MB4-05197

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. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB4-05197 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered/heard at Montréal, Quebec Appel instruit à Date of decision July 21, 2015 Date de la décision Panel Me Alain Bissonnette Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Me Styliani Markaki Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant désigné Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS AND DECISION I. INTRODUCTION [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the appellant, is a citizen of the Republic of the Congo and is appealing against a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD). He submits that the RPD erred in the assessment of his credibility and of the risk he would face if he were to return to live in his country. 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 determination of the RPD, namely, that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is neither a "Convention refugee" under section 96 of the IRPA nor a "person in need of protection" within the meaning of section 97 of the IRPA. III. BACKGROUND A. Summary of alleged facts [3] In the Basis of Claim Form (BOC Form) that he signed on August 7, 2014, the appellant states that if he were to return to live in his country, he believes he would be subjected to mistreatment and that his life would be at risk because Congolese authorities had approached him XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and he does not want to engage in such practices.1 [4] In his BOC Form, the appellant states that, in the past, he completed a project for XXXX XXXX on one of his XXXX XXXX and also helped a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Mr. AyessaXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.2 [5] In his BOC Form, the appellant states that after XXXX XXXX was arrested on XXXX XXXX, 2013, two plainclothes men approached him at work on XXXX XXXX, 2014. The men in question brought him to the XXXX XXXX[XXXX XXXX], where he was questioned about his relationship with XXXX XXXX. They then threatened to kill him if he did not sign a statement to the effect that the XXXXhad a XXXX XXXX on one of XXXX XXXX.3 [6] In his BOC Form, the appellant states that they finally let him go, telling him to come back the next day with his answer and to think about it carefully because his life depended on it.4 [7] In his BOC Form, the appellant states that, later, on XXXX XXXX, 2014, Mr. XXXXcontacted him, met with him and told him that anyone who might know XXXX XXXX was being sought to give false testimony XXXX XXXX XXXX.5 [8] In his BOC Form, the appellant states that Mr. XXXX told him that his family had to leave the country. He also states that Mr. XXXX gave him a place to stay downtown, that he never left this place, and that he also took steps to enable him to obtain a Canadian visa and leave the Congo.6 [9] In his BOC Form, the appellant states that, to leave the airport, he was one of the first passengers to arrive and was accompanied by a XXXXto the airplane. He also states that on XXXX XXXX, 2014, some soldiers who were looking for him went to his mother's place, slapped her and told her that he had done something serious and that they were going to find him no matter how long it took.7 [10] In his BOC Form, the appellant states that the next day, his mother went to Kinshasa to be with the family, who had taken refuge there on XXXX XXXX, 2014.8 [11] In addition to his BOC Form, the appellant, who was the claimant at the time, submitted documents as evidence to the RPD.9 B. The RPD decision [12] The hearing before the RPD was held on October 21, 2014, and the decision to reject the claim for refugee protection was rendered on November 21, 2014.10 [13] The RPD did not believe the claimant's overall account but, rather, that he had made the story up. As the RPD did not find the claimant to be credible, it gave no weight to the evidence he submitted to it.11 [14] Before coming to this conclusion, the RPD identified a series of problems that undermined his credibility. [15] Firstly, the fact that the claimant's testimony was vague and imprecise with respect to the work he allegedly completed on the XXXX XXXX from 2009 to XXXX2011, going there from Friday to Sunday, and sometimes until Monday morning.12 [16] Then, the fact that, on the IMM 5669 form, the claimant did not indicate that he was wanted by Congolese authorities. During the hearing, when confronted with his answer to question 9(a) on the form, the claimant explained that he had been distracted. The RPD found that this explanation was unsatisfactory.13 [17] The fact that the claimant adjusted his testimony with respect to when XXXX XXXXwas arrested.14 [18] The fact that the claimant's testimony was hesitant, vague and confused as to how he spent his time from XXXX XXXX, 2014, until he left the country on XXXX XXXX, 2014.15 [19] The fact that the claimant did not know what convention he was supposed to be attending, when a courtesy visa had been issued to him so he could attend such a convention from XXXX XXXX to XXXX, 2014.16 [20] Furthermore, the RPD also found it inconsistent that Congolese authorities would let the claimant leave without signing the statement XXXX XXXX XXXX, when they approached him at his work and brought him to a detention facility