MB4-01911

Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel des réfugiés RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : MB4-01911; MB4-01912 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision  Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Montréal, Quebec Appel instruit à Date of decision December 8, 2014 Date de la décision Panel Me Alain Bissonnette Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Me Chantal Ianniciello Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du (de la) ministre REASONS AND DECISION I. INTRODUCTION [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the male appellant, and XXXX XXXX XXXX, the female appellant, citizens of Cuba, are appealing against a decision rendered by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD). They submit that the RPD erred in its assessment of their credibility and that it misinterpreted the concept of "treatment amounting to persecution" in addition to having completely disregarded the evidence presented in support of this. II. DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL [2] Pursuant to subsection 111(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) dismisses the appeal and confirms the RPD's determination, namely that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX are neither "Convention refugees" under section 96 of the IRPA nor "persons in need of protection" within the meaning of section 97 of the IRPA. III. BACKGROUND A. Basis of the claims [3] In the Basis of Claim Form (BOC Form), which he signed on April 12, 2013, the male appellant states that he is a citizen of Cuba, born on XXXX XXXX, 1953, that he is Catholic, that he speaks Spanish and Russian, and that his wife and one son were living in Canada, while his other son, his father and his sister were living in Cuba at that time.1 [4] In his BOC Form, the male appellant states that he and his wife worked for over twenty-seven years for the state-owned XXXX company of the province of Villa Clara in Cuba, that they had held various positions, that in 1986 they had acquired housing from this company in the town of Santa Clara, and that most of their neighbours worked for this same company.2 [5] In his BOC Form, the male appellant states that in 2008, he worked as a manager for the company and that his wife held a position as a XXXX specialist. He also states that in early 2008, the Cuban government decided to militarize the entire ministry of XXXX and that in June 2008, Lieutenant-Colonel XXXX XXXX XXXX (the Lieutenant-Colonel) was appointed to take charge of the organization in the region.3 [6] In his BOC Form, the male appellant states that on July 24, 2008, during a company board meeting, the Lieutenant-Colonel explained that all decisions would thereafter be made by him, and that all decisions that had been made by the male appellant were categorically rejected. He also states that the decisions made by the Lieutenant-Colonel lacked any technical or economic basis.4 [7] In his BOC Form, the male appellant states that on August 15, 2008, the Lieutenant-Colonel called him into his office to tell him that his decisions were irrevocable. He also states that he then understood that the country's leadership had designated him as the official head of the company and that, although he had lost all decision-making power within the company, he would be held responsible for any future bad decisions.5 [8] In his BOC Form, the male appellant states that in September 2008, five company employees6 came to him with complaints about the centralized methods used by the dictatorship, and they began to meet at lunch time to discuss their concerns. He also states that, afterwards, XXXX XXXX, a state security agent and company director, began to observe them.7 [9] In his BOC Form, the male appellant states that after they noticed this, he and the five employees began communicating by telephone in the evenings and meeting at his house. He also states that the Lieutenant-Colonel informed him that he was aware of their conspiring and of the fact that they opposed the government's policy, and that the Lieutenant-Colonel threatened and intimidated him by saying that if he continued to conspire against him and his management methods, he would accuse him of disavowing the political system.8 [10] In his BOC Form, the male appellant states that in November 2008, the company's new management brought in military communications technicians under the pretext of improving the XXXX telecommunications system, but in reality, it was a matter of setting up a system to monitor and control all decisions made by the XXXX operations department. He also states that, a few days later, XXXX XXXX XXXX told him that the employees in that department were under surveillance, which worried them.9 [11] In his BOC Form, the male appellant states that in November 2008, the Lieutenant-Colonel delegated XXXX XXXX XXXX to audit the department in which his wife was working, that she was the only one audited, and that their purpose was to search for written communications or anything else that could be used against him. He also states that nothing was found, and that his wife continued to work for the company, but in a hostile environment.10 [12] In his BOC Form, the male appellant states that in November 2008, their house came under surveillance and that a neighbour, XXXX XXXX, began to visit them at night and question them both about how the company operated under military management.11 [13] In his BOC Form, the male appellant states that over the course of 2008, the number of XXXX incidents and accidents involving XXXX XXXX increased, and that this was the result of poor management by the military.12 [14] In his BOC Form, the male appellant states that on April 20, 2009, he and the five company employees were driven in a police car to the State Security Unit, where they were detained like criminals and questioned separately regarding their opinions against the government and the methods used by the new dictatorship. He also states that the captain who questioned him told him that they had recorded information about the political problems they had been causing within the company; the captain also told him that he would be fired from the company because he represented a danger to the government.13 [15] In his BOC Form, the male appellant states that on April 24, 2009, an unplanned board meeting was held during which the Lieutenant-Colonel announced that he was fired because of the political problems he was causing and for opposing the company's military management. He further states that XXXX XXXX XXXX, a lawyer, notified him of resolution number 23/2009, the told him that he had 30 business days to file a complaint, but that it was preferable not to do so, as it is dangerous to file a complaint against the military.14 [16] In his BOC Form, the male appellant states that on May 20, 2009, the head of the Committee for the Defense of the Revolution (CDR) held an unplanned meeting in their neighbourhood to warn all of their neighbours that they needed to keep an eye on him. He also states that the head of the CDR called him a worm, which is an insult used to degrade a person who is said to be against the country's politics, and informed the neighbours that he had been ousted from his job for political reasons.15 [17] In his BOC Form, the male appellant states that he reacted strongly to this insult and had a heated discussion with the head of the CDR. He also states that the next day, XXXX XXXX came to his house to tell them not to cause problems, and he threatened to accuse him of disturbing the peace; this made him angry and he told this person to leave his house.16 [18] In his BOC Form, the male appellant states that because of the stress brought on by this situation, he became sick and started to suffer from high blood pressure and insomnia. He also states that a doctor prescribed him several medications and recommended that he rest and avoid stress.17 [19] In his BOC form, the male appellant states that during this time, XXXX XXXX continued to watch