TC3-24693

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC3-24693 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Persons who are the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Date of decision September 13, 2023 Date de la décision Panel D. Thorne Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subject of the appeal Eduardo Oliveira Conseil des personnes en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] The Appellant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is a 27-year-old Mexican citizen who has appealed a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejecting his claim for refugee protection. For the reasons set out below, the appeal is dismissed. [2] The Appellant alleges that he fears persecution in Mexico at the hands of an unknown criminal organization that he suspects is the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (the "Cartel"). He states that in his hometown of Vera Cruz, he worked at a XXXX distribution company, where he XXXX a warehouse. The Appellant states that on XXXX XXXX and XXXX, 2022, armed men came to the warehouse looking for the owner of the company, D,1 saying that he had something for them. On the second day they forced him to call D, who did not answer. The Appellant states that the men started calling and threatening to kill him and his family, if they couldn't find D. There were three such calls over XXXX XXXX - XXXX, 2022. He states that he decided to report this to the police, but on XXXX XXXX, 2022 he was intercepted when he got off of the bus near the police station, and told not to go to the police, who the men said worked for them anyway. The Appellant states that he decided to flee, and that he went to his father's home in Veracruz, while his family went to the home of his wife's parents. He further states that on XXXX XXXX, 2022, one of his neighbors told him that they had seen people outside of his abandoned apartment looking for him. [3] He travelled to Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2022, though his family remained in Veracruz, and the Appellant claimed asylum at the airport. He states that on XXXX XXXX, 2022, his wife received a threatening call saying that the Appellant had a bill to pay and that the callers continued to look for him. [4] The RPD rejected the claim on the basis of credibility. It stated that it had serious credibility concerns with respect to the Appellant's key allegations, as it found that his evidence and testimony was replete with a series of contradictions, inconsistencies, and evolutions that he could not reasonably explain. In finding that he had not credibly established his allegations, the RPD specifically found that: (a) A series of minor inconsistencies between his testimony and what he had told the authorities at the Canadian border (CBSA) in relation to the company he had worked for in Mexico, while individually insignificant, collectively undermined his credibility and demonstrated his inability to provide consistent, credible information with respect to the basic facts of his employment; (b) The Appellant answered inconsistently and evasively when repeatedly questioned as to why he testified that he had fled from the Cartel because they believed he had stolen merchandise from them, but had instead told the CBSA that it was because the company he worked for in Mexico was involved in drug trafficking; (c) There were discrepancies between the Appellant's Basis of Claim (BOC) and his testimony before the Refugee Protection Division (RAD) as to what the Cartel members had said and done when they came to the Appellant's workplace in XXXX, 2022; (d) There were also discrepancies between the Appellant's BOC and his testimony before the RAD in relation to the number of times the Cartel had come to his abandoned home looking for him; (e) The Appellant was evasive and unable to reasonably explain why his sudden allegation during the hearing that Cartel men had also come to his home in XXXX 2022 had not been included in any of the BOC amendments he had submitted prior to the hearing; (f) The Appellant's testimony varied from the account in his BOC and amendments with respect to the date of the alleged call by the Cartel to his wife in 2022; and (g) Cumulatively, these findings led the RPD to hold that the Appellant was not a credible witness, that he had not credibly established the basis of his claim, and that he, therefore, was not a Convention2 refugee or person in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).3 [5] The Appellant has appealed the RPD's decision and is now asking that the RAD recognize him as a Convention refugee or person in need of protection, or that it refer the matter back to the RPD for redetermination.4 He is not seeking to submit new evidence, nor requesting an oral hearing before the RAD.5 He essentially argues that the RPD erred in its assessment of credibility as: (a) The RPD had engaged in a microscopic analysis of minor contradictions that the Appellant had reasonably explained with respect to both his employment and the discrepancies relating to what had been said in the incidents in the workplace; (b) There was no contradiction with respect to why the Cartel was seeking the Appellant, as he had given a wide range of possibilities in relation to the group's motivation; (c) The inconsistencies in relation to the frequency of the Cartel's visits to his home between his BOC and testimony were the result of the Appellant merely adding further details during the hearing; (d) The discrepancies related to dates of the threatening