TB5-07347

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 : TB5-07347 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision October 21, 2015 Date de la décision Panel M. Pettinella Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Mordechai Wasserman Barrister and Solicitor Conseil(s) du (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated Representative(s) N/A Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX (the Appellant) appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying his claim for refugee protection. He has submitted new evidence in support of his appeal and does not request an oral hearing. The Appellant asks the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) to set aside the determination of the RPD and find that he is a Convention refugee. In the alternative the Appellant asks the RAD to refer the matter to the RPD for redetermination. DETERMINATION [2] Pursuant to Section 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. This appeal is dismissed. Background [3] The Appellant alleged before the RPD that, upon return to Ethiopia, he will be arrested and harmed by Ethiopian authorities because he was suspected of being a member of the Ginbot Sebat political party and did not comply with the conditions of his release from detention. [4] The Appellant's claim for refugee protection was heard on June 15, 2015. By a decision of June 24, 2015, the RPD rejected the claim finding that the Appellant had not provided sufficient credible and trustworthy evidence in support of his allegations. It found the Appellant's testimony was hesitant, vague and evasive. [5] The Appellant submits that the RPD decision denying his refugee claim is fatally flawed and the evidence indicates that he presented a credible and documented case for a well-founded fear of persecution by the Ethiopian authorities. ANALYSIS Role of the RAD [6] What is the role of the RAD in considering an appeal against a decision of the RPD? While the Appellant makes no argument with respect to the role of the RAD, it is important to note in Huruglica1 the Federal Court considered the appropriate relationship between the RAD and the RPD. It found that the RAD had erred in simply reviewing the RPD's decision on a standard of reasonableness, rather than conducting its own independent assessment of the Appellants' refugee claims. The Court held that the RAD's application of a reasonableness standard curtailed the tribunal's appellate role, contrary to the purpose of the RAD and the provisions of the IRPA. In the Court's view, the RAD should not even engage in a standard of review analysis; rather, it should consider the purpose of the appellate tribunal, the statutory provisions, comparable expertise, and comparative appellate regimes.2 [7] Justice Phelan stated the following in Huruglica: Having concluded that the RAD erred in reviewing the RPD's decision on the standard of reasonableness, I have further concluded that for the reasons above, the RAD is required to conduct a hybrid appeal. It must review all aspects of the RPD's decision and come to an independent assessment of whether the claimant is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. Where its assessment departs from that of the RPD, the RAD must substitute its own decision. In conducting its assessment, it 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 an "overriding and palpable error." [8] Considering the Court's decision in Huruglica, the RAD will review all aspects of the RPD's decision and come to an independent assessment of the Appellant's refugee claim, recognizing and respecting the conclusion of the RPD on such issues as credibility and/or where the RPD enjoys a particular advantage in reaching such a conclusion. Where the RAD's assessment departs from that of the RPD, the RAD will substitute its own determination. Admissibility of evidence submitted on appeal [9] Section 110(4) of the IRPA provides that the Appellant may present only evidence that arose after the rejection of his claim or that was not reasonably available, or that he could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection. It is for the Appellant to make full and detailed submissions in his Memorandum of Argument about how any proposed new evidence meets the requirements of Section 110(4) and how that evidence relates to him.3 [10] The Appellant has tendered fifteen documents as proposed new evidence in support of his appeal. The documents are as follows: a. Letter signed by XXXX XXXX (Appellant's father) and XXXX XXXX, dated July 11, 2015;4 b. Letter signed by XXXX XXXX (XXXX at Appellant's home in Ethiopia) and her neighbour, dated July 6, 2015;5 c. Letter from XXXX XXXXPolice, dated XXXX XXXX, 2015;6 d. Letter from XXXX XXXX City Police Commission, dated XXXX XXXX, 2015;7 e. Letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 2015;8 f. Fifteen receipts from Unity for Democracy and Justice Party (UDJ), dated between XXXX XXXX, 2008 and XXXX XXXX, 2012;9 g. Article from XXXX XXXX, dated XXXX 2015;10 h. Letter from XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, UDJ, dated XXXX XXXX, 2015;11 i. Statement by XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX, dated July 15, 2015; 12 j. Photograph of Appellant and others in a march, undated; 13 k. Declaration of XXXX XXXX XXXX, dated July 31, 2015; 14 l. Letter signed by XXXX XXXX XXXX, dated July 6, 2015; 15 m. Letter signed by XXXX XXXX XXXX, dated July 7, 2015; 16 n. Letter signed by XXXX XXXX XXXX, dated July 5, 2015; 17 and o. Medical certificate from XXXX XXXX XXXX, dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 2015. 