TC2-07329

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC2-07329 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 Date of decision January 9, 2023 Date de la décision Panel Rouba Al-Salem Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Aleksei Grachev 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 Viet Nam. She is appealing a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), dated March 14, 2022, rejecting her refugee protection claim.1 [2] The Appellant alleges that she is unable to return to Vietnam because she fears harm at the hands of the Vietnamese police, who in XXXX 2019, began looking for her at her family home. According to the Appellant, she began practicing Hoa Hao Buddhism after her neighbor friend (XXXX XXXX) introduced her to it, following the death of her boyfriend in 2009. In XXXX 2017, she came to Canada on a Canadian student visa and claims to continue practicing Hoa Hao and going to the church temple of the Toronto Hoa Hao Association. In XXXX 2018, the Appellant allegedly sent Hoa Hap materials via Viber to XXXX XXXX, who in turn shared it with the group they used to practice together occasionally back in Vietnam. Subsequently, she claims that police arrested her neighbor friend and the other Buddhists in the group, after finding out that the Appellant, had sent the material from overseas. By end of XXXX 2020, her mother informed her that her uncle was unable to settle this matter through his network and connections and that her neighbor and the others have not been released.2 [3] In its decision, the RPD identified credibility as the determinative issue.3 In this regard, the Panel found that the Appellant has not credibly established that on a balance of probabilities, she is a Hoa Hao Buddhist practitioner. The panel also concluded that she did not provide probative corroborative evidence to establish that this is the case.4 In addition, the RPD drew a negative inference from the Appellant's lack of effort to provide corroborative evidence with respect to her allegations that she is wanted by the police and found the explanation she provided for why she was unable to do so insufficient. Moreover, the RPD drew a negative inference from the fact that the Appellant did not provide letters of support from her mother and uncle to corroborate her allegations that the Vietnamese police were looking for her. In this regard, the RPD underscored that they were the only alleged witnesses to her allegations and that these documents were reasonably available to her with reasonable efforts.5 [4] In her Memorandum of Appeal, the Appellant alleges that the RPD erred in its analysis and conclusion. This is because the RPD did not specify how much religious knowledge was expected from the Appellant and erred by expecting the Appellant to provide corroborating evidence.6 She also claims on appeal that the RPD applied the wrong legal test that is more than a mere possibility and not a serious possibility, and that she failed to understand what standard of proof it was applying for its section 97 test.7 The Appellant did not submit new evidence nor request an oral hearing.8 DECISION [5] 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. ANALYSIS [6] My role is to look at all the evidence and decide if the RPD made the correct decision.9 [7] I find that the RPD is correct in its conclusion that the Appellant has not credibly established that she is a Hoa Hao Buddhism follower for the reasons that the RPD provided and which I have discussed below. [8] With respect to the RPD's conclusions that the Appellant has not credibly established that the Vietnamese police authorities are looking for her because of material she shared on Viber with her neighbor friend, I agree with the RPD's overall decision that the Appellant has not done so. However, I find that the RPD erred in not addressing in its decision, the fact that the Appellant submitted letters of support after the RPD hearing and before the RPD rendered its decision. Still, I do not find that this error is serious enough to undermine the correctness of the overall RPD decision that the Appellant has not established that she is wanted by Vietnamese police because of her religious practice and/or identity or because of her political opinion (when sending a photo of the yellow Vietnamese flag with red stripes to her friend). This is because I conducted my own independent assessment of the evidence that was submitted and give it little probative value in establishing the Appellant's allegations that she is wanted by those authorities if she returns to Vietnam for those aforementioned reasons. [9] Even if I were to accept that the Appellant is indeed a Hoa Hao Buddhist, for reasons I explain in my decision, I agree with the RPD that she has not established that she faces a forward-looking risk of persecution in Vietnam, including at the hands of Vietnamese police authorities if she returns to Vietnam. I reach this conclusion in light of the country documentation that the Appellant submitted to the RPD, the objective country documentation in the National Documentation Package (NDP) on Vietnam and after assessing the personal evidence she submitted after the RPD hearing to the RPD. [10] Finally, before laying out my reasons in detail I address the argument made by the Appellant on appeal that the RPD erred in applying the correct legal standard as far as its analysis of section 96 of IRPA is concerned, noting that "[t]he test is "more than a mere possibility' and not a "serious possibility."10 In addition, the Appellant argued on appeal that "the Board also failed to state what standard of proof it was applying for its s.97 test."11 [11] I disagree with the Appellant. I find that the RPD was correct in its application of the legal standard of a "serious possibility" standard when it comes to its assessment under section 96 of IRPA. In this regard, the Federal Court has noted