calls received by his wife were minor and revealed only a few days difference; and (e) As there were issues with several of the RPD's credibility findings, the decision was unreasonable and must not be allowed to stand. DETERMINATION [6] The RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the Decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection, pursuant to subsection 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. ROLE OF THE RAD [7] The Refugee Appeal Division reviews decisions of the RPD on a standard of correctness after conducting an independent assessment of the evidence before it.6 The exception to this rule is that the RAD may apply a deferential standard in certain circumstances where the RPD has a meaningful advantage in the assessment of credibility.7 I have conducted my own independent assessment of all of the evidence in this case, including the transcript and oral recording of the RPD hearing. I find the appropriate standard in this case to be one of correctness. ANALYSIS Summary [8] The RPD found that the central allegations of the Appellant were not credible, due to a series of inconsistencies, omissions and evolutions in his evidence that he could not reasonably explain. It held that these concerns refuted the presumption of truthfulness, and the RPD ultimately found that collectively, the identified credibility concerns undermined the credibility of the claim that he faced a risk to his life in Mexico. The RPD found that the Appellant was not a credible witness8 and that he had not credibly established the basis of his claim. [9] As noted below, while I do not agree with all of the findings of the RPD, on the whole, a review of the evidence indicates that it did not err in concluding that the Appellant and his allegations lacked credibility, and I agree with the RPD's findings in this regard. Accordingly, I find that he has not established that he is a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection, pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the IRPA, respectively. NO NEXUS TO A CONVENTION GROUND [10] Upon my own analysis of the evidence and record, I find that in this matter there is no nexus to a Convention ground, as the Appellant has not established that the reason for the harm that he alleges he suffered in Mexico was due to persecution relating to any of the grounds in the Convention. [11] As the Appellant was allegedly targeted by the Cartel in relation to the Cartel's criminal activities at his former workplace in Mexico, I instead find that the allegations made by the Appellant are essentially criminal in nature. I note that criminal acts generally do not establish a nexus to a Convention ground,9 unless the acts can be shown to have been motivated by an appellant's race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion. As, from the evidence, that was not the case in this matter, I accordingly find there is no nexus to any Convention ground. The Appellant is thus not a Convention refugee within the meaning of section 96 of the IRPA. Accordingly, I will now turn to analyzing the claim under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA, to determine if he is a person in need of protection under that provision. DETERMINATIVE ISSUE [12] As previously noted, the RPD made a series of findings which established that the central allegations of the Appellant were not credible. Credibility is, accordingly, the determinative issue in this appeal. THE RPD DID NOT ERR IN ITS CREDIBILITY FINDINGS The inconsistencies in relation to the Appellant's employers do not undermine his credibility [13] In its decision, the RPD held that the credibility of the Appellant's allegations was, in part, undermined as a result of three minor discrepancies between the Appellant's testimony and the information he gave the CBSA at the border, when he entered Canada. In particular, 1) the Appellant testified that he had worked for his former employer for ten years, while he told CBSA it had been eight, and when questioned by the RPD, he explained this discrepancy by saying that he had been nervous at the border;10 2) He testified before the RPD that the company he had worked for had employed 80 people, while he told CBSA there were twelve, but he later explained that he had misunderstood the question at the border, and had told them the number of people that he had supervised, not the total number who had worked at the business;11 and 3) When asked the address of the company, he testified that he could not remember the street number, though he did recite the name of the street.12 The RPD held that while each of these issues were minor and might not individually damage his credibility, collectively they did so, as they demonstrated the Appellant's inability to provide consistent credible information relating to the basic facts of his employment.13 [14] On appeal, the Appellant now argues that all of these are extremely minor inconsistencies, for which Appellant gave reasonable explanations, and that in ruling that they undermined his credibility, the RPD had engaged in unfairly microscopic analysis. [15] Upon my own review of the evidence in this matter, I do not find that these three inconsistencies undermine the credibility of the Appellant. While I do not agree with Appellant's declaration upon appeal that "eight years of work is approximately ten years"14 and the Appellant memorandum's claim that there was no contradiction on this front, I find that the three discrepancies noted are indeed extremely minor and were reasonably explained by the Appellant