18 [11] The Appellant submits that the letter from his father (a) and XXXX XXXX (b) are intended to address the RPD's findings surrounding the rejection of the letter from police and XXXX XXXX misplacement of the letter. He argues that there was no reason to believe that the letter from police would not have been accepted as genuine. [12] It is submitted that the letter from the XXXX XXXX Police (d) and the letter from the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (e) show that the police wanted him for questioning and sent agents to his house repeatedly looking for him. He indicates that the both letters are dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 2015, almost one month after his hearing. [13] The Appellant indicates that he is submitting a group of receipts for UDJ membership fees from 2008 to 2012 (f). He also indicates that he testified before the RPD that he had lost these receipts, however, in a letter from his father, his father explains that after the negative RPD decision, he made a rigorous search of his shelves at home and found the receipts and then went to the UDJ office and obtained a letter (h) from them about his membership in the party and his party activities. The Appellant submits that these documents confirm that he was a member of the UDJ prior to his going to Italy to study. [14] The Appellant indicates that he is submitting an article (g) from an XXXX XXXX concerning him filing for political asylum in Canada. He submits that, although the article itself does not constitute proof of his allegations, it raises the question of the risk to him if he were to return to Ethiopia since it reveals that he has made a refugee claim in Canada. [15] The Appellant indicates that he is also submitting various documents which could have been accessible for his hearing. He notes that one of these deals with his political activities in Ethiopia before he went to study in Italy, as well as in Italy, and consists of a statement (i) from two friends about his political activities in Italy and a photograph (j) of him carrying an Ethiopian flag in a march in Rome. He indicates that he is submitting a statutory declaration about his political activities in Toronto from XXXX to XXXX 2015. He indicates there are also several statements [(l)(m)(n)] from persons in Ethiopia who had contact with him and write about incidents relevant to his claim, including seeing him when he was released from detention. The Appellant indicates that, most importantly, there is a letter (o) from the XXXX XXXX XXXX about treatment he received for multiple bruises on his shoulders and back region. He notes that his father states in his letter that he obtained the medical certificate and documents from the UDJ office and these documents also confirm central aspects of his claim. [16] It is important to note that the RPD rendered its decision in this case nine days after the Appellant's hearing. It is apparent from the recording of the hearing that the RPD had concerns with respect to the Appellant's credibility, the documents he presented, and the information contained within his documents. For example the RPD noted anomalies in the Appellant's evidence, including the letter19 from his father and the letter20 from police. The Appellant ought to have known that his credibility and the credibility of his documents were at issue at the time of his hearing. Although the Appellant indicates in his Memorandum that it was only after the RPD rejected the letter from police and his explanation for the omission in his father's letter that it became necessary to submit statements [(a) and (b)] regarding the misplacement of the letter from police, he fails to indicate when he sought to obtain the other documents proposed as new evidence. This information is important to establish if the documents proposed as new evidence meet the criteria for the admissibility pursuant to section 110(4) of the IRPA. Since the Appellant indicates that he sought further documentation after the rejection of his claim and the Appellant's father indicates in his letter (a) that he obtained documentation for the Appellant after the rejection of his claim, and there is no indication that the Appellant sought the documentation proposed as new evidence prior to the rejection of his claim, the RAD concludes that all the documents proposed as