precisely for him to sign such a statement.17 [21] The RPD also found it contradictory and inconsistent that Congolese authorities are still looking for the claimant. They are allegedly looking for him to make him sign a statement indicating that XXXX XXXX had a XXXX XXXX on one of XXXX XXXX. Yet they have already tried that XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, without requiring the claimant's testimony.18 [22] Lastly, after considering the letter from his spouse reiterating the claimant's account, the RPD drew a negative inference from the fact that he had not provided any objective evidence to establish that he had worked on XXXX XXXX XXXX or was related to him.19 C. Grounds of appeal and remedy sought [23] In his memorandum, the appellant submits that the RPD erred by not analyzing the relevant evidence, by not considering his explanations, and by incorrectly assessing his credibility and the risk he would face if he were to return to live in his country.20 - Failure to analyze all the evidence [24] First of all, with respect to the analysis of the evidence, the appellant criticizes the RPD for not reviewing the published newspaper articles, where he is identified as one of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, adding that this is a fatal error.21 - Assessment of credibility [25] Then, with respect to the assessment of his credibility, the appellant submits that his testimony regarding his work for XXXX XXXX was not vague, hesitant or lacking in details.22 [26] He also submits that, with respect to the statement made on the IMM 5669 form, the RPD did not consider the explanation provided by his counsel, indicating that he was the one who had made that mistake.23 [27] He also submits that the RPD wrongly assessed his situation, when the published newspaper articles clearly indicate that he is wanted by the authorities because of his association with XXXX XXXX.24 [28] He also submits that the RPD was not reasonable in finding that he adjusted his testimony regarding the time of XXXX XXXX's arrest. He adds that the RPD's questions were not always clear and he may have made a bona fide mistake.25 He essentially makes the same complaint against the RPD with respect to his answers as to what he had been doing between XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, 2014.26 [29] He criticizes the RPD for finding that his credibility had been undermined by the lack of evidence regarding the work he had done for XXXX XXXX when, in fact, there was none. He adds that the RPD was therefore unreasonable and engaged in a microscopic analysis contrary to the teachings of the Federal Court.27 [30] He further criticizes the RPD for finding that his credibility had been undermined because he was unable to provide information regarding a convention he had attended in Canada, when that convention was simply a pretext for him to escape from the Congo.28 [31] He also submits that the RPD did not consider the explanations his lawyer presented in his submissions regarding the fact that the police had released him, asking him to come back the next day to sign the statement incriminating XXXX XXXX. According to these explanations, if the police acted in such a way, it was because they wanted to convince him by intimidating him first, instead of immediately resorting to violence. He adds that the RPD therefore drew an inference of implausibility that was not based on the evidence.29 - Consideration of country conditions [32] Lastly, the appellant submits that, if he were to return to his country, the authorities would want to silence and eliminate him given that he had refused to cooperate with them in the past. He adds that the conditions in his country, which are described in the documentary evidence, support his fear of persecution even though XXXX XXXX has already been convicted.30 [33] Consequently, the appellant is asking the RAD to allow his appeal.31 [34] In his affidavit, the appellant indicates that he is not relying on any new evidence and that he is not requesting a new hearing.32 IV. APPROACH TO BE TAKEN IN THIS APPEAL [35] In his memorandum, the appellant submits that the RAD must not use the reasonableness standard of review when analyzing the RPD decision.33 [36] In Akuffo, Justice Gagné finds that, when no hearing is held before the RAD, the latter owes deference to the RPD's credibility findings, although opinions diverge within the Federal Court as to the level of deference that is owed.34 In Sajad and Bui, Justice Shore finds that the RAD owes a measure of deference toward the RPD's findings when they primarily involve the credibility of the person claiming refugee protection.35 That being said, the RAD must undertake an independent assessment of the appeal record, in other words, conduct its own analysis of the evidence, consider the parties' submissions, and then confirm or dismiss the RPD's findings regarding the credibility of the refugee protection claimant(s).36 In Balde, Justice Mosley states that the different strands of jurisprudence that have emerged to date in the Federal Court have all accepted the principle that the RPD's findings of credibility must be shown deference by the RAD, since the RAD does not typically hold oral hearings and is therefore at a disadvantage in comparison to the RPD.37 [37] Basing myself as much as possible on the decisions rendered to date