before the RPD. In my view, momentarily forgetting the street number of the company during a CBSA hearing is not overly suspicious, given that the Appellant was able to give name of the street where the company was located. Nor is misstating the length of his employment in a minor way, given that nothing turns on this fact. Finally, I accept as reasonable the Appellant's explanation that he had misunderstood the CBSA's question in listing the number of employees he supervised, as opposed to the total number of people who had worked for the company. In short, I agree that the RPD erred in these findings, and had engaged in a microscopic analysis with respect to them. I do not find, on a balance of probabilities, that these three inconsequential discrepancies undermine the credibility of the allegations of the Appellant. The discrepancies in relation to the alleged threatening call to his wife undermine the Appellant's credibility [16] I cannot say the same with respect to the Appellant's allegations that his wife received a threatening call on XXXX XXXX, 2022, weeks after he had departed to Canada. As the RPD noted in its Decision, in his final BOC narrative amendment of April 11, 2023 the Appellant declared that his wife in Mexico had received a single threatening call on XXXX XXXX, 2022, in which the unknown caller told her that they were looking for the Appellant because of an outstanding debt.15 However, in testimony, the Appellant stated that there had been multiple calls, that occurred in XXXX, 2022, in which the callers identified themselves as members of the "organized cartel" and told his wife that he owed the Cartel, and that she and their children would be killed if he did not pay them. [17] Upon appeal, the Appellant argues that this, too, was a minor discrepancy, saying that it was perhaps only a difference of a few days between the claim that the date of the call was in sometime in XXXX 2022, when it had actually been XXXX XXXX, 2022.16 [18] Upon review, the evidence in this matter does not support the Appellant's declaration that this was an inconsequential discrepancy. First, while the BOC amendment is clear in stating that the Appellant's wife received "a" single call,17 I note that in testimony, in addition to testifying that the date of the call was sometime in XXXX, 2022, the Appellant also seemed to indicate that there had been multiple calls to his wife.18 He testified that she received a number of calls, many of which she did not answer,19 but that she did answer "one or two",20 and that in them she and the children were threatened with death. He also testified that "In all the calls they would identity themselves as the organized cartel."21 [emphasis mine] The RPD asked the Appellant when these calls took place on three separate occasions in its questioning, and in each case the Appellant declared that they had been in XXXX 2022. When the RPD confronted him with the discrepancy in between this date and that stated in the BOC Amendment, the Appellant said only that it was "XXXX, XXXX, the following month. Believe me, it's difficult for me to remember every day."22 [19] I note that the Appellant filed his Amended BOC on April 11, 2023, which was only six days before his testimony at the hearing. Having detailed the threatening call in that document only a few days before testifying to the same events, I find, as did the RPD, that it would be reasonable to expect that he would be able to remember the particulars of such a disturbing event as his family being threatened with murder with clarity, when he was questioned. I do not find it reasonable that, under these circumstances, he would then testify to there having been a different number of calls, or that he would repeatedly mistake the date of the calls. Given that he testified that there was a maximum of only two such calls, I also do not find it reasonable that he would not have consistently remembered the details of the calls. As a result, I do not find these inconsistencies to be trivial, and do draw a negative credibility inference in relation to the Appellant's claim that his wife received the threatening calls as alleged. The discrepancies in relation to why the Appellant claimed the Cartel was pursuing him undermine his credibility [20] In its decision, the RPD also held that the credibility of the Appellant's allegations was further undermined by another inconsistency: that while he essentially testified at the hearing that he had fled to Canada because the Cartel believed he had stolen merchandise from them, in his CBSA point of entry interview, he instead said only that he had left Mexico because he learned that the company that had employed him in Mexico was involved in drug trafficking with the Cartel.23 The RPD noted that it had questioned the Appellant extensively on this issue, asking four separate times why he did not inform the CBSA that the Cartel had believed that he had stolen merchandise from them, as he had claimed before the RPD, and why he had instead told the CBSA only that his flight from Mexico was because the employer was involved in drug trafficking.24 It further noted that the Appellant had answered evasively each time: first providing a meandering explanation of how he came to suspect the company was involved in drug trafficking; second saying that he had not stolen from the cartel, though they believed this to be the case; and third saying the Cartel had threatened him with death and that he thinks they believe he has the merchandise. I note that none of these answers responded to the question of