their house; eggs were thrown at their door, and a neighbour expressed her contempt for them by closing the window of her house that looked on to their yard in order to avoid having any contact with them.18 [20] In his BOC Form, the male appellant states that in May 2009, he began looking for a job, but that he was refused employment because of his political behaviour; yet, he continued to actively look for work for 12 months.19 He states that on October 28, 2009, he requested an interview, and on XXXX XXXX, 2009, he finally met with the President of the provincial government, Alexis Melgarejo, but that, afterwards, he was never called in for an interview as the President had promised.20 [21] In his BOC Form, the male appellant states that on December 15, 2009, they moved into his father-in-law's apartment, as the situation had become unbearable in their neighbourhood because of the neighbourhood's attitude toward them.21 [22] In his BOC Form, the male appellant states that when his wife and son arrived at the airport on XXXX XXXX, 2010, they were questioned by police officers, who asked them who they were waiting for and what country the people were coming from; his son and daughter-in-law were questioned for over an hour before they were able to see them.22 [23] In his BOC Form, the male appellant states that on January XXXX, 2010, because of the visit from his son and his wife, they returned to their house and, during their stay, XXXX XXXX continued his surveillance and insulted them by calling them "scories", meaning people who are said to be against the country's politics. He states that he became angry and had a physical altercation with Mr. XXXX, which raised his blood pressure, forcing him to go the hospital immediately.23 [24] In his BOC Form, the male appellant states that on February XXXX XXXX 2010, XXXX XXXX, a state security agent, came to their house to tell them that incidents like the one with Mr. XXXX were not to happen again and showed him a file that contained all his negative actions against the system. He also states that Mr. XXXX threatened him and told him that Mr. XXXX could file a complaint against him for assault.24 [25] In his BOC Form, the male appellant states that he then understood that any action he took could be used as a pretext to throw him in prison.25 [26] In his BOC Form, the male appellant states that at the meeting of CDR members, he was identified as a person without professional ties and as hostile to the government's policies.26 [27] In his BOC Form, the male appellant states that from February 20 to December 31, 2010, he and his wife returned to his father-in-law's home to avoid further problems in their neighbourhood.27 [28] In his BOC Form, the male appellant states that in June 2010, the head of the CDR in the zone where his father-in-law was living notified his father-in-law that they did not want a "scorie" like him in their CDR. He states that upon learning this, he decided to go back home to avoid causing problems for his father-in-law.28 [29] In his BOC Form, the male appellant states that in XXXX 2011, he had a meeting with the director of the provincial directorate of the ministry of labour who informed him that she had not received any directive concerning him from Mr. Melgarejo. He states that he then met with Mr. Melgarejo to clarify the situation and that Mr. Melgarejo informed him that he could not be employed by any company in the country because of his political past.29 [30] In his BOC Form, the male appellant states that, during all of 2011 and part of 2012, he was unemployed, having been rejected by the government and the CDR. He also states that, being subject to constant surveillance and persecution, he and his wife decided to leave their country; they devised a strategy that would allow them to join their son in Canada by requesting their passports and visitor visas on different dates.30 [31] In his BOC Form, the male appellant states that, having been informed of the coming into force of a new immigration law, they waited for a little while in order to benefit from the opportunities provided for in the new legislation.31 [32] In his BOC Form, the male appellant states that on XXXX XXXX, 2013, when he went to check in with his airplane ticket, an immigration officer questioned him about the purpose of his trip to Canada and about who had invited him. He states that his wife left Cuba on XXXX XXXX, 2013, and joined him at his son's home in Canada.32 [33] In his BOC Form, the male appellant states that if he had to return to his country, he would continue to be discriminated against, that no one would hire him anywhere in the country because of his political opinion, and that he would be harassed by the political police because his opinions are contrary to the regime in place. He also states that he would be persecuted by his neighbours on behalf of the government, that they would continually challenge him and show their contempt, that he would be the victim of serious accusations that could send him to prison, that the stress he would be under could trigger another high blood pressure attack and that his political ideas against the Cuban regime could adversely affect his son who lives in Santa Clara and his family.33 [34] In her BOC Form that she signed on April 12, 2013, the female appellant states that she is a citizen of Cuba, born on XXXX XXXX, 1960, that she is Catholic, that she speaks Spanish and Russian, and that at that time, her husband and a son were living in Canada while another son and his father and brother were living in Cuba.34 [35] In her BOC Form, the female appellant makes essentially the same statements as her husband.35 [36] Before the RPD, in addition to their respective BOC Forms, the appellants submitted a number of documents as evidence.36 B. RPD decision [37] On June 17 and 28, 2013, hearings were held before Member Nicolas Nolin (the member) of the RPD, and on April 29, 2014, the decision rejecting the refugee protection claims was rendered.37 [38] In its reasons for decision, the RPD considered that, overall, the testimony of the male appellant, then referred to as the claimant, was difficult; a number of questions had to be repeated several times, and the answers were often vague. The RPD specified that several problems (contradictions, omissions, implausibilities or inconsistencies) resulted in the refugee protection claims, analyzed under section 96 of the IRPA, being ultimately rejected.38 [39] The RPD initially found that the different statements regarding where the appellants were living in Cuba had undermined their credibility with regard to whether they had lived at the home of the female appellant's father.39 It found that their credibility was further undermined by their failure to mention the female appellant's father's problems in the BOC Form, by the fact that the male appellant adjusted his answers during his testimony, and by the fact that his answers contained inconsistencies and an implausibility.40 Hence its conclusion, as follows: [Translation] [23] For all these reasons, the panel does not believe that the claimants left their home to live with the claimant's father-in-law for a year because of an intolerable situation with their neighbours.41 [40] The RPD also stated that because of a lack of corroborating documents, medical notes, and the absence of any mention in his BOC Form that the male appellant had supposedly consulted one or more legal offices after losing his job, it concluded that the male appellant had not established, on a balance of probabilities, that he had been fired from his job with the XXXX company, as the evidence suggested instead that health reasons had forced him to stop working.42 [41] The RPD also found that the appellants had not demonstrated why they had not tried to leave their country before the end of 2012 if their problems were as significant as they alleged.43 [42] With respect to the appellants leaving their country, the RPD was of the opinion that if the claimants had really wanted to hide their intention of travelling to Canada, they