new evidence were requested and obtained after the rejection of the Appellant's refugee claim. [17] Considering the above, the RAD finds that documents (b), (f), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l), (m), (n) and (o), or the information contained within them, did not arise after the rejection of the Appellant's claim. Information contained within the documents pre-dates the rejection. Furthermore, the Appellant failed to demonstrate that the documents were not reasonably available at the time of the rejection. Moreover, the Appellant failed to establish that he could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented the documents at the time of the rejection especially since he was required to provide credible and reliable evidence to establish his claim and the RPD noted concerns regarding the credibility and reliability of his evidence at his hearing. Therefore, pursuant to section 110(4), documents (b), (f), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l), (m), (n) and (o) will not be accepted as new evidence in this appeal. [18] Although the Appellant makes no submission regarding the admissibility of the letter from the XXXX XXXX Police (c) proposed as new evidence, the RAD notes that the letter21 was entered into evidence by the RPD. Since the letter was before the RPD at the time of the hearing and when the RPD rendered its decision, it will not be accepted as new evidence. [19] Since documents (a), (d), (e) and (g) contain information that post-dates the rejection of the Appellant's claim and arose after the rejection, they will be accepted as new evidence in this appeal. The RPD's Findings [20] Ability to leave and return to Ethiopia - The RPD drew a negative inference with respect to the Appellant's overall credibility from a significant omission in his Basis of Claim Form (BoC) narrative. The Appellant indicated at his hearing that he was able to leave Ethiopia in XXXX 2015 undetected by the authorities because an immigration official at the airport was a former schoolmate and he let him through. When asked why this information was missing from his BoC narrative, the Appellant indicated that he did not think about going into detail. The RPD found the Appellant's explanation unreasonable. The RPD also indicated that if the Appellant was known to authorities and a person of adverse interest, it is reasonable to conclude that it would not have been so easy for him to acquire a passport, leave the country and then return and leave the country again. [21] The Appellant submits that there was no evidentiary basis to the RPD's finding including doubts whether he would have been able to obtain a passport in 2013, leave Ethiopia to study in Italy, return to Ethiopia and then leave despite the conditions he had been placed under. The Appellant indicates that he was asked questions about why the authorities would have acted as they did and he could not know the answers. He further indicates that the RPD appeared to assume that there was some monolithic policy of the government that would have led to him not being issued a passport, not being allowed to leave Ethiopia for Italy and that would have led to his detention immediately upon his return. The Appellant submits that the RPD's assumptions were made in the absence of evidence for them and credibility findings that are not supported by evidence cannot stand. [22] It is important to note that the Appellant's BoC narrative22 is ten pages long and contains considerable detail regarding his background, his activities, the actions of the authorities against him and his father, his release from detention, and the bail conditions. He explains in his BoC narrative how he was able to be released from detention on XXXX XXXX, 2015. It would be reasonable to expect the Appellant to indicate in his BoC narrative if someone facilitated his exit from Ethiopia on XXXX XXXX, 2015, if indeed someone had. At his hearing, when asked how he was able to leave Ethiopia without any problems if he was wanted by authorities, the Appellant indicated that at the airport, by chance, there was someone he knew from school who was an immigration officer and he let him through. However, there is no mention of this in his BoC narrative. When asked for an explanation for the omission, the Appellant indicated that he didn't think to go into detail about how he got out of Ethiopia or who helped him. [23] The Appellant's exit from Ethiopia while he was allegedly of interest to the authorities, out on bail, and under conditions, is a significant element of the Appellant's story. The Appellant even indicated at his hearing that he thought it would have been a worse situation if he had not run into his friend at the airport because he was a person released on condition and it was a high risk that he took. The Appellant's evidence is that it was high risk, or likely, he would have been detected by the authorities at the airport if he had not run into his friend who let him through. The