why he did not tell the CBSA that he believed the Cartel thought he had stolen from them, or had their merchandise, as opposed to telling them that the company was involved in drug trafficking. I note that the fourth time he was asked this, however, the Appellant finally admitted that he had omitted this information when speaking to CBSA, but that he then provided no explanation, other than saying that he didn't remember everything, and he had been sad about having left his family.25 [21] Upon appeal, the Appellant argues that in his testimony before the RPD, he had listed "a wide range of possibilities regarding the Cartel's motivation" (i.e. that they thought he had stolen from them, or knew where the merchandise was), and while the Amended BOC did give the impression the Cartel had believed his employer, D, had stolen from them and that they were threatening the Appellant in order to locate D, that this claim was not contradictory as he had mentioned a range of motivations.26 The Appellant's memorandum further argues that with respect to the contradiction of what he had told the CBSA, as opposed to the RPD (that he was pursued because his employer had been involved in drug trafficking versus being pursued because the Cartel believed he, personally, had stolen from them or knew where the merchandise was), this was not a contradiction as he had told the CBSA that he was being persecuted "because of the company's involvement in a drug scheme."27 It further argues that the RPD erred in concluding that the Appellant was persecuted because the Cartel thought he had stolen the merchandise.28 [22] I do not find these arguments persuasive. None of them address the central issue raised by the RPD: that the Appellant told the CBSA one thing (that he was persecuted because his employer was involved in drug trafficking), but the RPD another (that it was because the Cartel thought he had stolen from them or knew where the merchandise was). It is not enough for the Appellant's memorandum to now claim that there was really no difference or omission, as it had mentioned that the company was involved in drug trafficking. Vaguely saying this is quite different from later saying that he was believed to be in possession of, or had knowledge of the location of, stolen merchandise. In addition, I note that the fourth time the Appellant was asked about this in the hearing, he directly admitted that he had omitted the information about having been thought to have stolen or known where the merchandise was29 when he spoke to the CBSA, which directly contradicts the current contention upon appeal that there was no such omission. I also do not find that the RPD somehow erred in concluding that the Appellant was persecuted because the Cartel thought he had stolen merchandise. Indeed, the Appellant had directly testified that he believed that the Cartel thought this was the case, or that it thought he knew where the merchandise was.30 More importantly though, the issue is rather that the Appellant gave inconsistent accounts to the CBSA and later to the RPD in testimony as to why he was being persecuted by the Cartel. I find, on a balance of probabilities, that this was the case, and further, that these discrepancies as to the reason for his alleged persecution also undermine the credibility of the allegations of the Appellant. Certain of the discrepancies in relation to alleged incidents in the workplace also undermine the Credibility of the Appellant [23] The RPD also drew negative credibility inferences due to discrepancies related to the Appellant's account of his two encounters with the Cartel's men in the warehouse of his former employer. It noted that the Appellant's BOC narrative recorded that the first time that Cartel men came to the warehouse, they had asked to see D, but upon finding he was not there, they left without providing any further details. However, in testimony, the Appellant instead stated that on this occasion the men had asked about D and also said they were coming to pick up merchandise. Similarly, with respect to the second time the men had come to the warehouse, the Appellant testified that when this happened they had threatened him, and told him to find the merchandise they were looking for, but his BOC stated only that that they had brought him to the warehouse and threatened him, but it did not mention that they had demanded he locate the merchandise. The RPD found that these discrepancies undermined the Appellant's credibility.31 [24] On appeal, the Appellant argued that the RPD was again engaging in a microscopic analysis in these findings and stated that he had merely provided further detail as to these encounters in his testimony, rather than contradictory or inconsistent evidence.32 [25] Upon my review of the evidence, I agree with the Appellant that with respect to the second incident at the warehouse there is no inconsistency in the Appellant's having mentioned in testimony that in addition to threatening him, the men had ordered him to find the missing merchandise. I find that this is indeed merely providing more detail or fleshing out the account in the BOC, which stated that they had come and threatened him. In my view, it is reasonable to accept that the testimony about finding the missing merchandise merely revealed what the Appellant was threatened in relation to, and I do not find this to be an inconsistency. I agree that the RPD erred in finding that to be the case, and that it was engaging in microscopic analysis in doing so. [26] However, I find that in relation to the first encounter