would have taken different steps.44 [43] Lastly, other factors considered more peripheral appeared implausible to the RPD if the appellants had really been persecuted by the Cuban authorities as they allege: [Translation] First, the fact that their son, while not a Canadian citizen, risked returning to Cuba in XXXX 2010, despite the problems alleged by the claimants, for a stay of only one week. Next, and more importantly, the fact that she kept her job at the same state company for which the claimant had worked for over 20 years. The panel believes that if the Cuban state wanted to punish the family, it would also have taken measures against her, and that she would likely not have been able to keep her job at the Cuban XXXX company.45 [44] Hence its final conclusion: [Translation] [43] For all these reasons, the panel concludes that, owing to a lack of credibility on key elements of their refugee protection claim, the claimants have not demonstrated that there is a reasonable chance that they would be persecuted if they were to return to Cuba, or that they would face a danger of torture, a risk to their lives or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, on a balance of probabilities.46 C. Grounds of appeal and remedy sought [45] In their memorandum, the appellants submit that the RPD erred in its assessment of their credibility and that it misinterpreted the concept of [translation] "treatment amounting to persecution" as well as completely disregarding the evidence presented on this point.47 [46] Regarding the assessment of their credibility, the appellants were surprised that the RPD found their answers vague, as they properly answered the numerous questions they were asked.48 [47] Regarding their stay at the male appellant's father-in-law's house, they submit that the RPD conducted a microscopic analysis of their testimony to the point that nothing appeared logical or credible. They add that such a way of proceeding does not give them any opportunity to be found credible, as one or more elements may always appear not credible to someone assessing the situation from the outside and that it would be more appropriate to focus on the essence of the facts on which the refugee protection claims were made.49 [48] Regarding the male appellant losing his job, the appellants submit that there is no document to show that he was fired and that, therefore, the RPD erred in requiring a document that does not exist to be submitted as evidence.50 [49] As regards the delay in leaving their country, the appellants submit that the RPD did not assess their testimony, which was clear and to the effect that they had not wanted to leave their country before the situation became intolerable. They are of the opinion that the RPD instead considered evidence that it created and imagined itself.51 [50] Lastly, the appellants submit that the RPD failed to rule on problems that are more significant than what they experienced from their neighbours, larger problems that lie at the heart of their refugee protection claims: [Translation] 48. The claimants submit that the panel dismissed an important part of the documentary evidence. 49. The claimants submit that the panel's approach is inappropriate under the circumstances. 50. While the appellants admit that it is difficult to define precisely what constitutes persecution, it seems that the tribunal of first instance is setting the bar too high. 51. It is clear that each state adopts its own methods for ensuring compliance with the various aspects of human rights within its borders. 52. Some states are more repressive than others, and adopt very bloody and violent methods to shut down any kind of dissidence. 53. Cuba's methods of persecution are less physical and more psychological. 54. If the member is expecting someone from Cuba to testify about having been beaten, tortured or subjected to death threats by government authorities, they may well never meet a Cuban national who has experienced persecution within the meaning the member has assigned to it. 55. Some people are imprisoned for varying periods of time, but in general, this is the cruellest type of treatment currently in practice in Cuba. 56. Usually, repression takes the form of depriving people of the basic rights and freedoms that all individuals should be able to enjoy, such as freedom of association, freedom of expression, freedom of movement, the right to work, and so on. 57. When the Cuban authorities open a file on someone on the grounds that the person is a [translation] "counter-revolutionary", someone who is "dangerous" to the government's communist objectives, and their fundamental rights are trampled on over a long period of time, how can it be said that this is not a form of repression that amounts to persecution? 58. The documentary evidence is highly informative about the repression of dissidents and the total prohibition against speaking out or acting against the regime. 59. As we mentioned in our written submissions, Cuban citizens who dare to speak out against the regime are labelled [translation] "enemies of the revolution" and become targets for systematic persecution and daily harassment by control and enforcement agencies, or by regular citizens who support the Castro regime. 60. In Cuba, persecution creeps into even the most private aspects of citizens' lives if they dare to show dissidence. If there is the slightest suspicion of dissidence, the person will begin to be visited at home on a daily basis, sometimes at night, with no search warrant or any other legal justification. Every movement is scrutinized and their privacy is systematically invaded, with impunity. 52 [51] The appellants are asking the RAD to allow their appeal, to set aside the determination of the RPD and to render a positive decision.53 IV. HEARING BEFORE THE RAD [52] In their memorandum and in their affidavit, the appellants do not indicate that they are presenting any new evidence before the RAD, but they do ask that a hearing be held before the RAD if necessary.54 [53] It should be noted that, pursuant to subsection 110(3) of the IRPA, the RAD generally proceeds without a hearing, on the basis of the record of the proceedings of the RPD. Pursuant to subsection 110(6) of the IRPA, when evidence presented on appeal is found to be admissible, it should be determined whether it raises a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the person who is the subject of the appeal, whether it is central to the decision with respect to the refugee protection claim, and whether it justifies allowing or dismissing the refugee protection claim. If so, the RAD may then hold a hearing. [54] In this case, the appellants did not present any new evidence within the meaning of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA. Consequently, there is no cause to hold a hearing before the RAD. V. APPROACH TO BE TAKEN IN THIS APPEAL [55] In the appellants' memorandum, their lawyer simply states that the RPD erred in its assessment of their credibility, but does not specify the standard of review or the approach the RAD should take in this appeal.55 [56] In a decision rendered on October 8, 2014, after reviewing the reasoning adopted by his Federal Court colleagues in previous decisions,56 Justice Martineau notes that they seem to have interpreted the IRPA differently and contradictorily with respect to the nature of appeals before the RAD.57 He then identifies three approaches: (1) the standard of judicial review, or "reasonableness" (decision of Member Gallagher and various other RAD decisions); (2) the standard of appellate review or of "palpable and overriding error" (Garcia Alvarez, Eng and Spasoja,58 above); and (3) a composite and variable standard of review resulting from the nature of the claim before the RAD-characterized as a "hybrid appeal"-and the particular nature of questions of fact, or of mixed fact and law, raised by an appellant (Huruglica,59 above).60 [57] After dismissing the first approach, namely applying the reasonableness standard of review, Justice Martineau indicates that