Appellant's evidence is that he was not abiding by his conditions of release by leaving Ethiopia and there was a high risk the authorities would have prevented his departure. The Appellant is well-educated and provided a very detailed BoC narrative. His alleged facilitated exit from Ethiopia is a significant element of his story, particularly because he alleges he was out of detention on condition and of continued interest to the authorities. It is reasonable to expect the Appellant to provide details of his facilitated exit in his BoC narrative and his failure to do so seriously damages his credibility. The RPD was not wrong to draw a negative inference with respect to the Appellant's overall credibility from this significant omission in his BoC narrative. [24] It was also not wrong for the RPD to conclude that it would not have been so easy for the Appellant to acquire a passport, leave the country and then return and leave the country again if he was known to authorities and a person of adverse interest. As indicated above, the Appellant's evidence is that it was high risk, or likely, he would have been detected by the authorities at the airport if he had not run into his friend who let him through. This evidence suggests that the authorities in Ethiopia monitor the entry and exit of those they are interested in. The Appellant is well educated and knowledgeable about Ethiopian affairs, including its security forces. He testified about the monitoring capabilities of the Ethiopian authorities abroad. It is reasonable to expect him to know about their monitoring capabilities within Ethiopia. Therefore, the conclusion that it would not have been so easy for the Appellant to acquire a passport, leave the country and then return and leave the country again if he was known to authorities and a person of adverse interest is consistent with the Appellant's own implied evidence about the capabilities of the authorities in Ethiopia. [25] Appellant's political profile - The RPD found the Appellant's testimony regarding his activities against the Ethiopian government, while he was in Italy, to be hesitant and vague. It found his testimony regarding a one-time payment and continuous payments for UDJ membership fees confusing and contradictory. It found the Appellant's explanation for only having one UDJ receipt dated in 2015, paying no membership fees in 2013 and 2014, and no payments until XXXX 2015, despite allegedly being a UDJ member since 2005, unreasonable. The RPD indicated that it brings into question the Appellant's motivation in making his one-time payment to the UDJ. It gave the receipt little weight in terms of establishing the Appellant's allegations, including his alleged political profile. [26] The RPD considered a letter from the UDJ indicating that the Appellant was an active member of the group. It noted that there was no address or contact information on the letter and no supporting identification was attached. It further noted that the letter was not sworn to nor witnessed; the author does not attest to having any direct contact or relationship with the Appellant; and the purpose of the letter is clearly to advocate on the Appellant's behalf. The RPD gave the letter little weight in terms of establishing the Appellant's allegations, including his political profile. [27] The RAD concurs with the RPD that the Appellant's one-time payment to the UDJ in 2015, when he alleges having been a paying member since 2005 and with an unintelligible explanation for not paying prior membership fees, brings into question his motivation for making the one-time payment in 2015. It would be reasonable to expect that a passionate UDJ supporter such as the Appellant alleges to be would remain current in his membership to the party. His failure to do so further undermines his credibility. The RAD concurs with the RPD assigning little weight to the UDJ receipt23 and UDJ letter24 in terms of establishing the Appellant's allegations, including his alleged political profile. The Appellant's motivation for making a one-time payment in 2015 are questionable considering that he did not have an intelligible explanation for not making prior payments. The UDJ letter contained a number of anomalies including the absence of the author's address and contact information; information one would reasonably expect to see in a letter from a political party confirming information. [28] Timeline of events - The RPD noted the following with respect to the timing of the alleged events. The Appellant was issued a visa to travel to Canada in XXXX 2015. Days later he made a contribution to the UDJ office in Rome. He then travelled to Ethiopia on XXXX XXXX, 2015. On XXXX XXXX, 2015 he was detained. On XXXX XXXX, 2015 he was released. On XXXX XXXX, 2015 he travelled from Ethiopia to Canada on an airline ticket previously booked from Italy. The RPD found that the Appellant's explanations as to the timing of the alleged events in Italy, Ethiopia and Canada as being pure coincidence