that using the "more than a mere possibility" standards "would impose legal standard in the range of 80% on the Board to find the claimant was not a refugee; in effect requiring a finding of a near-certainty."12 I also disagree that the RPD failed to state what standard of proof it was applying for its section 97 test, as the panel explicitly stated at the very end of its decision that based on the totality of the evidence, it does not find that the Appellant has satisfied the burden of establishing that on a balance of probabilities, she would personally be subjected to a risk to life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or a danger of torture upon return to Vietnam.13 Below are my reasons (1) The RPD's Conclusion that the Appellant has not credibly established that she is a Hoa Hao Buddhist. [12] In its decision, the RPD concluded that the Appellant did not establish the credibility of her allegations that she is a Hoa Hao Buddhist practitioner. In reaching this conclusion, the RPD drew a negative inference from the following: (a) The Appellant's failure to recall important dates of celebration and commemoration in her religion and to provide corroborative evidence for the dates that she listed [13] In support of its conclusion, the RPD pointed out that when it inquired with the Appellant about the important dates recognized and/or celebrated in her religion, she testified that they were: (1) January 1st-lunar new year; (2) January 15-Thuong Nguyen holiday; (3) April 15-Buddha's birthday and (4) August 12-commemoration of Tay An. [14] The RPD then pointed out that based on the NDP-related evidence, there were three days of festivals/occasions that followers of the Hoa Hao religion worship per lunar year and which are: (a) February 25-day the grandmaster disappeared; (b) May 18-the date of the formation; (c) November 25- the birthday of the grandmaster.14 Subsequently, the RPD underscored that although the Appellant did mention November 25 as an important religious celebration day, she was unable to recount the two other days that are important for Hoa Hao followers to celebrate. This is despite alleging that she has been practicing the religion since 2016 (i.e., for the past 6 years). Hence, the RPD drew a negative inference from her inability to tell the panel of the three important dates that the religion recognizes.15 [15] Secondly, the RPD asked the Appellant if she had any evidence to demonstrate that the other dates which she had mentioned in her oral testimony were recognized or acknowledged in her religion. In response, the Appellant testified that she had the information, and requested that she be permitted to provide it to the panel afterwards. When the RPD inquired with her why she did not provide this material at or prior to the RPD hearing, she first responded that she thought she had to provide the documents which is why she is offering to send them now. The RPD repeated the question, asking the Appellant to clarify why she failed to provide them prior to her RPD hearing. Here, she explained that she was only informed by Counsel's office of the date of the RPD hearing, five days before the hearing date, and that she did not have time to prepare all her documents. When then, the RPD pointed out to the Appellant that she had received a letter from the RPD back in XXXX 2021 informing her that her RPD hearing date was scheduled for March 9, 2022, she confirmed that she was aware of that, but that she was only informed 5 days prior to the hearing; that she had to work and did not have time to prepare.16 [16] The RPD did not accept the Appellant's explanation for the following reasons: (1) her Notice to Appear was mailed to her in XXXX 2021, more than three months before the hearing and no mail was returned to the RPD; (2) the Appellant testified that she speaks English and at times throughout the hearing testified in English, so would have reasonably been aware of what the Notice to Appear said; (3) her explanation at the hearing for why she did not provide this material beforehand is internally inconsistent, since she first stated that she knew about the letter from XXXX 2021, but then stating that her lawyer did not tell her about the hearing until five days before the hearing and (4) she was given sufficient notice for the hearing and had ample time to provide corroborating evidence. (5) The Appellant provided a photo which she found online. Hence it was unclear to the RPD why she was able to locate a photo and provide it as evidence in time for the RPD hearing but could not provide evidence of these important dates despite her claim that she had these documents. Consequently, the RPD drew a negative inference from the Appellant failing to provide evidence which she testified is in her possession. [17] When the RPD inquired with the Appellant if there are any special days in her religion that she acknowledges or celebrates, she mentioned: (a) January 1-Lunar year, (2) January 15-Thuong Nguyen Holiday (3) November 25-comemoration of the death of the religion's leader; (4) December 8-commemoration of the death of Buddha (5) April 8-birth of Buddha and (6) August 12-the death of the leader Tayan.17 The RPD then noted that the panel does not have any documentary evidence in the file about the days she mentioned (with the exception of November 25) and inquired with the Appellant if she had anything to show that these are important days in her religion. In response, the Appellant states that she will be able to send that information to him later because she has it. As the RPD mentioned in its decision, the Appellant first acknowledged that she had received the notice to appear in XXXX 2021 informing her that the RPD hearing will be taking place today (March 9, 2022), but then added that the person who works for Counsel's office only informed her last Friday about the hearing, and since she had work, she had no time to prepare.18 [18] While