TB9-16938

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-16938 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 Montreal, QC Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision September 9, 2020 Date de la décision Panel Rouba Al-Salem Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Kristina Cooke 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] XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (Appellant) is a citizen of Venezuela. She is appealing a decision by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), on June 7, 2019, rejecting her refugee protection claim.1 The Appellant alleges that she fears returning to Venezuela because she would be persecuted by government authorities and by the Colectivos because of her participation in anti-government student marches, her membership in the party Accion Democratica (Democratic Action (AD) party) and because of volunteering for a program on a student radio station XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.2 [2] The Appellant left Venezuela on XXXX XXXX, 2017, and arrived in Toronto, Canada, the following day.3 She filed for refugee protection at the end of October 2017.4 [3] In its decision, the RPD concluded that the Appellant failed to establish that she has a well-founded fear of persecution on a Convention ground under section 96 of Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), or that she is a person in need of protection under section 97 of the same act.5 The RPD found that the Appellant did not establish, on a balance of probabilities, her profile as an anti-government activist who has been targeted by pro-government actors, including members of the Colectivos, because of her political opinion.6 [4] The panel highlighted several reasons for this decision. Firstly, it found that there were significant credibility issues with respect to the evidence provided by the Appellant in support of her political profile and with respect to events of alleged persecution by the government that constitute central aspects of her claim.7 Secondly, the panel pointed out that the Appellant did not have any problems leaving Venezuela on her own validly issued passport, an indication that the government is not seeking her out. Nor did she testify that her family members who stayed behind in Venezuela had any problems since she left.8 Thirdly, the panel pointed out that she was not in a particular rush to leave Venezuela, having had an visa issued for entry to Canada in early XXXX 2017, but only leaving the country in XXXX of the same year.9 Fourthly, the panel found that she does not qualify as a Convention refugee by just having participated in demonstrations against the regime, but falls under the same risk as the millions of people who participate in these demonstrations.10 As a result, the panel found that the Appellant did not establish that as a student volunteer in protests organized by Accion Democratica, she has a political profile that would create a heightened risk for her in Venezuela beyond the risks faced by all protestors, demonstrators and students involved in anti-Maduro activities, who may be randomly affected by the government's response to anti-government protests.11 [5] On appeal, Ms. XXXX XXXX submits that the RPD failed to fully and properly consider the Appellant's claim based on her political opinion.12 Given that the RPD accepted that the Appellant was involved in political activities, and notwithstanding the RPD's credibility concerns, she submits that the panel had more than a sufficient basis to conclude that that she had a profile that would put her at risk of persecution on a forward-looking basis.13 In addition, she submits that the objective country documentation underscores that by simply expressing an anti-government political opinion (imputed or otherwise), the Appellant is placed within a group of people who would face a serious possibility of persecution.14 DECISION [6] I dismiss the appeal. The RPD was correct in finding that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. BACKGROUND [7] According to the Appellant, her father was persecuted by Venezuelan authorities for his anti-government opposition.15 He fled the country and filed a refugee protection claim in Canada, which was granted in 2009.16 In XXXX 2017, the Appellant's sponsorship by her father was approved, and an immigration visa was issued for the Appellant in XXXX 2017.17 After her visa had been issued, the Appellant married her boyfriend in XXXX 2017, without informing her father,18 and alleged that she was not aware that this would affect her continued eligibility for sponsorship.19 Upon arrival at the airport in Canada, she was informed she was no longer eligible for permanent residence under the family class sponsorship.20 She then filed a refugee protection claim. [8] The Appellant arrived in Canada, from Venezuela, in XXXX 2017. Her husband left Venezuela a few months later and entered Canada from the USA on XXXX XXXX, 2017.21 Their claims were jointly heard by the RPD, pursuant to rule 55 of the RPD rules,22 before they were rejected. On August 15, 2019, the RAD dismissed the appeal of the Appellant's husband for lack of jurisdiction, because the appeal is in respect of a decision by the RPD for which no appeal may be made under paragraph 110(2)d) of IRPA, given that he came directly from the USA. NEW EVIDENCE [9] The Appellant submitted the following documents as new evidence: * "Guidance Note on