MC0-01556

RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MC0-01556 MC0-01557 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ?Motifs et décision Persons who are the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Appeal considered / heard at Montréal, QC Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision February 16, 2021 Date de la décision Panel Guerlain Guerrier Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subject of the appeal Golshad Darroudi Conseil des personnes en cause Designated representative XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du minister REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] The appellant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and her minor daughter, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the associate appellant, are citizens of Mexico. They are appealing the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rendered on December 31, 2019. [2] The appellant states that she fears her ex-husband. He used to beat her often and violently. He is a lawyer and holds a position in the state government. The appellant also fears her ex-husband abducting and killing her daughter. [3] The RPD found that the appellant was not credible and that she failed to establish her allegations. [4] On appeal, the appellant argues that the RPD made several errors in finding her not credible. In her opinion, the RPD should have given her the benefit of the doubt. Furthermore, the RPD erred in giving too much weight to minor inconsistencies in her testimony while ignoring the essential and fundamental elements of her refugee protection claim. [5] The determinative issue for the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) is credibility. DETERMINATION [6] I dismiss the appeal. The RPD correctly determined that the appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection. BACKGROUND [7] The appellant was married to a violent man. Their divorce was pronounced in XXXX 2013. However, the appellant's ex-husband continued to harass her. On XXXX XXXX XXXX 2013, she started a relationship with another man. Her ex-husband arranged to have that man assaulted by the XXXX, who nearly killed him. He fled in XXXX 2015. The appellant, now alone, gave birth to her daughter on XXXX XXXX, 2015. On XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, the appellant's ex-husband attacked her and tried to abduct her daughter. The appellant sought refuge at her aunt's home in Cancún. Her ex-husband found her in XXXX 2019 and sent men to intimidate her. Fearing for her and her daughter's lives, the appellant came to Canada to claim refugee protection. ANALYSIS [8] The RAD's role is not to carry out a de novo consideration of refugee protection claims, but to determine whether the RPD erred as alleged.1 I conducted an independent analysis of the record in order to reach my own conclusions.2 This included listening to the RPD hearing recording and reading the documentary evidence. I concluded that the correctness standard of review should be applied.3 [9] In my analysis, I took into consideration the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Chairperson's Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution. The inconsistencies in the appellant's testimony undermine her credibility [10] When they swear to the truth of certain allegations, refugee protection claimants are presumed to tell the truth. However, this presumption is rebuttable where the evidence is inconsistent with the testimony or where the RPD is unsatisfied with the applicant's explanation for those inconsistencies.4 The RPD may make credibility findings based on implausibility, inconsistencies, or omissions. It is the entirety of the evidence available that must be assessed.5 Moreover, an accumulation of contradictions and omissions can be fatal to a refugee protection claimant's credibility.6 [11] The appellant submits that the RPD did not give her the benefit of the doubt even though her allegations are consistent with the documentary evidence. The RPD apparently did not consider her tribulations and instead focused on the peripheral issue of whether there had been an encounter between the appellant and her ex-husband after their divorce. [12] The benefit of the doubt is given to claimants who are otherwise credible, but unable to support their allegations with corroborative evidence.7 In this case, the RPD correctly identified an inconsistency in the appellant's testimony with regard to when she came to be in possession of her ex-husband's XXXX XXXX (Exhibit R-6). The appellant first stated that she acquired it, along with other documents belonging to her ex-husband, when they separated, at the time of the divorce, in XXXX 2013. Given that it is a XXXX, the RPD was surprised that the appellant still has this document and that her ex-husband did not try to get it back. She stated, however, that he did not try to get his XXXX back. [13] The XXXX was issued on XXXX XXXX, 2014. The appellant justified this inconsistency by modifying her testimony. The appellant explained that on XXXX XXXX, 2014, her ex-husband came to her home and, after beating her, left his XXXX with her to remind her of the power associated with his XXXX job. However, this explanation raises another problem, because the assault on XXXX XXXX, 2014, is not included in the appellant's written account. [14] Moreover, at the beginning of the hearing, the appellant stated that she had not seen her ex-husband since their divorce, except in 2015 and 2019. When confronted with the alleged attack of XXXX XXXX XXXX 2014, the appellant modified her testimony again and stated that her ex-husband's assaults were constant. In my opinion, the appellant did not satisfactorily explain the inconsistencies regarding how and when she came to be in possession of the XXXX or the omission of the assault on XXXX XXXX, 2014. These inconsistencies and that omission about central aspects of her refugee protection claim (the diploma her ex-husband allegedly left with her as a show of power and a violent assault in 2014) seriously undermine the appellant's credibility. I do not give any weight to the XXXX XXXX submitted, as its origins and how it was obtained remain questionable. I conclude that the appellant failed to establish that her ex-husband is a XXXX working for the XXXX XXXX. I am of the opinion that the alleged assault on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2014, never