I agree with the RPD's decision not to accept the Appellant's explanation for why she did not have time to prepare for the RPD hearing, the issue here is not whether she discharged the onus of putting her best foot forward in terms of preparing for the hearing. Rather, the issue is whether the RPD was correct in drawing a negative inference from the Appellant's failure to provide documentary evidence to demonstrate that the other dates which she had mentioned in her oral testimony were recognized or acknowledged in her religion. I do not find that the Appellant can be faulted for not knowing prior to the RPD hearing took place, that her answers to the questions concerning her knowledge of her religion do not feature in the NDP on Vietnam. I therefore do not agree with the RPD's decision to draw a negative inference from her failure to submit documentary evidence that corroborates that the dates she mentioned were indeed important celebrations and/or events in the Hoa Hao religion. [19] However, I do not find that this error by the RPD, is serious enough to undermine the overall correctness of the RPD conclusion that the Appellant has not discharged the onus of proving a central allegation to her claim, namely that these dates she testified about are important events or celebrations in her faith. The Appellant was represented by Counsel, who could still have sought to make a post RPD hearing submission of the documentary evidence she claimed to have in her possession, and which she offered to submit later to the RPD, or to submit them to the RAD. Thus, while she asked at the RPD hearing to submit it later, she never did. In another decision, the Federal Court underscored that "the truthfulness of sworn statements in Maldonado applies only to the credibility of the truth of the claimant's sworn statement. It does not apply to the "trustworthiness" of the statement in reference to paragraph 170(h) of the IRPA, which defines the mandate of the RPD. Accordingly, a refugee claimant is required to make genuine efforts to substantiate the statement, including pursuant to Rule 11, as a condition to obtain "the benefit of the doubt" that the statement is trustworthy and in accordance with the UNCHR Handbook and Guidelines on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees."19 The Appellant's testimony about why she joined the faith and what its four principles are [20] In its decision, the RPD drew a negative inference from what the RPD deemed to be a lack of details in the Appellant's oral testimony with respect to why she decided to join the Hoa Hao faith and begin practicing. In this regard, the RPD pointed out that when it asked the Appellant to explain what drew her to this religion, she testified that she joined because of the death of her boyfriend and because her friend advised her that it would help her find happiness and more energy. When the RPD then asked the Appellant if there was anything about the religion that made her want to join and begin practicing, she testified that her friend had given her materials and that after reading them she felt like fresh water was running through her body, that she found more energy and able to sleep again. However, the RPD opined that the Appellant's testimony lacked detail and that she was unable to provide testimony outside of what was already in her BoC narrative. [21] Hence, while the RPD acknowledged that the Appellant's testimony was generally consistent with her written narrative attached to her BoC, the Panel found that the Appellant was unable to offer any information beyond what she had written in her BoC and that this undermines her credibility.20 Subsequently, the RPD decided the Appellant's testimony lacking and repetitive and expected that a person who has been practicing the religion for nearly 6 years, would be able to testify to this in greater detail. Hence, the Panel concluded that the lack of details in the Appellant's testimony, with respect to her religion, undermined her credibility that she is indeed an adherent to this religion.21 [22] On appeal, the Appellant alleges that the RPD expected an unrealistically high standard of religious knowledge from the Appellant as she claims on appeal. She also submits on appeal that the RPD did not specify the extent of knowledge that the panel expected from the Appellant based on the Panel's own knowledge acquired off the record or from the evidence on the record itself.22 [23] During the RPD hearing, the panel inquired with the Appellant what drew her to join the Hoa Hao religion, and what interested her in this religion. In response, the Appellant stated that before her boyfriend passed away, she didn't know anything about this religion, but then her neighbor friend introduced her after he passed because she could not eat, sleep and did not know what to do.23 The RPD then asked the Appellant if there was anything about this religion in particular that made her decide to join. In response, the Appellant stated that her neighbor friend gave her a package of handwritten material to read and that it was like fresh water washing over her, making her feel more energy, that she was able to learn more lessons about Hoa Hao Buddha and that her friend continued to help her practice the religion.24 When then the panel asked her if she was still practicing in Canada, the Appellant responded that she does, and that on nights when she cannot go to the temple to practice she listens to talks about Buddha because they help her fall asleep. [24] The RPD then asked her to elaborate what other things she does to practice the religion. In response, the Appellant stated that on the special day she goes to the temple to pray and also prays at home. She also listens to YouTube. Later, when the RPD inquired with the Appellant, if other than all of this, there is anything else that she does as part of the religion, she responded that in Canada when she goes to the