International Protection Considerations for Venezuelans-Update I," by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) (May 2019) (thereafter Exhibit A) * "Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the Situation of Human Rights in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela," (OHCHR), (July 5, 2019) (thereafter Exhibit B). Analysis [10] According to the law,23 I can only accept evidence that (i) arose after the RPD decision; or (ii) was not reasonably available at the time of the decision; or (iii) that the Appellant could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to bring to the RPD before the decision. If the evidence meets one or more of these requirements, I must decide if the evidence is new, credible, and relevant before I can accept it.24 [11] In her Memorandum of Appeal, the Appellant submits that the documents were published either substantially close or subsequent to the sittings of the hearing into the Appellant's claim and that, therefore, they were not reasonably available prior to the hearing into the claim for refugee protection. [12] I disagree with the Appellant. Exhibit A was issued before the date of the RPD's rejection of the claim. It was reasonably available at the time of the decision in English. Given that it needed no translation, I also find that the Appellant could reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to bring to the RPD before the decision. I do not find that it meets any of the criteria of subsection 110(4) of IRPA and therefore do not admit it into evidence. [13] With respect to Exhibit B, the report features as item 2.14 in the updated national documentation package (NDP) on Venezuela (31 March 2020). Hence, it is part of the evidence before the RAD and does not constitute new evidence. REQUEST FOR AN ORAL HEARING [14] The Appellant has requested an oral hearing.25 However, according to subsection 110(6) of IRPA, I can only hold a hearing if there is documentary evidence that that was accepted as new evidence. Since I have not accepted any of the documents into evidence, the RAD does not have the discretion to hold an oral hearing, and the request is denied. ANALYSIS [15] My role is to look at all the evidence and decide if the RPD made the correct decision.26 [16] For the following reasons, I find that the RPD was correct in its conclusion that the Appellant was not credible with respect to her political identity or profile as a member of the Accion Democractica Party, and that, based on the totality of the evidence, she did not establish that she has a well-founded fear of persecution due to her anti-government opposition and political views (imputed or otherwise). 1. Concerning the RPD's findings that the Appellant was not credible with respect to her political profile and events that constitute central aspects of her claim (a) Her Political Profile as Member of Accion Democratica [17] In her written testimony, the Appellant stated that she joined the AD party in 2015.27 [18] In its decision, the RPD drew an adverse finding concerning the credibility of the Appellant's political party membership card, and that of her husband's, because of differences that the panel observed between the appearance of these cards: although the Appellant and her husband testified that both cards were allegedly issued in February 2015 at the same location,28 the Appellant's card had a stamp on the back of it, while her husband's did not.29 In addition, the inkjet colour differed on each of the emblems at the top left corner of each of the membership cards, and the size of the photographs used on these graphs was also different.30 The panel therefore concluded that these discrepancies undermined the Appellant's allegation that she was a member of the aforementioned political party or that she was legitimately issued a card at all.31 [19] On appeal, the Appellant states that although the panel casts aspersions on the legitimacy of the membership card, it made no clear finding as to whether it believed the Appellant was a member of the said political party or not.32 [20] With respect to the membership card, the Appellant testified that she decided to register with the party because it matched her political ideas. When the RPD asked the Appellant what she had to do to apply for the card, she responded that she just had to go there and register to get the card issued on the spot, after providing a picture which she readily had available in her wallet.33 The panel also noted another discrepancy: while the Appellant testified that once she provided the photo, the card was created, laminated and then provided to her on the spot,34 her husband testified that he took his membership card to laminate himself.35 [21] Furthermore, the RPD found that the Appellant, or her husband, did not provide a reasonable explanation for the notable differences between the cards.36 In this regard, the Appellant testified that the party administrator's are unsophisticated and that everyone's card is different because they are made manually and "they don't follow a procedure or protocol to print this."37 When asked about the discrepancy, the Appellant's husband also testified that it could have been a human error, or that it could have been that they were out of ink.38 [22] With respect to the identity card, I note that according to a response for information request (RIR), the Accion Democratica membership card provides the name of the party, the first and last name of the