TB7-08779

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB7-08779 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision March 25, 2019 Date de la décision Panel Linda Hart Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal Imtenan Abd El Razik Conseil(s) (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION INTRODUCTION [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the Appellant) is a citizen of Bangladesh. He appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying his claim for refugee protection. DETERMINATION [2] The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) dismisses the appeal and confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection, pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). BACKGROUND [3] The Appellant alleged before the RPD that he fears persecution in Bangladesh because he is disabled; because his wife's family will harm him as they disapprove of her having married a disabled man; and because members of the Awami League political party are trying to extort money from him and his family. [4] The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada intervened in this case on issues of credibility and program integrity. The Minister submitted that the Appellant attempted to enter Canada as a visitor and only advanced a refugee claim when he was advised that he was inadmissible. The Minister submits that the Appellant provided false information in his Canadian visa application including his marital, financial and employment status. The Minister further noted that the Appellant was refused a visa for the UK three times. [5] The Minister submitted that the claim was largely based on the Appellant's disability and how that negatively affected various aspects of his life in Bangladesh. The Minister argued that access to health or medical care is not a nexus for the determination of the Convention refugee and that section 97(1)(b)(IV) of the IRPA states that a refugee claimant's risk in their country of persecution should not be caused by the inability of that country to provide adequate health or medical care. [6] The Appellant's application for refugee protection was heard on March 27, 2017 and March 31, 2017. In a decision dated April 10, 2017, the RPD rejected the claim, finding that the Appellant was not credible with respect to his allegations of facing persecution from his purported wife's family, partisans of the Awami league, or generally. [7] The Appellant submits that the RPD erred by failing to take his disability into account when analysing his risks in Bangladesh; erred in its credibility analysis; and erred by failing to consider that persecution is a threshold measured against international standards of human rights rather than a competition between people where the winner is the most persecuted. New Evidence [8] As provided for in subsection 110(3) of the IRPA, with certain exceptions, the RAD must proceed without a hearing on the basis of the record of the proceedings of the RPD, and may accept documentary evidence and written submissions from the Minister and the person who is the subject of the appeal. Subsection 110(4) of the IRPA provides that the person who is the subject of the appeal may present only evidence that arose after the rejection of their claim, or that was not reasonably available, or that the person could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection. [9] The RAD will accept the new evidence provided with the Appellant's record. This includes two medical reports; clinic notes; a letter from the Appellant's brother; a letter from a neighbour in Canada; copies of financial remittances sent to the Appellant's wife in Bangladesh; and several Internet newspaper articles. These documents all postdate the rejection of the claim and contain information that relates to the issues identified in the RPD decision. The RAD will assign these documents the appropriate weight when conducting an independent assessment of the claim. [10] Rule 29 allows the Appellant to make an Application to provide a document not previously provided. Such an application must include an explanation of how the document meets the requirements of section 110(4) of the IRPA and how that evidence relates to the Appellant.1 In determining the Application, the RAD must consider any relevant factors, including the relevance and probative value of the document, any new evidence the document brings to the appeal, and whether the Appellant could have, with reasonable effort, provided the document with the Appellant's Record. [11] The Appellant asks that the RAD accept a recent psychiatric report and two articles from XXXX 2018. He submits that the psychiatric report is an update to keep the RPD appraised of his mental health and the newspaper articles speak about road conditions which are limiting for persons with disabilities. The RAD will accept these documents into evidence as they were not available at the time the Appellant perfected his appeal and will assign them the appropriate weight when assessing the claim. Request for an Oral Hearing [12] The Appellant has requested an oral hearing based on this new evidence.2 [13] The RAD may hold a hearing if, in its opinion, there is documentary evidence referred to in section 110(3) that raises a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the person who is the subject of the appeal, is central to the decision with respect to the refugee protection claim, and, if accepted, would justify allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claim.3 [14] The RAD is able to consider such evidence and assess its probative value without holding an oral hearing. Therefore, the RAD chooses not to hold a hearing under 110(6). ANALYSIS OF THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL The Appellant's Disability [15] The RPD found that country condition evidence established