in the warehouse, the RPD did not err in finding the Appellant's accounts in the BOC and in his testimony to be inconsistent. Before the RPD, the Appellant testified that when the men came, they had asked for D and told the Appellant they were coming to get some merchandise that was in the warehouse.33 This contrasts with the account in the BOC narrative that states, in its entirely: On XXXX XXXX, 2022, when I was closing the warehouse around 7 pm, a truck stopped at the entrance. There were three men inside the truck, and they asked for XXXX. He was not there at the time. I asked their names, but they did not reply. They left without providing me with any further details. I noticed that two of them were wearing gloves, and one of them was wearing a bulletproof vest.34 [27] In this case, the additional allegation that the men had not only asked for D, but had also told the Appellant that they were coming to get merchandise from the warehouse is not merely a clarification or provision of further detail, but directly contradicts the BOC's account, which makes it clear that the men did not engage with the Appellant and, indeed, specifically declares that they provided him with no such details. I note that this was also the first encounter the Appellant allegedly had with the Cartel's men, and that it is reasonable to expect that this initial encounter would have been particularly memorable. As a result, I find that this inconsistency further undermines the credibility of the Appellant's allegations. The allegations with respect to the Cartel's visits to the Appellant's home undermine his credibility [28] The RPD drew further negative credibility inferences from the Appellant's evolving and conflicting evidence in relation to his claims that people from cartel had come looking for him at his apartment. It notes that the Appellant's BOC records that on XXXX XXXX, 2022, after the Appellant had gone to hide at his father's home, one of his neighbours called him to say that there were people outside of his apartment looking for. However, in testimony the Appellant stated that the neighbour had instead told him that these men had come to stake out his home for three or four consecutive days.35 When asked about this discrepancy, the Appellant stated only that it was difficult for him to remember every moment. The RPD rejected this explanation, finding that there was a clear inconsistency between the two accounts, and found that this also damaged his credibility. 36 [29] While the Appellant's memorandum again argues that the Appellant was merely adding additional detail in his testimony, I must disagree. I find instead that there is a clear discrepancy and evolution in the Appellant's evidence with respect to this matter. There is a significant, and obviously important distinction between indicating that his neighbour had informed him that men had passed by his apartment looking for him once, which was clearly the context established in the BOC, and the later claim that the men had instead come for three or four consecutive days, and had essentially staked out the building over that time. It is not reasonable that no indication of the repeated nature of these searches would have been given in his detailed BOC narrative. I find the Appellant's explanation that he had simply forgotten to include mention of these details in his BOC to not be persuasive or reasonable, and to this end, I also note that the Appellant has been represented by experienced counsel throughout his claim. I find that the Appellant's evidence in relation to this allegation evolved, and that on a balance of probabilities, the Appellant embellished this claim in order to bolster his asylum claim. I find that this, too, undermines both the credibility of this allegation, and that of his credibility generally. [30] Similarly, at the hearing Appellant also claimed, for the first time, that in XXXX 2022, Cartel members also broke into his home a few weeks after he had departed to Canada, only to find that no one was there. The RPD noted that this information had not previously been raised or included anywhere in his claim, including in his original BOC narrative and the multiple BOC amendments that the Appellant had filed prior to the hearing. It found that when questioned as to this, the Appellant gave a series of unreasonable and evolving explanations as to why this information had not previously been included, and the RPD ultimately drew an adverse credibility inference from this inconsistent testimony. [31] On appeal, the Appellant argues that having introduced this allegation at the hearing constituted merely adding additional detail to his narrative, and stated that he should be allowed to add detail, especially since he had been diagnosed with XXXX and XXXXdistress. As a result, the Appellant states that a negative credibility inference should not have been drawn. [32] I must disagree. I note that the issue is not only that the Appellant suddenly added this allegation at the hearing, but also that when he was questioned as to this, he gave a series of evolving - and at points contradictory - answers. In particular, when first asked why this allegation had not been included in any of his BOC narratives, the Appellant responded that this was the new information that he had stated at the outset of the hearing that he wanted to raise.37 Though his counsel had indeed said at the outset of the hearing that they wished to add additional information, the Appellant referring to this did not, in any way, answer the RPD's question. When the RPD asked the