member, the date of the card's issuance, the card number and the issuing authority, which is the one that signs the card (AD June 8, 2019).39 However, this is not the case with the membership card of the Appellant that was submitted on evidence, which has an expiry date listed in addition to a date of issue. I can also clearly see that the sizes of the pictures are different. [23] Moreover, I agree with the RPD's findings that the explanation which the Appellant provided for the differences in the way the membership card look is not reasonable. I also do not find that they are supported by the information in the objective country documentation on Venezuela. According to the same RIR, the applicant must fill out an official form at the local branch. Subsequently, the requirements and procedures are reviewed, processed, and administratively approved by the Secretary General of the local branch before being sent to the confidential national registry of party membership which is managed by the National Executive Committee in Caracas.40 This, I find, supports the RPD's conclusion that on a balance of probabilities the procedure for obtaining the membership cards is more rigorous and sophisticated than what the Appellant and her husband allege, and that "a political opposition group allegedly under attack by Colectivos and government officials would take some care in creating membership cards and researching individuals who apply for these cards to ensure that they are not being infiltrated by government and police."41 I find that the panel then correctly concluded that the discrepancies undermined the Appellant's allegations that she has a profile as a member of the AD party.42 (b) The Credibility of the Appellant's Testimony with respect to Events that are central to her claim [24] The RPD also concluded that -with the exception of being hit by a tear gas canister fired by security forces into the demonstration in which she participated during June 2017-, the Appellant failed to establish that pivotal events in Venezuela, which are central to her claim, occurred as she alleged, including her claim that she was abused by the police on the day that she was hit by a tear gas canister, and that she fabricated those allegations to bolster her claim.43 The panel reached this conclusion either because of omissions by the Appellant or because of material inconsistencies between her testimony and that of her husband. [25] The first incident relates to the demonstration (June 29, 2017) in which the Appellant was allegedly injured by a tear gas canister that was fired into the crowd of demonstrators, and which injured her XXXX XXXX. In her written narrative, the Appellant stated that during this event, she and other students were beaten by the police.44 In this regard, the panel drew an adverse credibility finding from the Appellant's failure to mention in her testimony, that she had been beaten by the police and that her husband's testimony with respect to his wife's participation in the demonstration (which he attended with her) also failed to mention the police beating which she allegedly endured prior to the tear gas canister injury.45 [26] I agree with the RPD's finding. When the panel asked the Appellant to elaborate on the threats which she faced in 2017, she only elaborated vis-à-vis threats she had allegedly received on July 11 and August 2017.46 With respect to the first event (July 11, 2017), the Appellant stated that on that day, an unknown person handed her a note in the student cafeteria that said people with big mouths should be decapitated. According to the Appellant, this threat can only emanate from government, because "students do not threaten each other" and because even if there are pro-government students, they would not say so because the majority of the student body supports the opposition.47 She did not mention that she was beaten by the police on June 29, 2017. Similarly, during his testimony, the Appellant's husband does not mention that on the day his wife was injured by tear gas when they were demonstrating, that she had been beaten by the police.48 When the RPD inquired with him if his wife had been beaten by the police during that event he responded that she had not, and that they were able to escape without any altercation with the police or government troops.49 [27] With respect to the second event (August 25, 2017), the Appellant alleged that, as she was exiting the AD party building, two national police officers came out and started beating some people, then a woman took her by the hair and hit her with a stick. This, she stated, resulted in a XXXX XXXX for which she was hospitalized.50 [28] In his testimony, her husband provided a different account. He stated that the Appellant was attacked by one of the police officers, a woman, that they were not part of the Colectivos, that they started attacking her verbally (calling her opposition and fascist) and physically, and that it was only when people from the neighbourhood started yelling that the police let her go.51 In addition, he testified that she was the only one that was being assaulted.52 However, when the RPD then read out his wife's testimony to him, he changes his testimony to say that he meant to say that two people were attacked and that it may have been an error in the interpretation by the translator and that he did not understand the question.53 [29] I agree with the RPD that his answer does not reasonably explain the internally