the second and third approaches prevail today, but that they create a real dilemma, given the differences between the two.61 [58] Rather than choosing between one of these last two approaches, applying the principle of judicial comity, Justice Martineau then stated that he chose the path of wisdom: allowing the RAD to apply the second or third approach as long as the question of the scope of the appellate review of the RPD's decisions has not been settled by a final judgment by the Federal Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court of Canada.62 [59] In a decision rendered on November 12, 2014, Justice Gagné states that when no hearing is held before the RAD, the latter owes deference to the RPD's credibility findings, although within the Federal Court, opinions diverge on the level of deference that is owed.63 [60] In a decision rendered on November 14, 2014, Justice Martineau demonstrates that the approach then used by the RAD to determine its function in relation to that of the RPD was an unacceptable outcome in law.64 He is unequivocal: an appeal before the RAD is not a judicial review. The RAD has much broader powers on appeal than those of a court of law sitting in judicial review,65 and he invites the RAD to consider the three options (a true appeal, an appeal de novo, and a hybrid appeal) with an open mind.66 In the conclusion of this decision, Justice Martineau states that it does not appear appropriate to him to judicially impose any standard of deference on the RAD until such time as the Federal Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada has decided the issue definitively. He states that, in the interim, the onus will be on the RAD to review the IRPA and to adopt a new test based on an analysis that will take all the relevant factors into account. He adds that in his opinion, the two alternative approaches (the so-called "palpable and overriding error" appellate standard of review and a composite and variable standard of review) discussed in Alyafi, are not the only options to consider-the absence of deference in the case of any error of law, fact, or law and fact being also a possible option.67 [61] In a decision rendered on November 21, 2014, citing one of his colleagues, Justice Shore states that "[s]ave for cases in which the credibility of a witness is critical or determinative, or where the RPD enjoys a particular advantage over the RAD in reaching a specific conclusion, the RAD owes no deference toward the RPD's assessment of the evidence."68 And in a decision rendered on November 28, 2014, Justice Shore writes that [translation] "the centrality of a claimant's credibility in the context of an appeal before the RAD may require the RAD to owe a certain level of deference to the RPD's conclusions."69 [62] Drawing as much as possible on the decisions rendered to date by the Federal Court, I am of the opinion that, in this matter, I must conduct my own assessment of all the evidence, analyze all aspects of the RPD decision and arrive at my own conclusion as to whether or not the appellants are refugees or persons in need of protection. I am also of the opinion that I must show a certain amount of deference to the RPD's findings regarding the appellants' credibility. VI. ANALYSIS OF THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL [63] Having listened to the recording of the hearing before the RPD and analyzed the evidence as a whole and the RPD's reasons for decision, I conclude that the appellants have not established, on a balance of probabilities, that they have a well-founded fear of persecution should they have to return to Cuba. I also conclude that they have not established that it is more likely than not that, if they had to return to Cuba, they would be subject to a risk to their lives, a danger of torture or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. My reasons are as follows. [64] I will first analyze current conditions in Cuba in light of the information in the documentary evidence. I will then analyze the credibility of the appellants' allegations, taking into account all the evidence submitted before the RPD. Lastly, I will explain the reasons that led me to conclude that the appellants did not establish that they have a well-founded fear of persecution because of their political opinion. A. Current conditions in Cuba [65] According to the documentary evidence, the Cuban authorities' harassment of political opponents is unrelenting, the surveillance of opponents is commonplace, and short-term detentions of those demanding respect for civil and political rights are routinely used by the government to stop them from carrying out their activities. Such short-term detentions are becoming more and more frequent, as the Cuban government deviates from international principles and standards regarding deprivation of liberty, notably with respect to freedom of expression, association and assembly. In short, according to the documentary evidence, the Cuban authorities do not tolerate any criticism outside the official mechanisms established under government control.70 [66] Although there are different views on this topic, according to a number of non-governmental organizations, including Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International (AI), in practice, the Cuban courts are subordinated to the executive and legislative branches, thus denying meaningful judicial protection, as all judges are subordinate to the Party and State and whoever does not act in accordance with that subordinate relationship is immediately removed from the bench.71 [67] According to HRW, security officers virtually never presented arrest orders to justify detentions and victims of such arrest were held incommunicado, without notifying families, for periods ranging from several hours to several days, often at police stations. AI recommended that Cuba ensure that everyone is informed, at the time of detention, of the specific reasons for their arrest. They also recommend immediately ending the practice of incommunicado detention.72 [68] Still according to HRW, Cubans who dare to criticize the government risk criminal charges and will not enjoy due process guarantees. HRW further stated that political prisoners are routinely denied parole after completing the minimum required sentence as punishment for refusing to participate in ideological activities such as re-education classes.73 [69] Still according to the documentary evidence, the systemic political repression established by the Cuban regime has created a climate of fear not only among dissidents who dare to express their opposition to the regime in some way, but also among elements of civil society who peacefully demonstrate their critical opinions of the government.74 [70] In a document dated January 2013, HRW provided the following clarifications: Cuba remains the only country in Latin America that represses virtually all forms of political dissent. In 2012, the government of Raul Castro continued to enforce political conformity using short-term detentions, beatings, public acts of repudiation, travel restrictions, and forced exile. Although in 2010 and 2011 the Cuban government released dozens of political prisoners on the condition that they accept exile in exchange for their freedom, the government continues to sentence dissidents to one to four-year prison terms in closed, summary trials, and holds others for extended periods without charge. It has also relied increasingly upon arbitrary arrests and short-term detentions to restrict the basic rights of its critics, including the right to assemble and move freely. While reforms passed in October 2012 eliminate the need for Cubans to obtain an exit visa to leave the island, they contain vague, broad provisions which could be used by authorities to continue to deny the right to travel to people who are critical of the government.75 [71] According to the documentary evidence, it was under these circumstances that the authorities asked the CDRs to strengthen their vigilance against antisocial behaviour.76 The CDRs' presence