and chance were not persuasive. It drew a negative inference with respect to the Appellant's credibility. [29] The Appellant submits that the RPD's rejection of the chain of events in XXXX 2015 because they were too coincidental and hence, suspicious, is a plausibility conclusion without any basis. He argues that an assessment of the plausibility of testimony requires that the testimony be tested against known or undisputed facts and plausibility findings are to be nourished by reference to the documentary evidence. He notes documentary evidence indicating that expatriates returning to Ethiopia would be monitored by the authorities while the RPD referred to a UK Immigration Appeal Tribunal decision to support its finding. The Appellant submits that the RPD did not have evidence for its finding and ignored evidence that indicated the opposite of its finding. [30] The RPD was not wrong to draw a negative inference with respect to the Appellant's credibility from the allegedly coincidental and chance series of events that led to his refugee claim. In the RAD's view, the timing of the Appellant's detention by Ethiopian security officials is an extraordinary coincidence that is suspiciously convenient. Although there is nothing inherently implausible about each of the incidents that led to the Appellant's claim for refugee protection there are a number of suspicious aspects to the timing of his story. For example, the Appellant made a contribution to the UDJ in Italy in XXXX 2015 when he had not made a contribution for some time and he offered an unintelligible explanation for the lapse in membership payments. The Appellant alleges he was detained by Ethiopian security officials and accused of being a member of Ginbot Sebat upon his arrival in Ethiopia, when he had never had any involvement with that organization. Following his release from detention, the Appellant conveniently realized he had a Canadian visa and an airline ticket he had previously secured that he could use to exit Ethiopia. He encountered an old schoolmate at the airport who was an immigration official who facilitated his exit from Ethiopia when he had not made such arrangements with this individual prior to attempting to depart Ethiopia. [31] Some of the alleged incidents or occurrences are suspicious in their own right. When combined, they are extraordinary. In the RAD's view, the timing of the alleged incidents and occurrences suggest that the Appellant had intended all along to make a refugee claim in Canada. In Meng25 the Federal Court indicated that the Board's remark that the timing of the alleged church raid is an "extraordinary coincidence" that is suspiciously convenient is not unreasonable in light of the evidence. [32] Delay in claiming - The RPD also noted that the Appellant delayed in claiming refugee protection in Canada by approximately one month and attended a university conference before he claimed protection. It found that the Appellant's actions undermine his subjective fear as well as his credibility. [33] The Appellant submits that there is case law that not claiming immediately should not be considered an indication of a lack of subjective fear as long as the claimant is in status in the country. He argues that what is fatal to a refugee claim is an inability to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay; however, he provided satisfactory explanations. [34] It is important to note that the Appellant has 22 years of formal education. He has a bachelor's degree in XXXX from a university in Ethiopia. He had completed one and a half years of university studies in Italy on his way to completing his master's degree in XXXX XXXX. University studies, especially leading to a master's degree are highly research-oriented. The Appellant indicated at his hearing that he did not file his refugee claim earlier because he did not have any information, including where to apply. He also indicated that he attended the conference he had enrolled in because it had nothing to do with his fear and was purely educational. [35] Considering the Appellant's educational background, it would be reasonable to expect that he would research information regarding filing a refugee claim in Canada before he arrived or immediately upon arrival. Research would reveal that timeliness is an important aspect of a refugee claim. If the Appellant was truly fearful of returning to Ethiopia, one would expect him to obtain the necessary information to file a refugee claim in Canada and make a claim without delay. It would also be reasonable to expect the Appellant to research the claim process and file a claim before attending the conference he was scheduled to attend since one would expect it to be a priority. The RAD concurs with the RPD that the Appellant's explanation for the delay is unreasonable. [36] It is expected that genuine Convention refugees and persons in need of protection would seek protection as soon as practical, once out of reach of the hands of their oppressors. The