inconsistencies between the two joined claimants.54 This is because the RPD asked him directly whether his wife, the Appellant, had been beaten by the police during the event of June 29, 2017 and he replied that she was not, alleging that she was beaten on June 20, 2017 instead.55 In this regard, I recall that when a claim has been joined to another claim, a finding of lack of credibility in respect of one claimant's evidence and testimony could have a negative impact on another claimant when the claims are linked to the same event or one is dependent on the other.56 [30] In addition, I agree with the RPD that if the August 25, 2017 event was a central allegation of their claims, it was also reasonable for the panel to expect the Appellant's husband to describe this incident to the Canadian Immigration Officer who interviewed him in XXXX 2017 on entering Canada. The existence of contradictions or inconsistencies in the evidence of a claimant or witness is a well-accepted basis for a finding of lack of credibility. These considerations apply as well to omissions in the claimant's previous statements, even those made to Canadian immigration officials (at the port of entry or inland).57 [31] In this regard, the Immigration officer asked him if there were other incidents central to his claim that occurred prior to having been allegedly assaulted in September 2017.58 In response, the Appellant's husband only mentioned that he and the Appellant attended a political rally together and that she was injured by the tear gas canister.59 He also mentioned that in October 2017, his family discovered that his home in Venezuela had been ransacked.60 However, he made no mention of the Appellant's alleged assault in August 2017. When the RPD inquired why he made no mention of this event in his interview, the Appellant's husband responded that it was because he was nervous.61 In its decision, the RPD does not accept it as reasonable that he would forget a pivotal event, namely a violent assault on his wife by police officers, due to nervousness.62 I find that if this was an event central to the Appellant's claim, it was reasonable for the RPD to expect her husband to make references to it in his interview with Immigration authorities. [32] In its decision the RPD also pointed out that even though the Appellant's mother was present in Venezuela when all of these events occurred, and had taken pictures of her daughter's XXXX XXXX at the hospital, and was currently residing in Canada, she did not testify at the RPD hearing .63 Given that the panel then drew a negative inference from a lack of a testimony by the Appellant's mother. The lack of documentary corroboration, or a lack of effort to obtain documentation, can be a valid consideration in assessing credibility.64 [33] In her submission, Counsel stated that the final decision, of whether to call a particular person as a witness, is for Counsel to make, and that it would be made based on what light the witness might shed on a particular subject, and concerning how appropriate she would be to act as witness given that she may be very nervous. Counsel also argued that ultimately, the fact that the Appellant's mother did not testify is not ground to find the Appellant not credible,65 and that there may be different reasons why the Appellant chose not to call a witness, such as that her mother might be nervous or babble.66 [34] While I agree with Counsel that the Appellant is not obliged to have another individual testify to the credibility of her allegations -and that Counsel may have valid reasons for not asking the mother to testify-, when there are valid reasons to question a claimant's credibility, the RPD can require documentary evidence corroborating those allegations. Hence, I find that it was reasonable for the panel to expect the Appellant to make a reasonable effort to substantiate her claim with evidence, as she resided with her in Venezuela during the time that all of these events allegedly took place. And while I agree with the Appellant that her mother's testimony does not necessarily have to come in the form of appearing as a witness, I find that the Appellant could have provided evidence in the form of an affidavit from her mother to corroborate her allegations. Here, I also find that it would have been more suitable for the RPD to seek clarifications from the Appellant herself as to why her mother did not testify in support of her claim, rather than addressing this question to her husband.67 [35] Furthermore, I agree with the panel that although the Appellant provided a medical note, this note merely established that the Appellant injured XXXX XXXX XXXX August 25, 2017 and was in need for plastic surgery.68 It does not corroborate her allegations that the injury was caused by an assault, police or otherwise..69 I therefore agree with the RPD"s conclusion that the report, and given the lack of any other reliable corroborating evidence of an assault by police officers on the Appellant, does not allow her to credibly establish her claim that she was assaulted by government authorities or pro-government individuals on August 25, 2017. 2. No rush in leaving Venezuela [36] In its decision, the RPD pointed out that she was not in a rush to leave Venezuela, having had a visa issued for entry to Canada in early XXXX 2017, but only leaving the country in XXXX of the same year.70 While the Appellant did not challenge this finding on appeal, I nevertheless do not find that the RPD was correct in drawing a negative inference from this, given that it did not ask the Appellant during the hearing for an explanation about the delay in leaving Venezuela. I therefore do not draw a negative inference from her delay in leaving Venezuela. 