temple to practice, she has freedom and can do anything she likes whereas at home she is unable to. She then provides the example that she cannot follow the Vietnamese flag with the three red stripes over there.25 The RPD subsequently, asked the Appellant to tell the panel a bit about her religious beliefs and to give some information. In response, she stated that "I believe in this religion very much because when I practice with this religion I become more energy, like it boosts me and it motivate me since my boyfriend pass away, so I find energy and just like the guy for me to live happily; since I am in Canada I able to live independent and do everything by myself."26 [25] I agree with the RPD that the oral testimony of the Appellant was very vague and lacked concrete details about what the religious practices or beliefs of her religion are. It was also repetitive and replete with answers that reflected her general state of mind when she allegedly practices her faith, instead of any information on what the religion is concretely about or what it involves in terms of practices in the temple or at home. Hence, I find that the RPD was correct in concluding that a person who alleges to have been practicing this religion for nearly six years, praying every night,27 would be able to testify about the substantial part of the religion in greater detail. [26] In its decision, the RPD also noted that the Appellant was able to offer only very general testimony regarding religious principles such as not doing drugs and points out that, based on the objective country documentation,28 the Hoa Hao religion has four gratitude's and that this represents a substantial part of the religion that would be known to all followers. In this regard, the RPD pointed out that the panel had to ask the Appellant multiple times and then specifically inform the Appellant of the gratitude's before she was able to provide an explanation of what the gratitude's are. 29 [27] During the RPD hearing, the panel asked if there are any specific principles in the Hoa Hao religion. In response the Appellant stated that * Appellant: "[l]ike the principal cannot kill anymore, cannot lie, cannot do drugs, cocaine and also cannot drink alcohol....Have to treat and do good things to everyone and avoid to treat badly to anyone. You must love your country, you have to love everyone and you cannot betray, you have to be faithful. * RPD: So, from what I understand the religion has four gratitude's; do you know what those are? * Appellant: Four principal like in the Hoa Hao religion have to be like good with the parents, good with the people and have to be good with (inaudible), this mean like good with the Buddha, with the religion, also like have to be good to the country.30 [28] I consulted the NDP on a Vietnam-related source which the RPD referred to in its decision (Item 1.5). It states that the religion has four gratitude's: (1) towards Buddhism and Buddhists; (2) ancestors (3) country and (4) humanity in general.31 I find that the Appellant provided an answer that contains the information that is available in the NDP. It is not clear to me whether or not the RPD drew a negative inference from the panel prompting the Appellant to provide an answer to what the four gratitude's are. In any case, I do not draw a negative inference from the Appellant's answer. [29] However, I still agree with the RPD that the Appellant did not establish with persuasive testimony that she is an adherent of the faith. This is because the Appellant alleged praying daily, frequent visits to the temple and listening to religious material at home. I do not find that the religious knowledge she displayed in her oral testimony is commensurate with the religious practice that she claims, or that it reflects an understanding of the most basic elements of the religion. This is because I find that the RPD was correct that the Appellant's answers were vague. Here, I also note that "[t]he questions that were asked [by the RPD] were general and in no way touched on the details."32 The corroborative evidence that the Appellant provided to establish her profile as a follower of Hoa Hao Buddhism and vague testimony regarding that evidence [30] In its decision, the RPD assessed the letter of support which the Appellant provided from a person who allegedly knows her through the Toronto Hoa Hao Association.33 When the RPD inquired with the Appellant where she had met the author of the letter of support, she testified that she had met him at the temple. When the RPD then asked what the name of the temple was, she responded that it was on or near XXXX Avenue (Toronto). When probed again about the name of the temple by the RPD, the Appellant testified that it is like a Hoa Hao community. The RPD drew a negative inference from what it considered to be an evasive testimony. In this regard, the RPD underscored that both the letter and the Appellant stated that she attended this temple. Hence, the RPD expected the Appellant to be able to give the temple's name.34 [31] I agree with the RPD's decision to draw a negative inference from the Appellant's failure to provide the name of the temple where she allegedly practices and has together with others, raised the yellow flag with the red stripes while praying in the past.35 The Appellant testified that she prayed at this temple. She provided a photo that was allegedly taken there, as supporting evidence, with individuals holding the yellow flag with the three red strips, allegedly disdained by the government authorities in Vietnam, and which is meant to demonstrate that the Hoa Hao followers have the freedom to practice and follow their religion freely in Canada. However, when the RPD inquired where this picture was taken, the Appellant could only respond with "[t]he temple at XXXX..." stating that there is not one temple only.36 The RPD panel asked her again twice afterwards, what the name of the temple