question a second time, the Appellant then essentially stated that his BOC narrative predated the XXXX 2022 event, and that the neighbour who had seen the men breaking into his house had initially refused to send the Appellant a letter providing evidence about the event.38 I note that the RPD then pointed out that it was not accurate that the BOC narrative had been submitted before the XXXX 2022 event, since the original BOC narrative was dated June 6, 2022. However, even after this, when the RPD then again asked why the information had not been in the BOC, the Appellant simply repeated that no one who had seen the event had been willing to provide a statement or letter in support of his claim. I note that this response again failed to answer the question. At this point, however, the Appellant's story changed, as he then stated that he had not originally known about the XXXX 2022 incident, but that he "found out about it months later when I got here [Canada], and changed my number [prior to that] I had no contact except with my own - with my family."39 I note that this response does not make sense, as the Appellant had already come to Canada by the time of the XXXX 2022 incident, since he left Mexico on XXXX XXXX, 2022. However, even putting that aside, I note that the RPD then asked the Appellant why, even if it had been the case that he had not learned of the XXXX 2022 incident until months later, this information had not been included in his BOC Amendment of January 27, 2023. The Appellant replied only that it had not been included in his narrative, but that he had proof. Upon further questioning by the RPD, he stated that the information was not included in his narrative "Because the proof was sent after XXXX 2023."40 Noting that the proof in question was apparently a document dated XXXX XXXX, 2023 that was then being submitted, the RPD asked again why this account had not at least been included in the most recent BOC Addendum, which was dated April 11, 2023, after the date of the letter. At this point, the Appellant stated that he did not know. [33] I find the Appellant's responses to this line of questioning evasive, and that his evidence in this regard clearly evolved. He initially indicated that the reason the information was not in the BOC was because this document predated the XXXX 2022 event, but when it was pointed out that this was not correct, given that the original BOC was from XXXX XXXX, 2022, the Appellant instead stated that those who had witnessed it had been unwilling to send a statement in regard to the incident. I note that this does not at all explain why the Appellant would have been unable to at least include mention of the event in his BOC narrative, even if he did not have the supporting document at that time or was in the process of obtaining it. No explanation was then provided to explain why, even after receiving the allegedly supporting document, on XXXX XXXX, 2023, the incident was not included in the succeeding XXXX XXXX, 2023 BOC amendment. As the RPD did, I find that it was reasonable to expect that mention of such a crucial incident - which indicated that the cartel was searching for him in XXXX 2022 - would have been provided in his materials and BOC narrative, even prior to or in lieu of his obtaining a corroborating letter from a witness. That this was never done, in addition to his late and sudden addition of this allegation, along with his evolving and evasive testimony in relation to this issue undermines the credibility of both this allegation, and that of the Appellant generally. In short, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that it is not reasonable that the Appellant would have failed to include mention of this account, were it true and I find that this evolving allegation was fabricated to bolster his refugee claim. I further note that this finding is significant, as it goes to the very heart of the Appellant's claim, since it is this evidence which indicated that the Cartel was supposedly searching for him back in XXXX 2022. That the allegations relating to this have been significantly undermined throws the foundation of the Appellant's entire claim - that he needed to flee from the Cartel at that time - into doubt. [34] I also note that while the Appellant's memorandum has blithely that stated that he should be able to add details to his narrative "especially when he was diagnosed with XXXX",41 the issue is not that he is or was being prevented from adding details to his narrative, but rather that he did not do so at any point prior to the hearing and had no reasonable explanation for this. Nor has the Appellant's memorandum explained or argued how or why his alleged mental condition may have prevented him from doing so. In fact, I note that the XXXX XXXX, 2023 XXXX letter, which indicates that the Appellant was first evaluated on XXXX XXXX, 2023, does not indicate that his memory has been impacted or the like.42 In any event, from the evidence of the Appellant, his omission of the information was not a matter of having forgotten about this incident due to his mental condition at any point. To the contrary, his given explanations were rather that either the XXXX 2022 event had post dated his BOC narratives (something which the RPD exposed as not being true) or that though he was aware of the event, since he directly testified it had been brought to his attention some months later,43 this information had simply not been provided in any of his Narratives or brought to the attention of the RPD until the date of the hearing itself. As noted, I