extends throughout the country, and their meetings can become very harsh for those who show any disagreement with the country's laws or policies.77 [72] The fact that the documentary evidence refers to the problems experienced by those who express opposition or critical opinions of the Cuban government does not necessarily mean that appellants themselves will be the victims of such a situation. In this regard, it must be pointed out that documentary evidence regarding prevailing country conditions does not, in and of itself, establish the existence of a well-founded fear of persecution or a risk to the life of a refugee protection claimant from that country. Claimants must also establish a nexus between that documentary evidence and their personal situation.78 I will now analyze the credibility of the appellants' allegations on this subject. B. Credibility of the appellants' allegations [73] In their memorandum, the appellants state that they are surprised that the RPD found their answers vague, as they properly answered the very numerous questions they were asked. I listened carefully to the recording of the hearing before the RPD. In my view, the male appellant took time to answer the questions he was asked and the member sometimes had to repeat the same question two or three times before obtaining a response, which was far from clear. Here is an example. [74] When the member asked whether an event had taken place that forced them to leave their home again on February 20, 2010, as opposed to immediately following their son's departure, the male appellant first responded that they had taken the time they needed to organize their belongings and notify the CDR. When the member repeated the same question, the male appellant answered that they were still under surveillance while their son was at home, and that XXXX had called them scum during an altercation that took place between them. He added that eggs were later thrown at his house, that they were treated with contempt and that they had to move because there was no way to live peacefully in their neighbourhood. The member then asked when the altercation had taken place, and the male appellant responded that it had taken place on February 1, 2010, then stated that it was on January 29, or perhaps the 10th, and that he was not sure anymore.79 [75] During the hearing before the RPD, the male appellant also acknowledged that he was adding information that did not appear in his BOC Form. Here is an example. [76] When the member asked the male appellant whether he had expressed his political opinion at any other time, aside from the incident of April 20, 2009, he answered that when he had visited the president of the provincial government assembly, they had had a discussion after the president told him he could not give him any work, because of his political position contrary to the state. Before specifying the content of this discussion, the male appellant indicated that this was not included in his narrative. He then stated that, during this discussion, he had told the president of the provincial government that the Cuban state imposed a dictatorship that requires citizens to comply with the regime and to say what the leaders of the regime want to hear; that there was no freedom of expression and that this was a violation of human rights.80 [77] In any event, the appellants' primary allegations in their claims for refugee protection are actually quite simple: the male appellant lost his job because, along with some work colleagues, he had opposed the Lieutenant-Colonel's unilateral and misguided decisions. Consequently, he was later labelled a counter-revolutionary by those responsible for him losing his job, by the members of the CDR, and by the neighbours who watched, threatened and persecuted him. [78] The RPD did not believe the appellants. It found that their statements regarding where they had lived in Cuba were contradictory and had undermined their credibility about whether or not they had lived with the appellant's father. The RPD also concluded that because of a lack of corroborating documents, medical notes, or any mention in his BOC Form that the male appellant had supposedly consulted one or more legal offices after losing his job, the male appellant had failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that he had been fired from his job with the XXXX company, as the evidence suggesting instead that health reasons had forced him to stop working. The RPD also found that the appellants had failed to establish why they had not tried to leave their country before the end of 2012 if their problems were as significant as they alleged, and that if they had wanted to hide their intention to travel to Canada, they would have done things differently; it also noted other, less-decisive factors that added to the appellants' lack of credibility. Having listened carefully to the recording of the hearing and analyzed the reasons for its decision, I am of the opinion that the RPD did not err in reaching these conclusions, which were based on the evidence on the record, including the appellants' testimony. [79] In their memorandum, the appellants submit that evidence of the appellant's dismissal simply does not exist and that he cannot be criticized for failing to provide a non-existent document. [80] This argument cannot be retained. In his BOC Form, the male appellant writes that, in the wake of the decision to fire him from his job, he was notified by a lawyer of resolution No. 23/2009 and of the fact that he had 30 business days to file a complaint.81 During his testimony at the hearing before the RPD, the male appellant stated that the document regarding his dismissal had been archived by the military. When asked to explain why he had not gone to find this document, the male appellant first responded that he had been threatened and told not to make demands or to keep trying to discover the truth because they would apprehend him. He added that at the time, his state of health did not allow him to discuss the issue further. When asked by the member whether they would have given him this dismissal document, the male appellant responded that they had notified him and registered the document there, that he could have demanded it but that he was afraid of having problems and that he felt too stressed.82 This therefore means that the document exists, but that the male appellant did not make efforts to obtain a copy. [81] Among the documents submitted by the male appellant is a resolution dated August 22, 2005, according to which the male appellant was dismissed from his position as XXXX delegate in the province of Villa Clara owing to a change in the nomenclature of managers at this level.83 While the meaning of this resolution is not quite clear to me, it contains information indicating that the original document can be found in the archives of the "XXXX" offices.84 I deduce from this that, if it does indeed exist, resolution No. 23/2009 according to which the male appellant was allegedly dismissed from his position, is archived in some location in Cuba, and that the male appellant did not take the necessary steps to attempt to obtain it. [82] As such, it should be noted that failure to file supporting documentation that it is reasonable to expect may have an impact on a refugee protection claimant's credibility.85 It is clear from rule 11 of the RPD Rules86 that a refugee protection claimant has a duty to provide documents and other elements in support of the claim. The English version is more eloquent than the French in this regard: "The claimant must provide...."87 However, it is important to remember that the use of the present indicative in French is sufficient to express the imperative nature of a rule. In any event, the crucial element here is that an individual's lack of diligence in not trying to obtain an important document that could have corroborated their testimony can undermine their credibility.88 In the case at hand, the male appellant did not establish that he took any steps to obtain this document, which undermines