is to which she first responded: "On XXXX, nearby XXXX," and then "It is like the Hoa Hao community," and that when she arrived her friend, from Vietnam, is the one who gave her a lift to go there.37 [32] With respect to the letter, the RPD pointed out that the letter does not contain any security features, such as a letter head or an address of the temple. Hence, the RPD decided that this letter does not establish on a balance of probabilities that the Appellant is a member of the Toronto Hoa Hao Association or that she is a follower of the religion. Consequently, the RPD gave little weight to the letter in establishing the Appellant's religious identity.38 In addition, the Appellant testified that a friend, and former classmate in Vietnam, is the one who had taken her to the temple. When the RPD inquired with the Appellant as to his/her name, she testified that his name was XXXX. The RPD found that this is another evidence that the Appellant's testimony with respect to the temple she attends to be evasive and vague and drew a negative inference.39 [33] I agree with the RPD's decision to give little weight to the letter by an alleged member of the Toronto Hoa Hao Association in establishing the Appellant's allegation that she practices this religion. However, I do not agree with the RPD's decision to draw a negative inference from the lack of a letter head as the person writing it never testified that he is a member of the administration of the association. He merely stated that he is a member of the group. I hence do not expect that the letter should contain a letterhead. [34] However, I do agree with the RPD's decision to draw a negative inference from the lack of an address or any information about the Association. The letter simply states that the Appellant joined the Association around mid 2017 and that he is also a member of the group. The writer also provided a copy of his Ontario driving license. Nevertheless, the information in the letter is scarce and does little to establish that she frequents the association. In addition, I find that the information in the letter contradicts the testimony of the Appellant. In his letter, the person states that the Appellant "is very dedicated member, whenever we have group meeting or online discussions, she always find time to participate."40 However, in her oral testimony, the Appellant mentioned that she only prays at the temple on the special days. She also never mentioned that she has online discussions with the members of the associations, noting only that because she works and has to cook after work and commute for two hours from work to her home in North York, she does not have time to pray twice a day.41 [35] Finally, the RPD addressed the two photos which the Appellant submitted into evidence. With respect to the first one, the Appellant testified that it is a photo of a protest, in which a group of people are holding a banner,42 which she had found on the internet. In the Appellant's testimony, she stated that it shows that there is no freedom. However, since the banner is written in Vietnamese and has not been translated, the RPD decided to give the photo little probative value in establishing the Appellant's religious identity as alleged.43 [36] With respect to the second photo,44 according to the RPD, in her testimony, the Appellant stated that the photo had been taken at her temple by someone and that it was shared by a member of the group. When the RPD inquired who had shared it with her, she responded that it was a member of the Hoa Hao group without further details. The RPD found her explanation evasive. Moreover, the RPD pointed out that the Appellant is not in the photo and that there was no indication of where and when it was taken. Hence, the RPD found that it has little probative value in establishing the credibility of the Appellant's allegations that her religious identity is as alleged.45 [37] I agree with the RPD's decision to assign little weight to the photos in establishing the credibility of the Appellant's allegation that she is a practicing Hoa Hao follower. According to the RPD rules, evidence must be submitted to the Board in either English or French. There is also no information, such as where and when it was taken to establish that it was indeed taken at the temple as alleged. Nor is she in any of those photos. I also agree with the RPD that the Appellant was evasive in her response when the panel inquired as to whom had shared this picture with her, and that she did not provide details that were reasonably available to someone who alleges to be an active member of the association. [38] Given all the above, I find that after considering the totality of the evidence before me, that the RPD is correct that the Appellant has not established with sufficient and persuasive evidence her religious identity as a Hoa Hao practitioner since 2016,46 and which is a central aspect of her claim. [39] Even if I were to accept that she is a Hoa Hao religion practitioner, I do not find that she has established that she would be at risk of persecution (on a serious possibility standard) if she returns to Vietnam because she is an adherent to the faith. In reaching my conclusion, and in the absence of country documentation from the Appellant, I have examined the NDP-related evidence. While there is information about harassment independent Hoa Hao groups as opposed to state-recognised Hoa Hao Buddhist groups,47 it is important to recall that the Appellant has never clarified in her testimony whether she belonged to the independent Hoa Hao groups or to the state recognized ones. Moreover, another source underlines that Hoa Hao Buddhism in itself is the fourth-largest religion in Vietnam after Buddhism with an estimated 1.3-2 million followers and therefore not banned in its entirety.48 [40] Moreover, one NDP source (item 1.5) states that according to one Hoa Hao manager, Hoa Hao members outside