have found that this has undermined the Appellant's credibility. [35] I note that as the Federal Court held in Olusola v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 799 (CanLII), the Maldonado presumption does not require the RPD (or the RAD) to accept as objectively true what an Appellant merely states or believes to be true. Indeed, the Federal Court has made clear that Maldonado establishes that that the testimony of an Appellant should be presumed to be true unless there is a reason for the decision maker to doubt that truthfulness. In this matter, I find that the RPD has set out a series of cogent reasons why it doubts that truthfulness, including the evidentiary inconsistencies and contradictory and evolving testimony of the Appellant, as noted above. Credibility Conclusion [36] Cumulatively, all of the credibility issues discussed lead me to find that, on a balance of probabilities, the Appellant's allegations of risk are not credible. I have also found that the credibility of the Appellant generally has been significantly undermined, and that his inconsistencies, contradictions and vague, evolving testimony rebut the presumption of truthfulness in respect of his claims of persecution. In my view, the significant lack of specificity and detail, as well as the inconsistencies and evolutions in his testimony in relation to key facts, as noted above, are indeed sufficient to result in a negative credibility inference being drawn with respect to the Appellant and his allegations. I also find that, except where I have specifically noted otherwise, the RPD did not err by engaging in a microscopic, overzealous or tangential analysis. As I have noted, there are a series of key discrepancies, omissions and evidentiary contradictions that have resulted in my finding of the Appellant's loss of credibility. [37] I find that the Appellant is not a credible witness and that it has not been credibly established by the Appellant that he became a target of the Cartel. Consequently, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that there is not sufficient credible evidence to establish that the Cartel has an interest in the Appellant or is seeking to harm him. Accordingly, I find that the Appellant does not face a serious possibility of persecution, nor, on a balance of probabilities, a risk to his life, or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or torture. CONCLUSION [38] For these reasons, and based upon my own analysis of the record, the appeal is dismissed. In accordance with subsection 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, I confirm the Decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection within the meaning of section 96 and subsection 97 of the IRPA. (signed) D. Thorne D. Thorne September 13, 2023 Date 1 Personal identifiers have been removed, except where necessary to explain the reasoning of this decision. 2 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, "Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status", under the 1951 Convention. 3 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, subs. 97(1). 4 Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at p. 16, para. 3. 5 Ibid., Written Statement, at p. 12, paras. 1 - 2. 6 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93, [2016] 4 FCR 157, at para. 103. 7 Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145, [2019] 2 FCR 597. 8 RPD Record, RPD Decision, at pp. 10 - 11, para. 23. 9 Kang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1128. 10 RPD Record, RPD Decision, at p. 5, para. 8. 11 Ibid., at p. 5, para, 9. 12 Ibid., at p. 5, para 10. 13 Ibid., at p. 6, para 12. 14 Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at pp. 21 - 22, para. 18. 15 RPD Record, RPD Decision, at p. 10, para. 21. 16 Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at p. 31, para. 59. 17 RPD Record, BOC Amendment of April 11, 2023, at p. 244, para. 2. 18 Transcript of April 17, 2023, RPD Hearing, at pp. 13 - 14. 19 Ibid., at p. 13. 20 Ibid., at p. 14. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid. 23 RPD Record, RPD Decision, at p. 7, para. 13. 24 Ibid., at pp. 6 - 7, para. 12. 25 Transcript of April 17, 2023, RPD Hearing, at p. 13. 26 Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at p. 25, para. 33. 27 Ibid., at p. 26, para. 36. 28 Ibid., at p. 28, para. 44. 29 Transcript of April 17, 2023 RPD Hearing, at p. 13. 30 Ibid., at p. 12. 31 RPD Record, RPD Decision, at pp. 7 - 8, paras. 14 - 16. 32 Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at p. 29, paras. 48 - 50. 33 Transcript of April 17, 2023, RPD Hearing, at p. 8. 34 RPD Record, BOC Narrative, at p. 25, para. 19. 35 Transcript of April 17, 2023 RPD Hearing, at pp. 10 - 11. 36 RPD Record, RPD Decision, at p. 8, para. 18. 37 Transcript of April 17, 2023, RPD Hearing, at p. 15. 38 Ibid. 39 Ibid., at p. 16. 40 Ibid., at p. 17. 41 Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum, at p. 30, para. 57. 42 RPD Record, April 6, 2023 Letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Services, at pp. 147 - 152. I note that while the letter does vaguely say that he displayed symptoms of the sort that may be related to XXXX XXXX XXXX (p. 149), it does not actually itself diagnose the Appellant with this condition, and nor does it state that he is suffering XXXX loss etc. 43 Transcript of April 17, 2023 RPD Hearing, at p. 16. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC3-24693 RAD.25.02 (August 20, 2021) 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 (August 20, 2021) Disponible en français