his credibility. [83] Moreover, in this case, aside from the appellants' statements, I find no document corroborating the fact that as of early 2008, the Cuban government assigned Lieutenant-Colonel XXXX XXXX XXXX to the position of head of the XXXX company in his region. I am of the opinion that, in this file, it would be reasonable to expect the appellants to take steps to obtain a document, even a newspaper article in lieu of an official document, to corroborate their claims on this subject. [84] Even more importantly, I am of the opinion that there is room for serious doubt regarding the credibility of the male appellant's allegations to the effect that he expressed his opposition to the Cuban regime on several occasions, that he was consequently labelled as a counter-revolutionary and a traitor, and that his wife also suffered the consequences. [85] In a form he signed on April 17, 2013, the male appellant declared that he was a member of the CDR from July 1968 to December 2012.89 In the form she signed, his wife declared that she was a member of the CDR from July 1974 to March 2013.90 [86] According to the documentary evidence, the CDRs see to neighbourhood safety, by means of its members, who inform Cuban authorities about certain activities and behaviours of community members. Some consider this an operation to monitor the population on behalf of the Cuban government.91 [87] Among the male appellant's primary allegations is the fact that he was threatened and persecuted by the members of his neighbourhood CDR. In my opinion, the information that he was a member of the CDR until December 2012 and that his wife was a member until March 2013 is a flagrant contradiction of their primary allegations. While this question was not raised by either the lawyer or the member during the hearing before the RPD, and while this contradiction was not identified in the reasons for decision, I am of the opinion that I am entitled to do so at this stage and to infer from it that the appellants' credibility is seriously undermined. [88] Regarding the allegations that no one would hire him after April 24, 2009, the date of his dismissal from his position at the XXXX company, the male appellant wrote in his BOC Form that all the organizations where he looked for work told him they could not give him a contract because of his political behaviour, which they had been informed of after contacting his former employer and the CDR. Once again, there is no document to corroborate the appellant's statements on this subject. If he was indeed notified by these companies that this was why they would not hire him, why did he not take steps to obtain a document to corroborate his claims? [89] Moreover, one of the documents submitted as evidence reads that on May 28, 2009, the male appellant was employed as a marketing management specialist at the XXXX XXXX company, XXXX. This document, which was signed by a physician, certifies that the male appellant is medically apt for his position.92 When questioned about this document during the hearing before the RPD, the male appellant responded that this type of exam was not performed as thoroughly as those done in hospitals and stated that he had submitted this document, which was more or less a document of convenience with respect to his true state of health, to demonstrate that he had looked for work.93 In another document dated the same day, the human resources manager of the XXXX group of companies refers to the male appellant in connection with proof of adjournment in the military records.94 I believe that these documents contain information that contradicts the male appellant's allegations that he was prevented from obtaining work following his dismissal from the XXXX company. Although the RPD did not raise this contradiction in the reasons for its decision and rather analyzed document P-7 from a different perspective,95 I believe I am entitled to do so at this stage and to infer that the male appellant's credibility is undermined regarding whether or not he was able to obtain work after losing his job at the XXXX company. [90] Moreover, the male appellant obtained his passport in October 2012, and the female appellant obtained hers in December 2012.96 However, according to the documentary evidence, the Cuban government may refuse to issue a passport to any individual for reasons of public interest, security, or national defense. If it is true that the male appellant was perceived as a counter-revolutionary who spoke out against the regime on several occasions, it is reasonable to doubt that the Cuban government would have issued him a passport.97 [91] Lastly, since the Cuban authorities do not tolerate any criticism outside of the official mechanisms established under government control, in my opinion, if the male appellant's allegations were true, in light of the documentary evidence,98 it is reasonable to believe that he and his wife should have faced criminal charges or repeated detentions in addition to the incident when the male appellant was interrogated and the surveillance by the CDR. [92] In light of all these conclusions, it is permissible to attach no value to the letters of May 15, 2013, and May 3, 2013, in which one of the appellants' neighbours and the female appellant's father corroborate their allegations99 since, according to the case law, it is permissible to attach no weight to a piece of evidence that merely repeats a version of the facts previously considered to be not very credible.100 C. Fear of persecution [93] Although refugee protection claimants must establish their case on a balance of probabilities, they are not required to establish that persecution would be more likely than not. In other words, the evidence must not necessarily show that a refugee protection claimant has suffered or would suffer persecution. Indeed, as I understand the case law in this regard, what the evidence must show is that the refugee protection claimant has good grounds for fearing persecution for one of the reasons specified in the IRPA.101 Moreover, to conclude that there is a reasonable fear of persecution, or in other words, a reasonable chance or serious possibility of persecution, there need not be more than a 50% chance (i.e. a probability), but there must be more than a minimal possibility,102 given that there is no intermediate ground between the two limits.103 [94] Persecution is generally defined as serious interference with a basic human right104 and the word "persecute" means to harass or afflict with repeated acts of cruelty or annoyance; to afflict persistently.105 While it is true that the dividing line between persecution and discrimination or harassment is difficult to establish, the case law tells us that discrimination will only amount to persecution when it is sufficiently serious or systematic.106 Based on two Supreme Court of Canada decisions, Bédard J. recently wrote that before concluding that persecution exists, there is a need to consider whether a basic right was violated and then verify whether the violation was repetitive or systematic.107 [95] That said, a refugee protection claimant may have been subjected to various discriminatory measures not in themselves amounting to persecution, combined with a general atmosphere of insecurity in the country of origin. In such situations, the various elements involved may, if taken together, produce an effect on the mind of the claimant that can reasonably justify a claim to a well-founded fear of persecution. In other words, prior incidents are capable of forming the foundation for a present fear.108 [96] In order to discharge their burden of establishing that they meet the definition of refugee, refugee protection claimants must show, on a balance of probabilities, that they have a well-founded subjective fear of persecution. A subjective fear of persecution is based on the assessment of the claimant's credibility, while the objective fear is usually established by documentary evidence regarding country conditions.109 [97] In the case at hand, after reading and analyzing the