happened. The RPD's conclusion is correct. The Refugee Protection Division did not ignore the evidence submitted nor did it impose an excessive burden of proof on the appellant by asking her arbitrary or irrelevant questions [15] In her memorandum, the appellant does not specify how the RPD ignored the evidence submitted. [16] I reviewed the evidence on the record: [17] Exhibits R-1 to R-3 attest that the appellant was married to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, that they divorced in 2013 and that she gave birth to her daughter XXXX in 2015. [18] Exhibit R-4 is a letter from the appellant's aunt. There is no accompanying document confirming the identity of the letter's signatory. Furthermore, this letter mentions that the appellant's ex-husband harassed her when she lived with her aunt, but it does not mention the robbery and ransacking of the property that allegedly occurred on XXXX XXXX, 2019. This is, however, an important incident in the appellant's written account, one that made her realize that she had to flee the country, because the robbery was allegedly ordered by her ex-husband. I also note that during her testimony, the appellant stated that her ex-husband was there during the robbery. But this is not in her written account. According to the written account, he allegedly sent [translation] "a message with other people." Considering the appellant's undermined credibility and the discrepancy between her written account and the letter, I do not give any weight to this document. [19] The pay stub (R-5), the associate appellant's identity certificate (R-7) and the appellant's identity certificate (R-8) present facts that I find credible, but that do not establish the allegations that are fundamental to the refugee protection claim. [20] As I explained above, I find the appellant's ex-husband's XXXX (R-6) to not be a credible document. [21] The report made with the Integral Development of the Family (DIF)-Exhibit R-9-was prepared on XXXX XXXX, 2013. This document contradicts the appellant's written account. In her written account, the appellant states that she filed a complaint with the police after an incident on XXXX XXXX, 2013, because her ex-husband had beaten her. In fact, the complaint was filed with a community organization. Furthermore, this document mentions another complaint, filed by the appellant and her mother, with the peace court. This complaint is not mentioned in the appellant's written account. For me, this contradiction and this omission seem sufficient to not give this exhibit any weight. [22] I am of the opinion that the entirety of the documentary evidence does not have sufficient probative value to offset the appellant's lack of credibility. [23] With regard to the excessive burden arising from arbitrary or irrelevant questions from the RPD, I did not detect any such things. In her memorandum, the appellant does not specify which questions she is referring to. In my opinion, the RPD's questions were relevant and did not impose an additional burden on the appellant. The questions sought to determine the violent incidents that the appellant allegedly experienced and establish a timeline for them. The delay in leaving Mexico undermines the appellant's credibility [24] The appellant justifies the six-month delay in leaving Mexico-when she had specifically acquired a visa to flee to Canada-by her need to take care of her parents and leave her job. [25] I am of the view that giving notice to her employer does not satisfactorily explain the delay of several months before leaving Mexico, considering the appellant's alleged fear. With regard to her concerns about her parents' well-being, it is reasonable to accept that this does not take precedence over the physical safety of the appellant and her daughter, as demonstrated by her eventual departure to Canada. The appellant failed to establish that her parents' situation changed in any way between when she got her passport and when she left for Canada. The explanation provided is not satisfactory. Among other things, the appellant did not describe any dependent relationship between herself and her parents, or any specific reasons that would justify her delay in leaving the country. The RPD's conclusion is correct. The prospective risk [26] The appellants submit that the RPD did not properly assess the prospective risk. According to them, the RPD did not consider that they were victims of domestic violence and threats. [27] I disagree. The appellants failed to establish the allegations of domestic violence and threats. They also failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution, should they return to Mexico, because of their particular profile. The simple fact of being a single mother is insufficient to establish a prospective risk of persecution. I conclude that the appellants failed to establish a prospective risk pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). I agree with the prospective risk analysis that the RPD carried out. CONCLUSION [28] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the determination of the RPD that the appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection. (signed) Guerlain Guerrier Guerlain Guerrier February 16, 2021. Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 Dahal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-330-17, Crampton, December 4, 2017; 2017 FC 1102, paragraphs 30 and 31. Kanawati v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-6486-18, Norris, January 3, 2020; 2020 FC 12, paragraphs 23 and 24. 2 Gomes v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-2283-19, Pamel, April 9, 2020; 2020 FC 506, paragraphs 48 to 52. 3 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, No. A-470-14, Gauthier, Webb and Near, March 29, 2016; 2016 FCA 93. 4 Lawani v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-21-18, Gascon, September 17, 2018; 2018 FC 924, paragraph 21. 5 Edmond v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-112-17, Roy, July 4, 2017; 2017 FC 644, paragraphs 22 and 27. 6 Aguilar v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-2728-11, Boswell, February 3, 2012; 2012 FC 150, paragraph 42. 7 Chan v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 593. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MC0-01556 MC0-01557 RAD.25.02 (January 2020) Disponible en français 7 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 (January 2020) Disponible en français