3. Residual elements of her profile [37] In its decision, the RPD concluded that the evidence in its totality provided by the Appellant does not establish that she held any position of profile in the AD party, if she were a member at all, nor that she has a heightened risk profile due to her political profile with the AD if she returned to Venezuela.71 Nor according to the panel, did the Appellant establish that due to her involvement in the university student council or her volunteering in marketing, research and social media at the radio station, these activities gave rise to a heightened risk profile.72 [38] The RPD also found that the Appellant does not qualify as a Convention refugee by just having participated in demonstrations against the regime. Instead, the panel determined that she fell under the same risk as the millions of people who participate in demonstrations against the government.73 In support of its conclusion, the panel highlighted that the Appellant is not part of categories that are at high risk of persecution by the government, such as human rights defenders and social workers which are alluded to by the independent documentary evidence on Venezuela.74 [39] In support of its conclusion, the panel pointed out that the documentary evidence and submissions of Counsel do not establish that there is an objective basis for the Appellant's allegations. According to the panel, Counsel relied on a report by the US Department of State which states that sometimes demonstrations are not met with the same widespread violence in 2017. Consequently, the RPD concluded that the tone of the analysis in the source indicates that a more measured response to dissent is being implemented by Venezuelan authorities.75 It also pointed out that amongst millions of protestors, there have been some innocent deaths and many wounded, with an estimated 43 deaths in 2015 and 1500 detentions.76 [40] In her submissions to the RPD, Counsel argues that even if the Board finds some of the evidence not to be credible, it must go on to consider whether there remains a residuum of reliable evidence to support a well-founded fear of persecution.77 In addition, she submits that the Appellant is similarly situated to demonstrators/protestors against the Venezuelan government, and who are at risk of being targeted by government authorities regardless of whether or not they are leaders. In addition, Counsel argues that although sources (US Department of State) in the objective documentary evidence on Venezuela point out that the government generally refrains from resorting to widespread and violent responses against protests, there have been in some cases fatal responses used to quash the 2017 protests, including arbitrary detention and heavy handed police tactics, and that country documentation submitted by the Appellant also attests that violence is used to respond to demonstrations.78 [41] On appeal, the Appellant submits that, even if the RPD disbelieves that the Appellant was a member of a political party, or had faced past instances of persecution, the panel's finding that she holds opinions opposed to the government and had attended political demonstrations, supported by the independent documentary evidence on Venezuela, provides more than a sufficient basis for the panel to find that the Appellant has established a profile that she is at a risk of persecution on a forward-looking basis, because she is part of social group who face a serious risk of persecution, namely those holding and expressing opinions dissenting and critical of the Venezuelan government.79 [42] I have assessed whether the Appellant has demonstrated that her profile as a political dissident against the regime would lead to a serious risk of persecution if she were to return to Venezuela. Here, I agree with the RPD that the Appellant did not establish that she did not hold any position in the political party that she alleges to be a member of.80 During the RPD hearing, the Appellant testified to that regard, stating that "I was simply a volunteer [and that] I was assisting, helping."81 Furthermore, in her submissions, Counsel also admitted that there were credibility issues at the hearing, such as the inability of the Appellant to list the duties she performed as an alleged coordinator for the demonstrators.82 This is in addition to my previous finding that the RPD was correct in its conclusion that the discrepancies surrounding her political party membership card undermined the Appellant's credibility that she was a member of the party. [43] I have also assessed her other activities. In this regard, the documents submitted by the Appellant indicate that she participated as a member of the student board at the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX where she studied, in activities that sought to improve the quality of less fortunate communities since 2014.83 It also indicates that she was volunteering in the areas of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for the radio station XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX since 2016.84 However, I agree with the RPD's findings that these activities are consistent with her university XXXX program.85 Here, the