RAD is mindful then, that one of the significant factors which speaks to subjective fear and credibility is the element of delay. Delay, in and of itself, is not a decisive factor in refugee determination.26 However, it can be relevant to the Board and can be a potentially important consideration,27 where a claimant has delayed in making a claim upon his or her arrival to Canada and has failed to offer a reasonable explanation for the delay. Considering the Appellant's allegations, his educational background and his unreasonable explanation for his delay in claiming, the RAD draws an adverse inference with respect to his credibility. [37] Documents - The RPD noted anomalies in the documents the Appellant provided to corroborate his allegations such as the letters from his father, a friend and police. It gave the letters little weight in terms of establishing the Appellant's allegations of persecution. [38] The Appellant submits that the IRPA states that the RPD is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence. He also indicates that case law clearly states that it is not for the Refugee Division to impose on itself or claimants evidentiary fetters of which Parliament has freed them. [39] The RAD concurs with the RPD's assessment of the documents. The Appellant did not provide documents one would expect to see in such a case, such as a bail receipt and conditions of release. Documentary evidence indicates that such documents are reasonably available in Ethiopia.28 Furthermore, upon reviewing the original letter29 from XXXX XXXX Police, the RAD notes that the author signed the document over the stamp of the XXXX XXXX XXXX. The purpose of a stamp such as the one found on this letter is to authenticate the document. However, if the stamp is affixed on the paper prior to the author signing the document, it renders the process futile since the letter was signed after the paper was stamped. This document cannot be relied upon and the RAD gives it no weight. [40] There were further anomalies noted in the documents that were provided. For example, the letter from the Appellant's father fails to mention that police attended his house and left a letter. The Appellant offered an absurd explanation that the maid had received the letter and failed to provide it to his father. The anomalies in this evidence undermine its credibility. The RPD was not wrong to give little weight to the letters in evidence. Besides the anomalies found in the letters, the Federal Court has indicated that confirmatory evidence of family members and friends, which is not subject to cross-examination, is not highly probative or credible evidence. Highly probative evidence is intrinsically well-presented evidence from independent sources confirming a material fact in the matter.30 Not only did the letters from family and friends contain anomalies, it did not support the issuance of the letter from police. [41] New evidence - As noted above, certain documents containing information that post-dates the rejection of the Appellant's claim have been accepted as new evidence in this appeal. They include a letter from the Appellant's father, a letter from the XXXX XXXX City Police Commission, a letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and an article from XXXX XXXX. [42] The letter31 from the Appellant's father attempts to explain irregularities in his previous letter and attempts to dispute some of the RPD's findings. It also attempts to explain the gathering of further evidence not available at the time of the rejection of the claim such as UDJ receipts, police letters and a medical report. The RPD and RAD have found a number of anomalies in the first letter from the Appellant's father and found it to lack credibility. The Appellant was found to lack credibility. The second letter from the Appellant's father does little if anything to strengthen the credibility of his first letter or enhance the Appellant's credibility. Furthermore, as noted in Gomez,32 corroboration does not make an incredible story credible. The RAD gives the letter no weight. [43] The letter33 from the XXXX XXXX City Police Commission refers to a letter from the XXXX XXXX XXXX and indicates that the Appellant is wanted for questioning on some matters and he could not be located. Upon reviewing the original document, the RAD notes that the text of the letter is imprinted over the stamp of the XXXX XXXX City Administration Police Commission. The purpose of a stamp such as the one found on this letter is to authenticate the document. However, if the stamp is affixed on the paper before the text of the letter is imprinted, it renders the process futile since the text in the letter was produced after the paper was stamped. This document cannot be relied upon and the RAD gives it no weight. [44] The letter34 from the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX indicates that police are still looking for the Appellant for questioning. Upon reviewing the original document, the