TB9-06664

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-06664 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 Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision August 17, 2020 Date de la décision Panel Sasha Kiran Cragg-Gore Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Raed Mahko Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] These are my reasons for dismissing this appeal. [2] XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the Appellant) is a stateless Palestinian who was born, went to school, worked and spent his entire adult life in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). He fears persecution from his ex-girlfriend's family who were opposed to their relationship because he is Palestinian. He alleges that he was beaten on multiple occasions by her family members and that her father went so far as to cancel his residency rights in the UAE. He fled to Canada via the United States and claimed refugee status. [3] The RPD rejected his refugee claim making the following findings: a. His country of former habitual residence is the UAE; b. His residency rights in the UAE were cancelled not by his ex-girlfriend's father, but because he was outside of the country for more than 6 months; c. His ex-girlfriend's family members are no longer interested in harming the Appellant as he is no longer dating her and would not, even if he were he to return to the UAE; and, d. There is no evidence to suggest that anyone from her family is looking for the Appellant in the UAE. [4] The Appellant contests the decision of the RPD and now asks the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) to recognize him as a refugee or, in the alternative, to refer this matter back to the RPD for redetermination. He has not requested to submit new evidence, but he does request an oral hearing. He submits the following: a. The RPD failed to apply the presumption of truthfulness to the Appellant's allegations; b. The RPD's conclusion that he would no longer be at risk upon return because his girlfriend's parents are no longer interested in him is not supported by the evidence; c. The RPD erred by finding that the Appellant would not have a relationship with his girlfriend if he were to return today; and, d. The RPD erred by not examining the claim under section 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). DECISION [5] I dismiss the appeal. The RPD was correct in finding that the Appellant is neither Convention refugee, nor a person in need of protection. The Appellant is no longer in a relationship with XXXX, his ex-girlfriend, and he has not spoken to her since 2017. He has no intention of getting back together with her according to his own testimony. The Appellant has not established that XXXX family would seek to harm him if he were to return to the UAE today. For these reasons, he is neither a Convention refugee, nor a person in need of protection. REQUEST FOR AN ORAL HEARING [6] The Appellant requests an oral hearing. One of the determining factors is that evidence presented on appeal must have been found to be admissible. The Appellant has not requested to admit new evidence on appeal,1 consequently, the request is denied. ANALYSIS [7] My role is to look at all the evidence and decide if the RPD made the correct decision.2 The Appellant would not face a serious possibility of persecution if he were to return to the UAE [8] The RPD concluded that XXXX family would no longer be interested in the Appellant, as they are no longer in a relationship. Because of this, the RPD concluded that he would not face a serious possibility of persecution if he were to return to the UAE. The Appellant argues that this conclusion is not supported by the evidence. I disagree. [9] The Appellant, in testimony, clearly stated that he is no longer in a relationship with XXXX and that they have not communicated with each other since 2017. The only alleged motivation for the attacks and threats he suffered at the hands of her family was due to the fact that he was dating XXXX. The RPD correctly concluded that they would no longer be motivated to find or harm the Appellant, if he were to return. [10] I also agree with the RPD's conclusion that his residency status in the UAE was cancelled due to being outside of the country for more than six months rather than by XXXX father. According to what is written on his residency permit, his testimony and the documentary evidence,3 his residence status can expire if he is outside of the country for more than six months. He received a residence cancellation eight months after leaving the country and he was only able to speculate that this may have been due to XXXX father. Given the above, I agree with the RPD that it is more likely than not that his residence was cancelled due to these regulations rather than by any interference by XXXX father. [11] This finding further supports the conclusion that the Appellant would not face a serious possibility of persecution upon return, as there is no evidence that her family has done anything to harm or threaten the Appellant since he left the country in XXXX 2018, more than two years ago. I also note that they have also not approached his family members who are still in the UAE since this time. No evidence that the Appellant would resume his relationship with XXXX upon return [12] The Appellant claimed that the RPD erred by finding that the Appellant would not resume his relationship with XXXX upon his return to the UAE. However, at the hearing, the Appellant clearly stated that he would not be looking to restart his relationship with her if he were to return to the UAE. There is no other evidence on the record that contradicts the Appellant's sworn testimony and I conclude that the RPD did not err. Other arguments by the Appellant are not determinative [13] The Appellant argues that the RPD failed to apply the presumption of truthfulness. I disagree. The RPD accepted the testimony and allegations of the Appellant and found that he would still not face a sufficient degree of forward-facing harm. The RPD did not make unjustified credibility conclusions that would call into question the application of the presumption of truthfulness. [14] The Appellant also argues that the RPD erred by not doing a section 97 analysis. I disagree. The RPD concluded that the Appellant would not face a serious possibility of persecution upon return. An even higher threshold of harm, on a balance of probabilities, is required to accept a claim under section 97, and clearly this is not the case here. The RPD did not err by not conducting a separate section 97 analysis. CONCLUSION [15] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee, nor a person in need of protection. (signed) Sasha Kiran Cragg-Gore Sasha Kiran Cragg-Gore August 17, 2020 Date 1Borubae v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), No. IMM-3026-17, Diner, February 5, 2018; 2018 FC 125, paragraph 21. 2Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145. 3 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 6, National Documentation Package (NDP) for UAE, 30 April 2018, item 3.1. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-06664 RAD.25.02 (January, 2020) Disponible en français 2 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel des réfugiés RAD.25.02 (January, 2020) Disponible en français