panel also underscored that there is no evidence before it that, on a balance of probabilities, the content of the radio broadcasts gave rise to a problem for any of the other workers who were more visible at the radio station.86 And while the Appellant submitted a newspaper article which states that one student XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the radio-station was murdered by social rebels,87 and argued that because his throat was slit, it was the government that killed him and not gangs,88 I do not find that she has persuasively established those allegations with the evidence that she has provided. [44] In addition, I find that the RPD was correct in its conclusion that nothing in the totality of the evidence submitted by the Appellant suggests that, on a balance of probabilities, she was being targeted by Venezuelan authorities or Colectivos because of these activities, or that there is a serious possibility that she would be persecuted by them in the future as a result of that involvement.89 The panel also underscored that the Appellant and her husband did not have any problems leaving Venezuela on their own validly issued passports, an indication that the government is not seeking them out.90 I find that the RPD was correct with respect to its finding. According to an RIR, part of the updated NDP on Venezuela, people who are targeted or wanted by the government risk their passports declared as lost or cancelled by Venezuelan authorities, thereby rendering them unable to leave the country.91 The Appellant did not allege that she encountered any such difficulties or that she was being targeted because of her connections to her father. [45] I have also examined the independent documentary evidence to assess whether there is an objective basis for the Appellant's claim that she would be persecuted if she were to return to Venezuela. With respect to sources in the most recent version of the NDP on Venezuela (July 2020), I have disclosed it to the Appellant, and received further submissions from the Appellant.92 According to these sources, it appears that hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans demonstrate against the government. Social and political unrest began to intensify as of 2013, with the participation of broad, cross-section of Venezuelan society. In 2017, an estimated 9,700 protests took place in 2017, 12,715 in 2018, and 9,715 between January and May 2019.93 [46] During that period and at present, certain groups were and are the target of repressive policies, intimidation, threats, arbitrary detention, illegal house-raids and ill-treatment because of their political opinions and activities, imputed or otherwise,94 in order to neutralize or in some cases eliminate opponents or those perceived as such.95 These include political opposition, organizers of demonstrations, human rights activists and journalists.96 In 2018-2019, Venezuelan trade union leaders and workers were also reportedly fired or detained after protesting decent salaries and work conditions, while dozens of healthcare professionals who denounced the state of the healthcare were also dismissed or arbitrarily detained.97 Moreover, human rights defenders were subject to surveillance, intimidation, harassment, threats and arbitrary detention.98 Several deputies of the National Assembly have in 2019 been stripped of their parliamentary immunity.99 [47] However, the Appellant has not established that she is part of any of these social groups or that she has a political profile of the nature that would attract the risks and harm outlined in objective documentation. Nor has she credibly established that the events which she alleges to have taken place (with the exception of being randomly targeted by the tear gas canister when participating in the demonstration), and which are central to her claim, took place in the manner that she claims. She does not allege previous attempts by Venezuelan authorities to arrest or detain her, nor has she credibly established that they have threatened her with harm if she to demonstrate and to hold anti-government views. Furthermore, I note that with respect to the tear gas canister, another source in the updated NDP (the Organization of American States), points out that tear gas has been deployed indiscriminately against protestors, and that government authorities have adopted measures that seek to discourage participation in protests and punish those who protest.100 [48] And although the same source in the NDP does indicate that during certain political protests, state and municipal police forces have used excessive force deliberately to instill fear and discourage demonstrations, and that many demonstrators were arbitrarily detained and ill-treated and tortured, particularly in 2017, and that protestors can be charged with crimes under various laws,101 these sources have also indicated that in 2019, security forces did not resort to excessive force during all demonstrations.102 Between January and May 2019, OHCHR documented 66 deaths, and an estimated 793 that remained arbitrarily detained at the end of this period, with an estimated 1,437 persons that have been released unconditionally and an estimated 8,590 that have been conditionally released.103 Thus, while I find that there is evidence of excessive use of force by government authorities against protestors in the context of some demonstrations, I do not find that the Appellant has established her allegation that by the mere fact of having demonstrated against the government, and holding an anti-government political opinion,104 and in the absence of a political profile that renders her a person of interest to the Venezuelan authorities, there is a serious possibility that the level of harm that she would face, would rise to the level of persecution by government authorities or by Colectivos if she were to return to Venezuela. CONCLUSION [49] 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. Rouba Al-Salem Rouba Al-Salem September 9, 2020 Date 1 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD decision, at para. 82. 