by the Federal Court, I am of the opinion that, in this case, while undertaking an independent assessment of the record, I must show deference to the RPD's findings regarding the appellant's credibility. V. ANALYSIS OF THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL [38] In matters of credibility, a measure of deference must be shown to the RPD's findings, specifically with respect to the refugee protection claimant's testimony. It should be noted that "in determining an application for refugee status, it was up to the female applicant to establish, on a balance of probabilities, the facts on which she based her application".38 For its part, the RPD is entitled to make findings based on implausibility, common sense and rationality.39 A lack of credibility on an important aspect of the claim can amount to a finding that there is no credible evidence on which the claim can be based.40 [39] For my part, after conducting an independent assessment of the record, I find that the appellant did not establish that he has a well-founded fear of persecution or that it is more likely than not that his life would be at risk if he were to return to live in his country. Here is why. A. Failure to analyze all the evidence [40] In its reasons for decision, the RPD states that, since it did not find the claimant credible, it did not give any weight to the evidence he submitted to it.41 [41] Certainly, it is well established that it is permissible to attach no probative value to evidence submitted to the RPD that merely repeats a version of the facts considered to be implausible or not very credible.42 [42] In any event, I have carefully reviewed the articles submitted as evidence by the claimant to the RPD, which were also included in his appeal record. [43] In a blog article dated XXXX XXXX, 2014, the author refers to the trial pitting the Congolese state against XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, who was being tried on counts of XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.43 The author states that XXXX people, mostly XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX designed to [translation] "XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX." The author adds that [translation] "XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX," with testimonies against XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX piling up. [44] Toward the end of his analysis, the author states that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX close to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX continues in the Congo, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX; the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX [sic] XXXX XXXX XXXX in Brazzaville. Referring to the existence of XXXX XXXX, the author states that [translation] "XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX." He adds that [translation] "XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX." [45] In an article published in early XXXX 2014 in the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, much of the information stated in the previous article is repeated.44 With respect to XXXX XXXX, the article provides more specific information: [translation] XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX." [46] For my part, having carefully reviewed these two articles, I note that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. I also note that these two articles date back to XXXX and XXXX 2014 and that, since then, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. For my part, contrary to what is alleged in the appellant's memorandum,45 I did not find any information in these two articles to establish that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. In fact, what is written is that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, nothing more. That being said, the article published in the blog in XXXX 2014 suggests that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. However, it did not state that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. [47] Consequently, I come to the same conclusion as the RPD, which was very specific when it wrote: [translation] [32] Even if the panel had believed the claimant, which is not the case, it would not have allowed this claim for refugee protection as it finds that there would be no prospective risk to the claimant if he were to return to his country because, according to the claimant's testimony, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, despite the fact that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The claimant's testimony XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. However, this testimony is apparently no longer necessary XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.46 B. Assessment of credibility [48] I have listened carefully to the recording of the hearing before the RPD. - Testimony regarding work for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX [49] With respect to the claimant's testimony regarding his work for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, I find, as did the RPD, that his testimony was vague, hesitant and lacking in details. [50] The following is a particularly telling excerpt: [translation] Member: What did you do for XXXX XXXX XXXX? What did you do for XXXX? Claimant: I looked after XXXX XXXX. Member: What did you do exactly? Claimant: I was the XXXX. I was involved XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Member: In concrete terms, what did you do? Claimant: XXXX. Member: What does that entail? I wasn't there; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Member: Yes, but you, what did you physically do? When you arrived there, what did you do? Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Member: Did XXXX XXXX XXXX have other employees? Claimant: Yes. In the beginning, before I arrived on the scene, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Member: Were there other employees? Claimant: Yes. Member: How many? Claimant: There were about XXXX. When I started, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Member: What did they do? Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Member: What did they XXXX? Claimant: XXXX XXXX. Member: What types XXXX XXXX were there? Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX... Member: What was there before you arrived? Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.47 [51] Quite frankly, I find that, during his testimony, the claimant did not directly answer the questions he was asked and did not provide any concrete, practical examples of what he actually did for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Instead, his responses were general, no doubt based on his knowledge of XXXX. - Lack of evidence regarding his work for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX [52] In his memorandum, the appellant criticizes the RPD for finding that his credibility had been undermined by the lack of evidence regarding the work he had done for XXXX XXXX when, in fact, there was none. He adds that the RPD was therefore unreasonable and engaged in a microscopic analysis contrary to the teachings of the Federal Court. [53] I find that this argument must be rejected. [54] First of all, because the connection between XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and the claimant was formed, according to his testimony before the RPD, through the work he did for him from XXXX2009 to XXXX2011, for which he was paid, as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX would give him envelopes.48 Consequently, this is not a peripheral element but, on the contrary, a central allegation presented by the claimant. [55] Then, except for the letter from his common-law partner that I will analyze in the next paragraph, the claimant did not indicate that he had taken steps to obtain a document to corroborate that he had indeed worked for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. It could have been a letter from one of the individuals who worked with him for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX or from his former driver who, according to the claimant's testimony, often drove him to XXXX XXXX in question in his vehicle.49 [56] Failing to file supporting documentation that it is reasonable to expect may have an impact on a claimant's credibility.50 It is clear from rule 11 of the Refugee Protection Division Rules51 that a claimant has a duty to provide documents and other elements of the claim; this is more directly expressed in the English version than in the French version, and is stated as follows: "The claimant must provide...."52 However, it should be pointed out that in French, the use of the present indicative is sufficient to express the mandatory nature of a rule. The bottom line here is that a lack of diligence on the part of the claimant in not trying to obtain an important document that could have corroborated his testimony may undermine his credibility.53 [57] In the letter from his common-law spouse,54 there is information that contradicts the claimant's testimony before the RPD. For example, she writes that XXXX, the XXXXwife, is her husband's XXXX XXXX, while he stated before the RPD that she was his XXXX XXXX.55 She also writes that, as of 2011, her husband's XXXX wanted him to help them with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, while the claimant stated before that RPD that he had started working for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX 2009.56 [58] Lastly, on the IMM 5669 form,57 the claimant never mentioned the fact that he had worked for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX from XXXX 2009 to XXXX 2011. Even if the work was done on weekends, he should have included it in his response to question 8, which he did not do. Instead, in that response, it states that he was unemployed from XXXX to XXXX 2011. By signing that form, the claimant declared that the information provided was truthful, complete and correct, and that that solemn declaration is of the same force and effect as if made under oath. [59] I am aware that these last two points were not raised by the RPD and that there is a Federal Court decision stating that the RAD does not have the jurisdiction to decide on a matter that has not previously been the subject of an RPD decision.58 That being said, other Federal Court decisions direct the RAD to conduct a thorough examination of the record and come to an independent assessment of whether the person seeking refugee protection is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection.59 [60] For my part, and I say this with all due respect, I have difficulty seeing how, in conducting such a thorough examination of the