of Vietnam would not be at risk if they returned and that the government "only targets those who are struggling for the legitimate interests of the pure sect."49 It also states that authorities are not afraid of individual activists but are most wary of people making associations or organizing themselves into a political party or people calling for a demonstration on the street.50 According to another NDP source, the government is suspicious of large gathering and will look for ways to break them up and could therefore charge people with public disturbance, or those who openly criticize the government or participate in activities that may be perceived to be political in nature. However, even in this case, "sources indicate that there are very few people detained or imprisoned."51 [41] I do not find that based on the Appellant's testimony that she has alleged being a political party member, or alleged that she was involved in calling for demonstrations or a member of the pure sect. Nor has she alleged that she has in the past sought to organize herself or called for organizing others. I, therefore, do not find that the objective country documentation lends support to the Appellant's allegations that she would have a serious possibility of persecution if she returns to Vietnam just by the virtue of being a Hoa Hao religion practicing individual or that there is a prospective risk of a section 97(1) harm. I reach this conclusion after having determined that the Appellant has not established that she is wanted by Vietnamese police as she alleges and that hence, there is little support that she would be persecuted or harmed by them in the future if she returns there. (2) The RPD's conclusions that the Appellant has not established that on a balance of probabilities she is wanted by the Vietnamese police authorities (a) that the Appellant sent the photos to her neighbor friend leading to her arrest by the police [42] In its decision, the RPD referred to the Appellant's testimony that the police authorities in Vietnam are looking for her because she sent photos to a friend in Vietnam and will be arrested when she returns.52 The panel then asked the Appellant if she had any evidence that she sent the photos to her friend that led her to being wanted by the police. In response, the Appellant testified that she sent the photos through Viber, but that she no longer uses it, so she does not have a record of it. [43] When the RPD then asked her if she made any effort to re-activate her account to retrieve it, the Appellant testified that she did not try so she does not know if she would be able to do so. She also testified that she has not used Viber in a long time so does not know if she can still log in and does not use it anymore because she did not know some people.53 The RPD did not find the explanation furnished by the Appellant to be reasonable and drew a negative inference from the Appellant's lack of effort in obtaining corroborative evidence. This is because the RPD opined that sending the photos to her neighbor friend is a central allegation to the Appellant's claim. Hence, the panel expected the Appellant to have at the very least, made efforts to obtain corroborative evidence that she had sent it.54 [44] The RPD provided an explanation for why it rejected the reasons put forward by the Appellant for her failure to provide a copy of the photos she had sent to her friend, and for why the panel decided to draw a negative inference from the lack of effort to retrieve them. In other words, it is not the Appellant's failure to provide a copy of these photos, but the lack of genuine efforts to do so. I find that the RPD did not err in expecting the Appellant to make this effort to retrieve the material as a reasonable course of action. This is because the sending of these photos to her neighbor friend in Vietnam is a central aspect of the Appellant's claim that she would be persecuted by the police in Vietnam if she returns and they are the reason why they are still looking for her at present. [45] Additionally, I note that in her written testimony, the Appellant testified that her mother informed her in XXXX 2019 that the police had arrested her friend and other Buddhists because the police had found material that she, the Appellant, had sent from overseas; that the police found out she was involved and had come into possession of this material.55 However, in her oral testimony, the Appellant testified that the material she sent back home consists of a photo in which people are raising the yellow flag with the three red stripes;56 that it is "from the previous government before 1975 so it is against the government, so that is why..I did not realize that would cause trouble."57 However, the only information that is available in the NDP on Vietnam with respect to this flag, and any consequences people may face for displaying it is the following: "The yellow and red flag of the former country of South Vietnam is sensitive and cannot be displayed publicly."58 The Appellant never testified that her friend displayed it publicly, nor that she, the Appellant, had sent any material other than this photo to her neighbor friend. I do not find that the objective country documentation supports her allegation that on a balance of probabilities, her friend was arrested by the Vietnamese authorities because of this one photo or that they are looking for the Appellant because she sent this photo by Viber to her friend. (b) the Appellant's failure to provide corroborative evidence that the police are still looking for her [46] In its decision, the RPD inquired with the Appellant why she had not provided a letter from her mother, to whom she spoke once every one to two weeks, to corroborate her claim that she is wanted by the police, or that her uncle attempted to resolve the Appellant's issue with the police. The RPD did not accept as reasonable, the Appellant's explanation for why she failed to provide corroborative evidence given that it represents a core aspect of her claim; that she received the notice to appear many months before (XXXX 2021); was represented by experienced Counsel when she filed her claim in 2020 and that therefore would have been reasonably aware of the need to provide corroborative evidence. The RPD also underscored that these documents would have been reasonably available to the Appellant with reasonable effort, and that the Appellant's mother and uncle would have been well positioned to provide corroborative evidence as they were the only alleged witnesses to the Appellant's allegations. Hence, the RPD found that the Appellant failed to establish that on a balance of probabilities she is wanted by the police in Vietnam as she alleges.59 [47] In his post-hearing submissions to the RPD, Counsel submitted the following documents on behalf of the Appellant to the RPD and which are: (1) a letter of support from the Appellant's mother (dated XXXX XXXX, 2022); a letter from M. XXXX XXXX the wife of the Appellant's uncle stating that he passed away on XXXX XXXX, 2021 (dated XXXX XXXX, 2022) and (3) a copy of a marriage certificate between Ms. XXXX and the Appellant's uncle. [48] While I am mindful that on appeal, the Appellant did not challenge this, I find that the RPD erred in not considering those documents before it rendered its decision, or at least explaining why it did not consider them. An Appellant providing documents tardively is not one and the same as not providing them at all and the RPD should have acknowledged in its decision that the Appellant submitted evidence post-RPD hearing and before it rendered its decision. Thus, when reading the RPD decision, one gets the impression that no evidence was submitted in the first place from the mother and with respect to the uncle which is not the case. Nevertheless, I have rectified this error by conducting my own independent assessment of the evidence. [49] In the case of the mother's letter of support,60 the letter provides scarce information towards the Appellant's allegations. It only states that the mother is sad that she is not currently with the Appellant and that she and the father feel heartache whenever the police "keeps coming for you"; that she misses her and that it has been 5 years since the day the Appellant left. However, the mother provides no explanation as to why the police keeps coming for the Appellant or any information as her interactions with them. I, therefore, find that the letter is insufficient to establish that the Vietnamese police are looking for the Appellant because of her faith or political opinion (imputed or otherwise) because of the photo with the flag that the Appellant allegedly sent to her neighbor friend. Nor is there information that suggests that the Appellant would face a prospective risk of harm at the hands of the Vietnamese police, including torture or ill-treatment regardless of the reason for which they are looking for her. [50] With respect to the uncle, I recall that the Appellant had alleged in her oral and written testimony that he sought to activate all his connections in order to try and "settle down this matter."61 However, the other letter of support that the Appellant submitted to the RPD post-hearing was written by the uncle's wife and who according to the listing of the evidence by Counsel, is the Appellant's aunt (sister of the Appellant's mother). The letter states that her husband, has tried to find all possible ways to help the Appellant and that the police are still coming looking for the Appellant.62 It also states that the uncle passed away on XXXX XXXX, 2021. [51] However, for the following reasons, I give little weight to the letter in establishing the Appellant's allegation that the police continue to look for her because of her religion or political opinion (imputed or otherwise). In her letter, the Appellant's aunt does not provide any information that supports the Appellant's allegation that the uncle was trying to help the Appellant because of her religious or political opinion and/or affiliation (real or perceived). The letter also states that the police are still looking for the Appellant without any further details as to the reason. Thus, while I am ready to accept that the police may be looking for the Appellant, I do not find that this letter provides sufficient evidence to establish that they are looking for her in order to persecute her for a nexus to a Refugee Convention ground, or that on a balance of probabilities, she would be subjected to a section 97 harm by the police if they detain her. CONCLUSION [52] The Appellant has not credibly established that there is a serious possibility of persecution or that on a balance of probabilities she would face a section 97(1) harm if she returns to Vietnam. [53] 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) Rouba Al-Salem Rouba Al-Salem January 9, 2023 Date 1 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD decision at paras 3 and 25. 2 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, The Appellant's written narrative attached to her Basic of Claim (BoC) form. 3 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD decision at para. 4. 4 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD decision at para. 17. 5 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD decision at paras 18 and 20-23. 6 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, The Appellant's Memorandum of Appeal at paras. 14-15. 7 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, The Appellant's Memorandum of Appeal at paras. 16 and 18. 8 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, The Appellant's written statement submitted to the RAD. 9 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145. 10 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, The Appellant's Memorandum of Appeal at para. 16. 11 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, The Appellant's Memorandum of Appeal at para. 19. 12 Kallab v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 706 at para. 144. 13 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD decision at para. 24. 14 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Item 1.5 of the NDP at p. 108. 15 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD decision at para. 6. 16 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD decision at para. 7. 17 Transcript of the RPD hearing (March 9, 2022) at p. 13. 18 Transcript of the RPD hearing (March 9, 2022) at p. 14. 19 Kallab v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 706 at paras 147-157. 20 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD decision at para. 10 21 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD decision at para. 11. 22 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, The Appellant's Memorandum of Appeal at paras 12 and 14. 23 Transcript of the RPD hearing (March 9, 2022) at p. 10. 24 Transcript of the RPD hearing (March 9, 2022) at pp. 9-10. 25 Transcript of the RPD hearing (March 9, 2022) at p. 10. 26 Transcript of the RPD hearing (March 9, 2022) at p. 12. 27 Transcript of the RPD hearing (March 9, 2022) at pp. 11-12. 28 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Item 1.5 29 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD decision at para. 11. 30 Transcript of the RPD hearing (March 9, 2022) at pp. 12-13. 31 Exhibit RAD-1, National Documentation Package (NDP), Viet Nam, 29 July 2022, tab 1.5: ?Report of a Home Office fact-finding mission to Vietnam. United Kingdom. Home Office. 9 September 2019 at p. 107. This represents item 1.5 of the most recent version of the NDP on Vietnam (July 2022) and the one that was available to the Appellant at the time of the perfection of the appeal (March 2022). 32 Bouarif. v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2020 FC 49 at para. 6. 33 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 6, hand-written letter by Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX, (dated XXXX XXXX, 2022) with copy of driving license, submitted by the Appellant to the RPD. 34 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD decision at para. 12. 35 Transcript of the RPD hearing (March 9, 2022) at p. 21. 36 Transcript of the RPD hearing (March 9, 2022) at pp. 20-21. 37 Transcript of the RPD hearing (March 9, 2022) at pp. 22. 38 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD decision at para. 14. 39 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD decision at para. 13. 40 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Letter from Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX (XXXX XXXX, 2022). 41 Transcript of the RPD hearing (March 9, 2022) at pp. 11-12. 42 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Photo No.1 available at p. 86 of the electronic RPD file submitted by the Appellant to the RPD. 43 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD decision at para. 15. 44 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Photo No.2 available at p. 87 of the electronic RPD file submitted by the Appellant to the RPD. 45 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD decision at para. 16. 46 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD decision at para. 17. 47 Exhibit RAD-1, NDP, Viet Nam, 29 July 2022, tab 12.1: ?Vietnam. International Religious Freedom Report for 2021. United States. Department of State. 2 June 2022 at p.2 48 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Item 1.5, UK Home Office, "Report of a Home Office Fact-finding Mission to Vietnam," (September 9, 2019) at p. 26. 49 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Item 1.5, UK Home Office, "Report of a Home Office Fact-finding Mission to Vietnam," (September 9, 2019) at p. 28. 50 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Item 1.5, UK Home Office, "Report of a Home Office Fact-finding Mission to Vietnam," (September 9, 2019) at p. 29. 51 Exhibit RAD-1, NDP, Viet Nam, 29 July 2022, tab 12.7: ?Country Policy and Information Note. Vietnam: Hoa Hao Buddhism. Version 1.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. February 2020 at p. 26. This represents item 12.7 of the NDP on Vietnam (July 2022) and of the NDP on Vietnam version that was available to the Appellant at the time of the perfection of the Memorandum of Appeal (March 2022). 52 Transcript of the RPD hearing (March 9, 2022) at p. 15. 53 Transcript of the RPD hearing (March 9, 2022) at p. 15. 54 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD decision at para. 18. 55 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, The Appellant's written narrative attached to her BoC at p. 1. 56 Transcript of the RPD hearing (March 9, 2022) at p. 11. 57 Transcript of the RPD hearing (March 9, 2022) at p. 15. 58 Exhibit RAD-1, NDP, Viet Nam, 29 July 2022, tab 1.4: ?DFAT Country Information Report: Vietnam. Australia. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 11 January 2022 at p. 26. This represents item 1.4 of the most updated NDP on Vietnam (July 2022) and of the NDP version that was available to the Appellant at the time of the perfection of her Memorandum of Appeal (March 2022). 59 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD decision at paras. 20-22. 60 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, C-1, reference from XXXX XXXX XXXX(mother with ID), submitted to the RPD (post-hearing) on XXXX XXXX, 2022. 61 The Appellant's written narrative attached to her BoC, at p. 1. Transcript of the RPD hearing (March 9, 2022) at p. 16. 62 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, C-2 letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX submitted to the RPD (post-hearing) on XXXX XXXX, 2022. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TC2-07329 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