documents submitted by the appellants, listening to the recording of the hearing before the RPD and reading the RPD's reasons for decision, I find that the credibility of the appellants' subjective fear of persecution by reason of their political opinion if they were to return to live in Cuba, was undermined in several ways. I conclude that they simply failed to establish their subjective fear in this regard. Moreover, except for the question of the loss of his job and an interrogation to which he was allegedly subjected, the male appellant testified about events where tensions were exacerbated between himself and the Lieutenant-Colonel, CDR members and neighbours, which, on occasion, led to heated discussions and altercations. With respect to his wife, she continued to work for the XXXX company until she left for Canada and, aside from an audit she had to undergo, she had no problems. I find that these incidents cannot amount to persecution. [98] While their claims for refugee protection are based on their fear of persecution by reason of their political opinion, I add that owing to the lack of credibility of the appellants' allegations, they did not establish that it is more likely than not that if they had to return to Cuba, they would be subjected to a risk to their lives, a danger of torture, or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. VII. CONCLUSION [99] For these reasons, I confirm the RPD's determination, namely that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX are neither "Convention refugees" under section 96 of the IRPA nor "persons in need of protection" within the meaning of section 97 of the IRPA. [100] The appeal is dismissed. Alain Bissonnette Me Alain Bissonnette December 8, 2014 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 Male appellant's BOC Form, pages 16, 21 and 24 of the RPD record. 2 Idem, page 25 of the RPD record. 3 Idem. 4 Idem. 5 Idem. 6 Idem: The employees in question are xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and xxxxxxx. 7 Idem. 8 Idem, page 26 of the RPD record. 9 Idem. 10 Idem. 11 Idem. 12 Idem. 13 Idem, pages 26 and 27 of the RPD record. 14 Idem, page 27 of the RPD record. 15 Idem, page 28 of the RPD record. 16 Idem. 17 Idem. 18 Idem. 19 Idem. 20 Idem. 21 Idem. 22 Idem, page 29 of the RPD record. 23 Idem. 24 Idem. 25 Idem. 26 Idem. 27 Idem, page 30 of the RPD record. 28 Idem. 29 Idem. 30 Idem. 31 Idem. 32 Idem, page 31 of the RPD record. 33 Idem, page 17 of the RPD record. 34 Female appellant's BOC Form, pages 37, 42 and 45 of the RPD record. 35 Idem, pages 37 to 40 of the RPD record. 36 The list of these documents is reproduced at pages 51, 52 and 149 of the RPD record. The documents themselves are reproduced at pages 53 to 148 and 150 to 159 of the RPD record. 37 RPD decision, pages 3 to 14 of the RPD record. 38 Idem, paragraph 15, page 6 of the RPD record. 39 Idem, paragraphs 16 and 17, pages 6 and 7 of the RPD record. 40 Idem, paragraphs 18 to 22, pages 7 and 8 of the RPD record. 41 Idem, paragraph 23, page 8 of the RPD record. 42 Idem, paragraphs 24 to 32, pages 8 to 11 of the RPD record. 43 Idem, paragraphs 33 to 35, pages 11 and 12 of the RPD record. 44 Idem, paragraphs 37 to 40, pages 12 and 13 of the RPD record. 45 Idem, paragraph 41, page 13 of the RPD record. 46 Idem, paragraph 43, page 14 of the RPD record. 47 Appellants' memorandum, June 6, 2014, pages 24 to 38 of the appeal record. 48 Idem, paragraph 12, page 26 of the appeal record. 49 Idem, paragraphs 14 to 27, pages 27 to 29 of the appeal record. 50 Idem, paragraphs 28 to 38, pages 29 to 32 of the appeal record. 51 Idem, paragraphs 39 to 44, pages 32 and 33 of the appeal record. 52 Idem, pages 33 and 34 of the appeal record. 53 Idem, page 38 of the appeal record. 54 Idem. Affidavit signed on June 10, 2014, by the male appellant, pages 14 and 15 of the appeal record. 55 Idem, paragraph 10, page 26 of the appeal record. 56 Iyamuremye v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-5282-13, Shore, May 26, 2014; 2014 FC 494. Garcia Alvarez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-7218-13, Shore, July 17, 2014; 2014 FC 702. Eng v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-7281-13, Shore, July 17, 2014; 2014 FC 711. Huruglica v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-6362-13, Phelan, August 22, 2014; 2014 FC 799. Yetna v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-7567-13, Locke, September 10, 2014; 2014 FC 858. Njeukam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-7280-13, Locke, September 10, 2014; 2014 FC 859. Spasoja v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-7630-13, Roy, September 23, 2014; 2014 FC 913. 57 Alyafi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-1091-14, Martineau, October 8, 2014; 2014 FC 952, at paragraph 46. 58 In Spasoja, Justice Roy rules that an appeal before the RAD must be dealt with as an appeal and not as a quasi-judicial review. He goes on to state that an error of fact must be palpable and overriding to succeed on appeal, with the understanding, furthermore, that questions of law must be analyzed on a correctness standard. 59 In Huruglica, Justice Phelan rules that a standard of review analysis is not an appropriate analytical approach in the context of appeals before the RAD, and that one must instead look at such factors as the purpose of the appellate tribunal, the relevant statutory provisions, comparable expertise, and comparative appellate appeal regimes. After analyzing these factors, he concluded that the RAD is required to conduct a hybrid appeal, which means that it must review all aspects of the RPD's decision and come to an independent assessment of whether the claimant is a refugee or a person in need of protection. Where its assessment departs from that of the RPD, the RAD must substitute its own decision. That said, according to this last decision, in conducting its assessment as part of the administrative appeal, the RAD "can recognize and respect the conclusion of the RPD on such issues as credibility and/or where the RPD enjoys a particular advantage in reaching such a conclusion but it is not restricted, as an appellate court is, to intervening on facts only where there is a 'palpable and overriding error'." 60 Alyafi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-1091-14, Martineau, October 8, 2014; 2014 FC 952, at paragraph 16. In Triastcin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-5981-13, Shore, October 15, 2014; 2014 FC 975, at paragraph 29, Justice Shore states that his colleague's decision in Alyafi summarizes, by means of a comprehensive analysis, all of the Federal Court decisions made to date with regard to the mandates of the RAD; that decision provides an overview to help arrive at a certain stare decisis in this regard. In Diarra v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-1217-14, Beaudry, October 23, 2014; 2014 FC 1009, at paragraphs 20 to 22, Justice Beaudry refers to the three approaches identified by his colleague, Justice Martineau. 61 Alyafi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-1091-14, Martineau, October 8, 2014; 2014 FC 952, at paragraph 43. 62 Idem, at paragraphs 42 to 46. 63 Akuffo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-6640-13, Gagné, November 12, 2014; 2014 FC 1063, at paragraphs 34 to 39. 64 Djossou v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No, IMM-7980-13, Martineau, November 14, 2014; 2014 FC 1080, at paragraph 37. 65 Idem, at paragraph 41. 66 Idem, at paragraph 55. 67 Idem, at paragraph 91. 68 Sajad v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-926-14, Shore, November 21, 2014; 2014 FC 1107, at paragraph 22, citing the earlier decision in Yetna v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-7567-13, Locke, September 10, 2014; 2014 FC 858, at paragraph 17. 69 Van Son Bui v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-1654-14, Shore, November 28, 2014; 2014 FC 1145, at paragraph 25, once again citing the earlier decision in Yetna. 