record, I am to turn a blind eye to elements that appear to be relevant. In this case, I find it relevant to note that the letter from the claimant's spouse contains information that is contradictory to the appellant's testimony. I also find it relevant to note that, on the IMM 5669 form, the claimant never mentioned the fact that he had worked for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX from XXXX2009 to XXXX2011. - Failure to mention that he was wanted by Congolese authorities [61] In addition, on the IMM 5669 form, the claimant did not mention that he was wanted by the Congolese authorities. That being said, he criticizes the RPD for finding that this omission undermined his credibility, without considering the explanation provided by his lawyer in his submissions, indicating that, in fact, he was the one who had made that mistake. [62] I find that this argument must be rejected. An explanation regarding an omission in a declaration signed by the claimant must come from him, not his lawyer. In this case, during the hearing before the RPD, the claimant explained that [translation] "it may have been through carelessness."60 I find, as did the RPD, that this explanation is not satisfactory and that it contradicts the declaration signed by the claimant himself, not by his lawyer, indicating that the information provided was truthful, complete and correct. - Other arguments put forward by the appellant [63] I have read and understood the other arguments put forward by the appellant, namely, with respect to the time of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX's arrest, his activities between XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, 2014, the convention he was supposed to attend in Canada and the fact that he was released by the police on XXXX XXXX, 2014. [64] I find that it is not necessary for me to analyze each of these arguments insofar as the RPD's findings on these matters are absolutely not determinative with regard to the rejection of the refugee protection claim. C. The appellant's fear today in light of the documentary evidence [65] In his memorandum, the appellant submits that, if he were to return to his country, the authorities would want to silence and eliminate him given that he had refused to cooperate with them in the past. He adds that the conditions in his country, which are described in the documentary evidence, support his fear of persecution even though XXXX XXXX has already been convicted. [66] I find that this argument must be rejected. During his testimony at the hearing, when asked to explain why the Congolese authorities would be looking for him today, the appellant responded that it was because he had not done what had been asked of him, namely, sign a statement that would incriminate XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.61 He never stated that they might still have it in for him because he had been associated with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in the past. However, that being said, he did state at the hearing that he had not wanted to sign the notorious statement incriminating XXXX XXXX because, by signing such a statement, he could be accused of being XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.62 But, according to his own testimony, he never signed that statement. And, there is no evidence to suggest that a charge of XXXX or any other charge has been brought against him. Consequently, I find that the appellant did not establish that he has a well-founded fear of persecution on any of the grounds set out in section 96 of the IRPA or that it is more likely than not that there would be a risk to his life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. [67] Although the documentary evidence now outlines the problems encountered in the Republic of the Congo, it does not necessarily mean that if the appellant were to return to the country he would experience a similar situation. Documentary evidence regarding country conditions does not, by itself, establish that there is a well-founded fear of persecution or a risk to the life of a refugee protection claimant from that country. The claimant must also demonstrate a connection between that documentary evidence and their personal situation.63 In this case, the appellant has clearly failed to establish a connection between the documentary evidence and his personal situation. VIII. CONCLUSION [68] For these reasons, I confirm the determination of the RPD, namely, that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is neither a "Convention refugee" under section 96 of the IRPA nor a "person in need of protection" within the meaning of section 97 of the IRPA. [69] The appeal is dismissed. Alain Bissonnette Me Alain Bissonnette July 21, 2015 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 Basis of Claim Form, pages 24 and 28 of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) record. 2 Idem, page 22 of the RPD record. 3 Idem, page 23 of the RPD record. 4 Idem. 5 Idem. 6 Idem, pages 23 and 24 of the RPD record. 7 Idem, page 24 of the RPD record. 8 Idem. 9 These documents are reproduced on pages 93 to 151 of the RPD record. 10 RPD reasons and decision, pages 3 to 12 of the RPD record. 11 Idem, paragraph 31, pages 11 and 12 of the RPD record. 12 Idem, paragraphs 15 and 16, pages 6 and 7 of the RPD record. 13 Idem, paragraphs 17 and 18, pages 7 and 8 of the RPD record. 