2 RPD-1, RPD Record, Appellant's narrative attached to her Basis of Claim (BoC) form, at paras 7 and 10. RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD decision, at paras 5 and 8. 3 RPD-1, RPD Record, Appellant's BoC, item 2(e). RPD-1, RPD Record, Appellant's Schedule A, item 10(b). 4 RPD-1, RPD Record, Appellant's BoC, item 11. 5 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD decision, at para. 81. 6 Ibid, at para. 80. 7 Ibid, at para. 17. 8 Ibid, at para. 43. 9 Ibid, at para. 44. 10 Ibid, at para. 78. 11 Ibid, at para. 31. 12 P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum of Appeal, at para. 7. 13 Ibid, at para. 23. 14 Ibid, at paras 26 and 35. 15 RPD-1, RPD Record, Appellant's written narrative at para. 1. 16 RPD-1, RPD Record, Appellant's BoC, item 6. 17 RPD-1, RPD Record, Appellant's BoC, item 7. 18 RPD-1, RPD Record, written narrative at para. 15. RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5 submitted by the Appellant to the RPD. 19 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD decision, at para. 7. 20 RPD-1, RPD Record, Appellant's written narrative at para. 21. RPD-1, RPD Record. Appellant's Generic Application form, item 10. RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD decision, at para. 8. 21 RPD-1, RPD Record, Schedule 12 of the Appellant's husband, submitted to the RPD, item 10 (b). RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD decision, at para. 11. 22 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD decision, at para. 2. 23 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, ss. 110(4). 24 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration v. Singh, 2016 FCA 96; Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Raza FC 385 25 P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum of Appeal, at para. 18. 26 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145 27 RPD-1, RPD Record, Appellant's written narrative, at para. 7. 28 RAD-1, Transcript of the RPD oral hearing (January 29, 2019), at p. 17. 29 RAD-1, Transcript of the RPD oral hearing (January 29, 2019), at p. 18, 30 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD decision, at para. 24. 31 Ibid, at paras. 22 and 28. 32 P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum of Appeal, at para. 23. 33 RAD-1, Transcript of the RPD oral hearing (January 29, 2019), at p. 18. 34 Ibid. 35 RAD-1, Transcript of the RPD oral hearing (May 27, 2019), at p. 33. RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD decision, at para. 26. 36 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD decision, at para. 25. 37 RAD-1, Transcript of RPD oral hearing (January 29, 2019), at p. 30. 38 RAD-1, Transcript of RPD oral hearing (May 27, 2019), at p. 33. 39 RAD-2, National Document Package (NDP), Venezuela (July 2020), item 4.19: RIR (VEN 105828.E), "Venezuela: The Democratic Action (Accion Democratica) political party, including ideology, objectives, structure, key positions, and leadership; requirements and procedures to become a member; appearance of membership cards; treatment by authorities (2013-June 2017)," (June 27, 2017), at p. 4. 40 Ibid, (VEN 105828.E), "Venezuela: The Democratic Action (Accion Democratica)" (June 27, 2017) at p. 4. 41 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD decision, at para. 28. 42 Ibid, at para. 28. 43 Ibid, at paras 46-54. 44 Ibid, at para. 45. RPD-1, RPD Record, The Appellant's written narrative, at para. 13. 45 Ibid, at para. 45. 46 RAD-1, Transcript of RPD oral hearing (January 29, 2019), at p. 13. 47 RAD-1, Transcript of RPD oral hearing (January 29, 2019), at p. 14. 48 RPD-1, RPD Record, Appellant's husband's written narrative attached to his BoC, at para. 5. 49 RAD-1, Transcript of the RPD oral hearing (May 27, 2019), at p. 21. 50 RPD-1, RPD Record, Appellant's written narrative, at para. 17. RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD decision at para. 6. 51 RAD-1, Transcript of the RPD oral hearing (May 27, 2019), at p. 22. 52 RAD-1, Transcript of the RPD oral hearing (May 27, 2019), at end of p. 23 and beginning of p. 24. RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD decision, at para. 52. 53 RAD-1, Transcript of the RPD oral hearing (May 27, 2019), at p. 24. 54 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD decision, at para. 51. 55 RAD-1, Transcript of the RPD oral hearing (May 27, 2019), at p. 21 56 Colorado, Jesus Enrique Cornejo v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2629-99), Nadon, April 20, 2000. 57 Dehghani v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1990] 3 F.C. 587 (C.A.). 58 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD decision, at para. 54. 59 RPD-1, RPD Record, "RIPC- Examining Officer Notes," (December 8, 2017) submitted by the Appellant to the RPD at p. 6 out of 8. 