70 Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB), Documentation Package on Cuba, May 31, 2013: Document 2.3: Amnesty International, Routine Repression. Political Short-Term Detention and Harassment in Cuba, March 2012, AMR 25/007/2012, 19 pages, at pages 5 and 7. This document is not reproduced in the RPD record, although the Index of the Package is reproduced at pages 160 to 177 of the RPD record. 71 Idem: Document 2.8: Human Rights Council, Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review, Summary Prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Accordance with Paragraph 5 of the Annex to Human Rights Council resolution 16/21. Cuba, January 11, 2013, A/HRC/WG.6/16/CUB/3, 33 pages, paragraph 42, page 6. 72 Idem, paragraph 38, page 6. 73 Idem, paragraph 44, page 6. 74 P-20: Amnesty International, Document - Cuba: Routine Repression: Political Short-Term Detentions and Harassement in Cuba, July 2012, reproduced at pages 98 to 111 of the RPD record. 75 IRB, Documentation Package on Cuba, May 31, 2013: Document 2.4: HRW, Cuba, January 2013, Country Summary, five pages, at page 1. 76 Idem: Document 2.6: Freedom in the World, Cuba. Freedom in the World 2013, six pages, at page 4: "The regime has called on its neighborhood-watch groups, known as Committees for the Defense of the Revolution, to strengthen against 'antisocial behaviour', a euphemism for opposition activity." 77 P-19: "Cuba's CDR Troops Morale is Low," Cuba's Havana Times.org, September 30, 2011, two pages. This document is reproduced at pages 94 and 95 of the RPD record. 78 Morales Alba v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-3943-07, Shore, October 29, 2007; 2007 FC 1116, at paragraphs 31 and 32. 79 Recording of the hearing that took place on June 17, 2013: 01:59:37 to 02:04:00. 80 Recording of the hearing that took place on June 28, 2013: 17:25 to 19:50. 81 Male appellant's BOC Form, page 27 of the RPD record. 82 Recording of the hearing that took place on June 17, 2013: 01:19:00 to 01:21:05. 83 P-3. The document is reproduced at pages 53 to 55 of the RPD record. 84 Idem, at page 55 of the RPD record. 85 Mercado v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-4493-09, Gauthier, March 12, 2010; 2010 FC 289, at paragraph 32 referring to the following decisions: A.M. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 579, [2005] F.C.J. No. 709 (QL) at paragraph 20 and Nechifor v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FC 1004, [2003] F.C.J. No. 1278 (QL) at paragraph 6. 86 Refugee Protection Division Rules, SOR/2012-256. 87 Villanueva Pinon v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-4906-09, Boivin, April 20, 2010; 2010 FC 413, at paragraph 16. 88 Idem, in paragraph 15. 89 Form 5669, signed by the male appellant and reproduced at pages 190 to 193, in response to question 9. 90 Form 5669, signed by the female appellant and reproduced at pages 202 to 205, in response to question 9. 91 IRB, National Documentation Package on Cuba, May 31, 2013: Document 4.2: Research Directorate, IRB, Cuba: Revolution Defence Committees (Comités de Defensa de la Revolución, CDR); whether informants with the CDRs report the population's activities to the police, government or security agencies; the consequences of refusing to join a CDR (2008-April 2010), April 26, 2010, CUB103443.FE, 4 pages. 92 P-7: This document is reproduced at pages 66 and 67 of the RPD record. 93 Recording of the hearing that took place on June 28, 2013: 01:17:18 to 01:20:00. 94 P-8: This document is reproduced at pages 68 and 69 of the RPD record. 95 RPD decision, paragraphs 30 and 31, pages 9 and 10 of the RPD record. 96 The documents are reproduced at pages 32-35 and 46-49 of the RPD record. 97 IRB, National Documentation Package on Cuba, May 31, 2013: Document 14.5: Research Directorate, IRB, Cuba: Whether a person suspected of anti-government activities or a person who has been punished for not being patriotic would have been able to obtain a passport and an exit permit (2010-2013), February 21, 2013, CUB104291.E, 12 pages. 98 See paragraphs 65 to 71 of this decision. 99 P-25 and P-26: These documents are reproduced at pages 156 to 159 of the RPD record. 100 Nijjer v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-340-09, de Montigny, December 9, 2009; 2009 FC 1259, at paragraph 26: "Despite the RPD's duty to consider all of the evidence, the finding that a claimant has no credibility may extend to all of the evidence he or she submits. This is what the Court of Appeal recognized in Sheikh v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1990] 3 FC 238, [1990] 3 FC 238 and Rahaman v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCA 89, [2002] F.C.J. No. 302. In dismissing evidence that merely repeated a version of the facts considered to be not very credible and improbable, the RPD did not err or breach the general rule that all evidence must be considered before ruling on the credibility of an applicant's account. In this case, the RPD was entitled to consider that the sarpanch's documentary evidence was not sufficient to make an account that otherwise appeared in many respects to be implausible credible." 101 Parampsothy v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-421-12, Mandamin, August 16, 2012; 2012 FC 1000, at paragraph 24. See also Mugadza v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-1324-07, Mandamin, January 30, 2008; 2008 FC 122, at paragraphs 20 to 22. 102 Idem. 103 Florea v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-5443-04, Lemieux, November 3, 2005; 2005 FC 1472, paragraphs 21 to 24. Arrinaj v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-224-04, O'Keefe, May 31, 2005; 2005 FC 773, paragraph 43. 104 Sadeghi-Pari v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), Mosley, [2004] F.C.J. No. 316, 2004 FC 282, at paragraph 29, as cited by the Honorable Justice Zinn in Warner v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), March 23, 2011, No. IMM-4283-10; 2011 FC 363, at paragraph 7. 105 Rajudeen v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (1984), 55 NRF 129 (FCA), as cited by the Honourable Justice Zinn in Warner v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), March 23, 2011, No. IMM-4283-10; 2011 FC 363, at paragraph 7. 106 Ramirez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , [1994] F.C.J. No. 1888, 88 F.T.R. 208, at paragraph 8, as cited by the Honorable Justice Zinn in Warner v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), March 23, 2011, No. IMM-4283-10; 2011 FC 363, at paragraph 7. See also the analysis by the Honourable Justice Near on the same topic in Mallampally v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), February 27, 2012, No. IMM-5626-11; 2012 FC 267, at paragraphs 22 to 24. 107 Portuondo Vasallo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), Bédard, May 31, 2012, No. IMM-8526-11; 2012 FC 673, at paragraph 15. 108 Irem Gur v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-6294-11, de Montigny, August 14, 2012; 2012 FC 992, at paragraph 20, citing his colleague Justice Dawson in Tolu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCTD 334, at paragraph 17. 109 Alvarez Contreras v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-4087-08, Beaudry, April 23, 2009; 2009 FC 398, at paragraph 16, citing Ward of the Supreme Court of Canada [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689 and its own decision in Hafeez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 1489, [2004] F.C.J. No. 1802 (QL). The lack of subjective fear must result in the rejection of a refugee protection claim because it is a fundamental component of the concept of persecution. Alvarez Contreras v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-4087-08, Beaudry, April 23, 2009; 2009 FC 398, at paragraphs 13 and 18, citing Hazara v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCTD 1256, [2002] F.C.J. No. 1728 (QL), at paragraph 12. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ 1 RAD.25.02 (April 9, 2013) Disponible en français RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : MB4-01911 MB4-01912 4