14 Idem, paragraph 19, page 8 of the RPD record. 15 Idem, paragraphs 20 and 21, pages 8 and 9 of the RPD record. 16 Idem, paragraphs 26, 27 and 28, pages 10 and 11 of the RPD record. 17 Idem, paragraphs 22 and 23, page 9 of the RPD record. 18 Idem, paragraphs 24 and 25, pages 9 and 10 of the RPD record. 19 Idem, paragraphs 29 and 30, page 11 of the RPD record. 20 Appellant's memorandum, January 2, 2015, pages 38 to 47 of the appeal record. 21 Idem, paragraphs 28 to 40, pages 38 and 41 of the appeal record. 22 Idem, paragraphs 41 and 42, pages 41 and 42 of the appeal record. 23 Idem, paragraphs 43 to 48, page 42 of the appeal record. 24 Idem, paragraph 49, page 43 of the appeal record. 25 Idem, paragraphs 50, 51 and 52, page 43 of the appeal record. 26 Idem, paragraphs 53 and 54, page 43 of the appeal record. 27 Idem, paragraphs 55 to 59, pages 43 and 44 of the appeal record. 28 Idem, paragraphs 60, 61 and 62, page 44 of the appeal record. 29 Idem, paragraphs 63 to 70, pages 44, 45 and 46 of the appeal record. 30 Idem, paragraphs 71 to 77, pages 46 and 47 of the appeal record. 31 Idem, paragraph 78, page 47 of the appeal record. 32 Affidavit signed on January 2, 2015, page 14 of the appeal record. 33 Appellant's memorandum, paragraph 27, page 38 of the appeal record. 34 Akuffo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-6640-13, Gagné, November 12, 2014; 2014 FC 1063, at paragraphs 34 to 39. 35 Sajad v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-926-14, Shore, November 21, 2014; 2014 FC 1107, at paragraph 22. Bui v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-1654-14, Shore, November 28, 2014; 2014 FC 1145, at paragraph 25. See also: Malambu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-7972-14, Noël, June 17, 2015; 2015 FC 763, at paragraph 42. 36 Hamidi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-5049-14, Shore, February 26, 2015; 2015 FC 243, at paragraphs 1, 22, 23, 24 and 30. Brodrick v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-5986-13, Diner, April 17, 2015; 2015 FC 491, at paragraphs 34, 35 and 36. Abdul Fasit Fida v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-5921-14, Zinn, June 24, 2015; 2015 FC 784, at paragraph 10: "The RAD examined the various findings of the RPD upon which it based the finding that the applicant was not credible. It is clear from the decision that it conducted its own independent analysis of that evidence." 37 Balde v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-3724-14, Mosley, May 12, 2015; 2015 FC 625, at paragraph 25. See also: Palden v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-4907-14, Locke, June 25, 2015; 2015 FC 787, at paragraphs 10 and 11. 38 Arreaga v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-996-13, Noël, September 25, 2013; 2013 FC 977, at paragraph 45. 39 Laszlo v. Canada (Department of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-3507-04, Von Finckenstein, April 6, 2005; 2005 FC 456, at paragraph 10. 40 Hernandez Cortes v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-4645-08, Teitelbaum, June 4, 2009; 2009 FC 583, at paragraph 30. 41 RPD reasons and decision, paragraph 31, pages 11 and 12 of the RPD record. 42 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 F.C. 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." 43 This article is reproduced on pages 27, 28 and 29 of the appeal record and on pages 145, 146 and 147 of the RPD record. 44 This article is reproduced on page 34 of the appeal record and on page 121 of the RPD record. 45 Appellant's memorandum, paragraph 49, page 43 of the appeal record. 46 RPD reasons and decision, paragraph 32, page 12 of the RPD record. 47 Recording of the hearing on October 21, 2014, before the RPD, 23:55 to 27:01. 48 Idem, 28:30 to 31:50. 49 Idem. 50 Mercado v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-4493-09, Gauthier, March 12, 2010; 2010 FC 289, at paragraph 32, in reference 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. 51 Refugee Protection Division Rules, SOR/2012-256. 52 Villanueva Pinon v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-4906-09, Boivin, April 20, 2010; 2010 FC 413, at paragraph 16. 53 Idem, at paragraph 15. 54 This letter is reproduced on pages 141 and 142 of the RPD record. 55 Recording of the hearing on October 21, 2014, before the RPD, 17:30 to 18:00. 56 Idem, 28:30 to 31:30. 57 The IMM 5669 form is reproduced on pages 83 to 87 of the RPD record. 58 Yang Jianzhu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-1034-14, Simpson, April 28, 2015; 2015 FC 551, at paragraph 12. 59 Hamidi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-5049-14, Shore, February 26, 2015; 2015 FC 243, at paragraphs 1, 22, 23, 24 and 30. Brodrick v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-5986-13, Diner, April 17, 2015; 2015 FC 491, at paragraphs 34, 35 and 36, citing with approval the statements of Justice Phelan in Huruglica. 60 Recording of the hearing on October 21, 2014, before the RPD, 46:20 to 48:00. 61 Idem, 45:30 to 46:20. 62 Idem, 21:05 to 23:25. 63 Morales Alba v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-3943-07, Shore, October 29, 2007; 2007 FC 1116, at paragraphs 31 and 32. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ 3 RAD.25.02 (April 9, 2013) Disponible en français RAD File No./No de dossier de la SAR : MB4-05197 2