60 RPD-1, RPD Record, "RIPC- Examining Officer Notes," (December 8, 2017) submitted by the Appellant to the RPD at p. 7 out of 8. 61 RAD-1, Transcript of the RPD oral hearing (May 27, 2019), at pp. 27-28. 62 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD decision, at para. 55. 63 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD decision, at para. 49.RAD-1, Transcript of the RPD oral hearing (May 27, 2019), at p. 25. 64 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD decision, at para. 50. 65 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 15, Counsel written submissions to the RPD, at para. 20. 66 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD decision, at para. 50. 67 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD decision, at para. 49. RAD-1, Transcript of the RPD oral hearing (May 27, 2019), at p. 25. 68 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 7, item 2 of a medical report from the Orthopedic Hospital (dated August 25, 2017) submitted by the Appellant to the RPD. 69 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD decision, at para. 56. 70 Ibid, at para. 44. 71 Ibid, at para. 43. 72 Ibid, at para. 70. 73 Ibid, at para. 78. 74 Ibid, at paras 74-75 75 Ibid, at para. 76. 76 Ibid, at para. 77. 77 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 15 submitted by the Appellant to the RPD. Submission by Counsel, at para. 10. 78 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 15 submitted by the Appellant to the RPD. Submission by Counsel, at paras 31-33. 79 P-2, Appellant's Record, Appellant's Memorandum of , at paras. 22-23, 25-26 and 28. 80 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD decision, at para. 30. 81 RAD-1, Transcript RPD oral hearing (January 29, 2019), at p. 20. 82 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 15, further submissions by Counsel to the RPD, at para. 18. 83 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 7, item 3 submitted by the Appellant to the RPD. 84 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 7, item 4 submitted by the Appellant to the RPD. 85 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD decision, at para. 70. 86 Ibid, at para. 71. 87 RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 10 submitted by the Appellant to the RPD, entitled "News Webpage article about XXXX XXXX XXXX student murdered XXXX/XXXX/2016." 88 RPD-1, RPD Record, Appellant's written narrative, at para. 7. 89 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD decision, at para. 71. 90 RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD decision, at para. 43. RPD oral hearing (January 29, 2019) at p. 27. 91 RAD-2, NDP, Venezuela (July 2020), item 14.1: RIR (VEN 105967.E),"Venezuela: Information on the Requirements and Procedures to leave Venezuela by land, air and sea, including whether a person who is targeted or wanted by the government or a Colectivo is able to leave; information on the impact of currency inflation on the ability to leave the country (2015-August 2017)," (August 31, 2017), at pp. 11-12. This was available to the Appellant during the RPD hearing under the same item of the NDP (May 31, 2018). 92 RPD-3 further submissions by the Appellant to the RAD (September 4, 2020). 93 RAD-2, NDP, Venezuela (March 2020), item 2.14: UN OHCHR, "Human Rights in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela," (A/HRC/4/18) (July 5, 2019), at para. 39. It was also submitted by the Appellants as new evidence. 94 Ibid, item 2.14, at para. 32. RAD-2, NDP, Venezuela (July 2020), item 4.13, Amnesty International, "Hunger for Justice: Crimes against Humanity," (May 14, 2019) refererred to by the Appellants in their further submissions RPD-3 at p. 2. 96 RAD-2, NDP, Venezuela (March 2020), item 9.1: UN OHCHR, "Human Rights in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela," (A/HRC/4/18) (July 5, 2019) at para. 34, ICJ, "The Supreme Court of Justice in Venezuela: An Instrument of the Executive Branch," (August 2017), at p. 52. This was available to the Appellant during the RPD hearing under the same item of the NDP (May 31, 2018). 97 Supra note 92, UN OHCHR, "Human Rights in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela," (A/HRC/4/18) (July 5, 2019), at para. 36. 98 Supra note 92, UN OHCHR, "Human Rights in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela," (A/HRC/4/18) (July 5, 2019), at para. 36. 99 Supra note 92, UN OHCHR, "Human Rights in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela," (A/HRC/4/18) (July 5, 2019), at para. 37. 100 RAD-2, NDP, Venezuela (July 2020), item 2.5: Organization of American States, "Democratic Institutions, the rule of law and Human Rights in Venezuela: Country Report," (December 31, 2017), at p. 21 out of 25. This was available to the Appellant during the RPD hearing under the same item of the NDP (May 31, 2018). RAD-2, NDP (July 2020), item 2.4: Freedom House, "Venezuela: Freedom in th World," (August 7, 2019) which was adrressed by the Appellant in her further submissions RPD-3 at p. 3 102 Supra note 92, UN OHCHR, "Human Rights in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela," (A/HRC/4/18) (July 5, 2019) at paras. 39-40. 103 Supra note 92, UN OHCHR, "Human Rights in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela," (A/HRC/4/18) (July 5, 2019) at paras. 40-41. 104 RPD-3, further submissions by the Appellant to the RAD at para. 5. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-16938 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