RAD notes that none of the three stamps on the document touch any of the text contained in the letter. Once again, the purpose of a stamp such as some of the ones found on this letter is to authenticate the document. However, if the stamps on the letter do not cover any of the text, there is no way of verifying if the letter was authenticated after it was produced. This renders the authentication process futile. This document cannot be relied upon and the RAD gives it no weight. [45] A photocopy of an article35 from XXXX XXXX indicates that the Appellant filed for political asylum in Canada. The article provides a brief chronology of events that led to him filing a refugee application. The article indicates that the information was obtained from sources however, fails to name them. The author of the article is not mentioned. The RAD notes that the Appellant did not provide an original copy of the article. Considering the above-noted deficiencies the RAD finds that the article is not credible or trustworthy and gives it no weight. [46] Sections 170 and 171 of the IRPA indicate that the RPD and the RAD are not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence and may receive and base a decision on evidence that is adduced in the proceedings and considered credible or trustworthy in the circumstances. The RAD has determined that the new evidence presented by the Appellant is not credible or trustworthy and has assigned it no weight. DISPOSITION [47] The Appellant has alleged that the RPD decision denying his refugee claim is fatally flawed and the evidence indicates that he presented a credible and documented case for a well-founded fear of persecution by the Ethiopian authorities. The RAD finds that the RPD decision is not fatally flawed and the Appellant's evidence did not support a well-founded fear of persecution by the Ethiopian authorities. Upon review of the evidence, the RAD has reached the same conclusion as the RPD. [48] As a cumulative result of the above-noted anomalies, the RAD finds that the Appellant lacks credibility. The RAD does not accept, on a balance of probabilities, that the events, as described by the Appellant in his Basis of Claim Form and at his hearing with the RPD, occurred as described. The RAD also finds the Appellant's evidence lacking in credibility with respect to the events material to his refugee claim. Therefore, the RAD finds that there is not a serious possibility of persecution should he return to Ethiopia. The RAD therefore concludes that the Appellant has failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution under section 96 of the IRPA, and, for these same reasons, the RAD finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant is not a person in need of protection or at a risk to life, or at risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or in danger of torture as set out in section 97 of the IRPA. CONCLUSION [49] Pursuant to Section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Refugee Appeal Division confirms the decision of the Refugee Protection Division and dismisses the appeal. (signed) "M. Pettinella" M. Pettinella October 21, 2015 Date 1 Huruglica, Bujar v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-6362-13), Phelan, August 22, 2014; 2014 FC 799. 2 Huruglica, para. 45. 3 Refugee Appeal Division Rules, Section 3(3)(g)(iii). 4 Exhibit P-3. 5 Exhibit P-2, at pp. 16-19. 6 Exhibit P-2, at pp. 20-21. 7 Exhibit P-4. 8 Exhibit P-5. 9 Exhibit P-2, at pp. 27-40 10 Exhibit P-6. 11 Exhibit P-2, at p. 45. 12 Exhibit P-2, at pp. 46-48. 13 Exhibit P-2, at p. 49 14 Exhibit P-2, at p. 50. 15 Exhibit P-2, at pp. 51-54. 16 Exhibit P-2, at pp. 55-58. 17 Exhibit P-2, at pp. 59-62. 18 Exhibit P-2, at p. 63. 19 Exhibit RPD-1, at p. 115. 20 Exhibit RPD-1, at p. 119. 21 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at p. 119. 22 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at pp. 14-23. 23 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at pp. 117-118. 24 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at p. 104. 25 Meng, Renxian v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-1102-14), de Montigny, March 23, 2015; 2015 FC 365. 26 Huerta, Martha Laura Sanchez v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 157 N.R. 225 (F.C.A.). 27 Heer, Karnail Singh v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-474-87), Heald, Marceau, Lacombe, April 13, 1988. 28 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at pp. 82-101, National Documentation Package for Ethiopia, 30 January 2015, item 3.8. 29 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at pp. 119-120. 30 El Bouni, Haidar v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-7627-14), Annis, June 2, 2015; 2015 FC 700. 31 Exhibit P-3. 32 Gomez, Hector Cisneros v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-5741-04), Harrington, June 16, 2005, 2005 FC 859. 33 Exhibit P-4. 34 Exhibit P-5. 35 Exhibit P-6. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR :