MB7-11710

RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB7-11710 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 at Ottawa, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision May 9, 2019 Date de la décision Panel Me Philippe Rabot Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Me Jamal Addine Fraygui 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] The appellant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, a citizen of Sudan, is appealing against the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) to reject his refugee protection claim. He alleges that he would be persecuted if he were to return to Sudan because of his nationality as a Nubian and because he is perceived as a dissident of the Islamic government that was in power at the time the claim was made. The RPD found that the appellant was not credible when he stated that he had been arrested and tortured by the Sudanese intelligence service in 2013. The RPD also found that the appellant's profile as a young Nubian man did not expose him to a risk of persecution since he had never had any political involvement. The appellant submits that the RPD erred in its assessment of his credibility and that it was mistaken in stating that he had no involvement in politics. He is presenting new evidence on appeal, namely an affidavit in which he states that he took part in recent demonstrations in Canada against the Sudanese government and shared that information on his Facebook account. I am of the opinion that the RPD did not make any errors in its assessment of the appellant's credibility or in the assessment of his profile. Furthermore, it was not established that the appellant's involvement in activities in Canada opposing the Sudanese government is likely to cause him any trouble if he were to return to Sudan. The appeal is therefore dismissed. BACKGROUND [2] In his refugee protection claim,1 the appellant explains that he belongs to a minority ethnic group in Sudan, namely the Nubian people, who are easily distinguished from the other Sudanese tribes by their language, religious practices and customs. Some of these practices were considered anti-Islamic by the Islamic government that was in power until the coup d'état on April 11, 2019. [3] According to the evidence submitted by the appellant, he lived in Egypt for twenty years, until he returned to Sudan in XXXX 2013 to make the final arrangements to obtain a work visa for Saudi Arabia. However, one month later, he was arrested and brought to the headquarters of the intelligence service where he was interrogated about his tribe and family. He was then put in a cell. The interrogation resumed the following day and touched on his stay in Egypt among other things. He was released after XXXX XXXX but was forced to sign an agreement to abstain from any political activity. Three weeks later, the appellant left for Saudi Arabia. He stayed there for two years and worked for a Saudi Arabian prince. [4] In XXXX 2015, the appellant accompanied his employer on a trip to the United States. However, he left his employer soon after and applied for asylum with the US authorities. [5] In XXXX 2017, the appellant arrived in Canada. He explained that he still had no news of a decision concerning his application for asylum in the United States, but that he had lost hope that the US authorities would grant him asylum, hence his decision to abandon that application and come to Canada. [6] In its written decision,2 the RPD found that the appellant was not credible on the determinative elements of his claim. In support of this finding, the RPD noted that the appellant had not submitted the same description of the facts in his refugee protection claims in the United States and Canada. In his US claim, he alleges that he was arrested in Sudan in XXXX 2006 and again in XXXX 2007, whereas his Canadian claim states that he was in Egypt at that time. The RPD also pointed out that the appellant, in the immigration form completed when he arrived in Canada, failed to mention that he had been arrested and detained by the Sudanese security forces in XXXX 2013, despite the fact that it would become a key element of his Canadian refugee protection claim. Furthermore, his immigration form indicates that he has never been arrested or detained by the police, the army or any other authority. [7] The RPD also assessed the appellant's profile as a young Nubian man. It acknowledged that the documentary evidence states that Nubians consider themselves to be marginalized in Sudan, but that does not, in itself, amount to persecution. The RPD went on to state that, the appellant's profile could demonstrate that he faces a serious possibility of persecution in returning to Sudan if he had taken part in political activities in opposition to the Sudanese government. However, the RPD found that the evidence did not establish that the appellant had been politically involved in Sudan. [8] In his memorandum of appeal,3 the appellant submits that the RPD erred in its assessment of his credibility. He argues that the RPD should not have rejected his explanation and that his statements were not accurately reported by the interpreter who helped him complete his application for asylum in the United States. In the same vein, he also criticizes the RPD for rejecting his explanation that he had misunderstood the question in the immigration form asking if he had been arrested or detained in the past. He believed that it referred to criminal activity. The appellant also challenges the RPD's assessment of the risk associated with his profile as a young Nubian man. [9] After submitting his memorandum of appeal, the appellant submitted a request to add new evidence. Namely, it includes an affidavit written by him in which he states that he had been involved, starting in XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, in a Sudanese organization that opposed the government in power. He also states that he took part in that organization's demonstrations on XXXX XXXX, 2018, and XXXX XXXX, 2019. Information about this was shared on the organization's Facebook page and on the appellant's personal account. In support of this affidavit, the appellant also submits a letter from the organization in question confirming his membership, photographs of the demonstrations in which he appears, and videos of these demonstrations posted on the Facebook account. ISSUES [10] In this appeal, the issues I must consider to decide whether the appeal is well-founded are as follows: * Did the RPD err in its assessment of the appellant's credibility? * Does the appellant's profile as a young Nubian man make him a person who faces a serious possibility of persecution if he were to return to Sudan? * Does the new submitted on appeal establish that the appellant's political activities in Canada create a serious possibility that he would be arrested by governmental authorities if he were to return to Sudan? SCOPE OF THE APPEAL [11] The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) reviews RPD decisions by applying the correctness standard of review after conducting its own analysis of the record. The exception to this rule concerns the RPD's findings in assessing the credibility of or the weight to be given to the oral evidence it hears, in situations where it enjoys a meaningful advantage. [12] In this case, I am of the opinion that there are no findings for which the RPD enjoyed a meaningful advantage. Therefore, I have applied only the correctness standard of review. ANALYSIS OF THE APPEAL Assessment of the appellant's credibility [13] The RPD's assessment of the appellant's credibility appears well-founded and correct to me. I agree that there are significant contradictions in the evidence that undermine the appellant's credibility with regard to the essential elements of his refugee protection claim. [14] I give no credibility to the appellant's allegation that it is an interpreter's fault that the facts described in his US refugee protection claim are so different from those put forth in his Canadian claim. In that respect, I agree with the reasons provided by the RPD at paragraph 18 of its decision. I find that the differences demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that the facts alleged in the Canadian claim are not true. Furthermore, certain aspects of the facts described in the Canadian claim seem implausible. For instance, the evidence indicates that the appellant was born in Sudan in 1991. The Canadian refugee protection claim states that in 1993, at the age of two, he moved to Egypt. However, according to the US refugee protection claim, he allegedly left for Egypt only in 2008, at the age of 17, after completing high school in Sudan. This version of the facts seems more plausible since the appellant states in his Canadian refugee protection claim that he went to Egypt to continue his studies. There is no reason to believe that he would have done so in 1993, when he was only two years old. Furthermore, the Canadian refugee protection claim states that he grew up in XXXX XXXX, a town located in Sudan. [15] In putting forth two completely different versions of the facts in his two refugee protection claims, the appellant has seriously undermined his credibility. While the events he recounts in his US claim occurred in 2006 and 2007, during his adolescence, it was only seven years later, once he became an adult, that his entanglements with the Sudanese authorities began, according to his Canadian refugee protection claim. I conclude that the appellant, in his Canadian claim, adjusted his aim, so to say, in order to present a version of the facts that was more likely to be accepted. [16] I also agree with the RPD that a negative inference can be drawn from the fact that the appellant indicates in his immigration form that he has never been arrested or detained by his country's authorities. This clearly goes against the allegation that he put forth in his refugee protection claim. Assessment of the appellant's profile as a young Nubian man [17] I see no error in the RPD's assessment of the appellant's profile. He challenges this finding and states that the Nubian tribe has been decimated and continues to be by the Sudanese government, but he does not cite any documentary evidence in support of this statement. Furthermore, while he alleges that he was involved politically, he acknowledges having spent very little time in Sudan after returning from Egypt. [18] The most recent annual report from the US government's Department of State paints a rather bleak picture of the human rights situation in Sudan.4 It points out, in particular, that the government has not investigated the human rights violations committed by the security services, who can therefore act with impunity. Political dissidents are detained without charges and without being able to communicate with anyone. However, nothing indicates that members of the Nubian tribe are the subject of particular interest for the government or the security services because of their ethnic origin. [19] The most recent annual report from Amnesty International5 paints the same picture, as do the reports from Freedom House6 and Human Rights Watch.7 None of these reports identify the Nubian community as a target of the government or the security services. [20] In fact, the only document in the National Documentation Package that directly addresses the situation of the Nubians is a Response to Information Request prepared by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada in 2016.8 It specifies that a Nubian organization named Nubian Congress is a non-violent political party associated with a coalition looking to represent marginalized ethnic groups. This organization was formed around 2013 to protest the Sudanese government's decision to build a dam on the Nile. Also, the Youth Movement of the Nubians was created to protest the government's decision to build dams without compensating or relocating the area's Nubian residents. It states that "some actions of the Nubian Congress are very risky under the Islamic regime of Khartoum," and that many youths are involved in their activities "but who cannot admit or prove their involvement with the Nubian Congress." [21] This evidence in itself does not allow me to conclude that all Nubians, or even that all men of Nubian origin, face a serious risk of persecution simply because of their profile. The Response to Information Request states that "Information on the treatment of members of the Nubian Congress [...] was scarce among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate." However, it adds that a professor at Erasmus University stated that security forces are doing everything they can to undermine the Nubian Congress by infiltrating and disintegrating it and that some of its members have been subjected to arrest and forced off their land. The new evidence does not establish that the Sudanese authorities are interested in the appellant [22] As for the new evidence submitted on appeal, I acknowledge that it meets the admissibility criteria set out in subsection 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, as it is namely evidence concerning events that arose after the RPD had rendered its decision. However, I find that the appellant has not demonstrated that the activities described in his affidavit expose him to a serious possibility of being arrested upon returning to Sudan or of being subjected to other forms of persecution. In addition, it was not established that the Sudanese authorities would be aware of the appellant's political activities in Canada. Coup d'état on April 11, 2019 [23] I am aware that the Islamic government that was in power at the time the appellant claimed refugee protection was overthrown in a recent military coup d'état. The current political situation in Sudan remains very precarious. As such, I am not yet able to express an opinion as to whether the appellant faces a greater risk if he were to return to that country than if the same government had stayed in power. CONCLUSION [24] The appellant's testimony is not credible. He has not demonstrated that he would face a serious possibility of persecution if he were to return to Sudan either because of his past activities or his profile as a young Nubian man. The appeal is therefore dismissed. (signed) Philippe Rabot Philippe Rabot May 9, 2019 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 Refugee Protection Division record, pages 27 to 29. 2 Ibid, pages 3 to 10. 3 Appeal record, pages 20 to 33. 4 National Documentation Package - Sudan (March 29, 2018), Tab 2.1 - Sudan, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 210, Department of State. 5 Ibid, Tab 2.2, Sudan, Amnesty International, Report 2017/2018: The State of the World's Human Rights. 6 Ibid, Tab 2.3, Sudan. Freedom in the World, 2018. 7 Ibid, Tab 2.5, Sudan, World Report 2019, Events of 2018. 8 Ibid, Tab 2.13, The Nubian Congress, Ourbi Movement, and Dungala Movement including structure, leaders, objectives, activities, and branches; treatment of members by authorities and other groups. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB7-11710 RAD.25.02 (September 18, 2018) 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 (September 18, 2018) Disponible en français