moreover, to the extent that these harms could be regarded as a risk to her life, or as cruel and unusual treatment, I find it more likely than not that the Appellant will be safe from these risks in Yaoundé. The Appellant did show that she would face a danger of torture within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention against Torture. The generalized violence of which the Appellant claims to be afraid does not meet the requirement of personal risk inherent in the analysis under section 97 of IRPA. CONCLUSION [72] For all of these reasons, and pursuant to subsection 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD. The Appellant is not a Convention refugee under section 96 of IRPA or a person in need of protection under section 97 of IRPA. [73] The appeal is dismissed. (signed) Christina Harrison Baird Christina Harrison Baird April 18, 2018 Date 1 Appellant's Record, Fax from appellant's counsel dated August 4, 2016, page 1. 2 Ibid., pages 2-5. 3 Ibid., page 6. 4 Appellant's Record, pages 12-13. 5 Ibid., pages 14-15. 6 Ibid., page 16. 7 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, 2016 FCA 96 (CanLII) at paras. 38 and 44-49. 8 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, 2016 FCA 96 (CanLII), para. 63. 9 Subsection 110(3) of IRPA. 10 Balde v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 624 at paragraph 32. 11RPD Record, pages 98-100. 12 Appellant's Record, Memorandum of Appeal, para. 10. 13 RAD Record, Audio recording of the RAD hearing on January 31, 2018 at hour 2:14:00. 14 RPD Record, page 92. 15 RPD Record, Audio Recording of RPD Hearing on May 12, 2016, at hour 1:09:40. 16 RPD Record, pages 94-97. 17 Guidelines issued by the Chairperson pursuant to Section 65(3) of the Immigration Act - Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Chairperson Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution, updated 13 November 1996, especially section C.4. 18 Rasaratnam v. M.E.I, [1992] 1 F.C.706 (C.A.), at 710. 19 Thirunavukkarasu v. M.E.I., [1994] 1 F.C.589 (C.A.). 20 RPD Record, Audio recording of the RPD hearing on May 12, 2016 at hour 0:52:00. 21 Ibid. at hour 2:01:01. 22 Ibid. at hour 0:21:00. 23 RPD Record, Audio recording of the RPD hearing on May 12, 2016 at hour 0:50:00. 24 RPD Record, RPD Reasons, para. 25. 25 RAD Record, Audio recording of the RAD hearing on January 31, 2018 at hour 0:57:55. 26 Ibid. at hour 2:01:22. 27 RAD Record, Audio recording of the RAD hearing on January 31, 2018 at hour 4:46:27. 28 Ibid. at hour 1:41:50. 29 Ibid. at hour 1:41:50. 30 Ajayi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 594, para. 16. 31 RPD Record, RPD Reasons, paras. 31-32. 32 RAD Record, Audio recording of RAD hearing on January 31, 2018 at hour 3:03:00. 33 RPD Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) on Cameroon, dated April 29, 2016, Tab 2.1, Cameroon: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2015, United States Department of State, April 13, 2016, page 7. 34 Ibid., Affidavit of XXXX XXXX dated March 5, 2016, page 95. 35 Ibid., Audio Recording of RPD Hearing on May 12, 2016, at hour 2:20:16. 36 Ibid., NDP on Cameroon, dated April 29, 2016, Tab 5.9, Cameroon: Prevalence of forced marriage in Southern Cameroon, particularly in the Southwest Region, including state protection available; forced marriage as practiced by chiefs ..., 10 April 2013, CMR104378.E, pages 2-4. 37 Ibid., pages 2-3 and 6. 38 RPD Record, NDP on Cameroon, dated April 29, 2016, Tab 5.9, page 4. 39 RPD Record, Sources of power legitimacy in Central Africa: a "competitive diversity", pages 146-148. 40 RPD Record, Chieftaincy Law: Organizing Chiefdoms in Cameroon, Magistrate Divine Metiege, pages 131-137. 41 RAD Record, Audio recording of the RAD hearing on January 31, 2018 at hour 1:47:45. 42 Ibid. at hour 4:42:09. 43 Ibid. at hour 4:06:39. 44 RAD Record, Audio recording of the RAD hearing on January 31, 2018 at hour 0:45:00 and 1:14:08. 45 Ibid. at hour 4:59:30. 46 Ibid. at hour 4:59:30 to 5:06:37. 47 RPD Record, RPD Reasons, para. 27. 48 Appellant's Record, Memorandum of Appeal, para. 13. 49 RPD Rule 11. 50 RPD Record, Audio recording of the RPD hearing on May 12, 2016 at hour 2:15:15. 51 RAD Record, Audio recording of RAD hearing on January 31, 2018 at hour 1:43:12. 52 RAD Record, Audio recording of the RAD hearing on January 31, 2018 at hour 1:48:19. 53 Ibid., at hour 4:57:00. 54 RPD Record, NDP on Cameroon, dated April 29, 2016, Tab 5.7, Cameroon: Prevalence of forced marriage of women 18 years of age and older, including in the cities of Douala and Yaoundé ... (2012-May 2013), 7 May 2013, CMR104411.FE, page 2. 55 Ibid., page 3. 56 RAD Record, Audio recording of the RAD hearing on January 31, 2018 at hour 2:38:06. 57 Ibid., Schedule A - Background / Declaration, IMM5669, page 46. 58 Ibid., NDP on Cameroon, dated April 28, 2017, Tab 5.3, 2015 Statistical Yearbook: Cameroon. Ministry of Women's Empowerment and the Family, page 31. 59 Ibid., page 30. 60 Ibid., Audio recording of the RAD hearing on January 31, 2018 at hour 2:58:28. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MB6-06333 21 RAD.25.02 (March 7, 2018) Disponible en français