that people with disabilities like the Appellant's face discrimination in Bangladesh. The RPD found that for most of these people the discrimination did rise to the level of persecution. The RPD found that this was not the case for the Appellant, when compared to his compatriots, as he has completed high school and is part of the "lucky 10%". The RPD noted the documentation which stated that in Bangladesh the disabled are mostly poor and are subject to gross deprivation and acute vulnerabilities. The RPD found that the Appellant was not and will not be poor and that he would face discrimination, but not persecution. [16] The Appellant argues that the RPD did not consider his disability when analysing the risk from his in-laws and the extortionists. He submits that he was assessed identically to any other person without his health profile and that this was an error and tainted the credibility analysis. [17] The RAD has reviewed the record and notes that the RPD did not specifically mention the Appellant's disability when assessing the risk from the Awami league. The RAD notes that the Appellant has not made any specific arguments in his memorandum in regard to how his disability was a factor in the risk he faced from the individuals who were extorting his family. The RAD notes however, that the RPD did assess the Appellant's risk from his in-laws which incorporated the fact that he has a disability causing them to disprove of the marriage. [18] The RAD has considered the Appellant's disability in relation to all aspects of his claim. The RAD has first considered the Appellant's personal circumstances. The RAD notes from the evidence that the Appellant is part of a very large family in Bangladesh. He has postsecondary education and identified in his statement prepared for the appeal that he was given accommodation in his schooling to allow him to study from home. He has additionally identified that he was able to work from home doing XXXX XXXX related work and XXXX XXXX. He stated that his brothers were financially successful and they helped him to set up his own business. He stated that his brothers bought land that was generating income and that they added his name to one of the plots of land they purchased. [19] The RAD notes that the most recent medical information4 provided by the Appellant from his family doctor states that he is XXXX XXXX XXXX and is fully employed in Canada. The RAD notes that the Appellant was able to travel from Bangladesh to the US and Canada on his own and has provided photographs showing him in various places in Bangladesh. [20] The Appellant was able to obtain medical treatment in Bangladesh. Although the letter from the doctor in Bangladesh states that he was unable to get necessary medical treatment, the RAD notes that the operation suggested by the Bangladeshi doctor was rejected by the American doctor. It is unclear what other sorts of treatment this Bangladeshi doctor was referring to. The RAD notes that the Appellant had the funds to travel to the US in 2012 to seek out other medical treatment and then returned to Bangladesh. The RAD finds that the Appellant has the means and capability to seek out specialized services internationally if so needed. The fact that certain types of medical treatment are not available in Bangladesh does not ground a claim of persecution given that in this case, there is no evidence that the Appellant was denied medical treatment because of his disability or for any reason other than that there is better medical treatment in other countries as compared to Bangladesh. [21] Having considered the Appellant's personal circumstances, the RAD agrees with the RPD that his situation is not the same as others with disabilities who suffer from poverty and gross deprivation. [22] The RAD has reviewed the documentary evidence5 regarding the situation for persons with disabilities in Bangladesh. It is noted that The Disability Rights and Protection Act of 2013 provides for equal treatment and freedom from discrimination for persons with disabilities; however persons with disabilities faced social and economic discrimination. It is noted that the law focuses on prevention of disability, treatment, education, rehabilitation, social protection, employment, transport accessibility, and advocacy. It is stated that the law requires persons with disabilities to register for identity cards to track their enrolment and educational institutions and access to jobs. Furthermore, giving unequal treatment for school, work, or inheritance based on disability is punishable with fines up to 500,000 taka or three years imprisonment. There is also a 27-member National Coordination Committee charged with coordinating relevant activities among all government organizations and private bodies to fulfil the objectives of the law. The government trained teachers about inclusive education and recruited disability specialists at the district level. The government also allocated stipends for students with disabilities. [23] It is noted that although the law contains extensive accessibility requirements for new buildings, authorities approved construction plans for new buildings that did not meet these requirements. The law affords persons with disabilities the same access to information rights as those without disabilities, but family and community dynamics often influenced whether or not these rights were exercised. The law contains provisions for information and communications technology to be accessible to persons with disabilities through video subtitling, sign language, screen readers, or text-to-speech systems in public and private media outlets. [24] The law identifies persons with disabilities as a priority group for government-sponsored legal services. The Ministry of Social Welfare, Department of Social Services, and National Foundation for the Development of the Disabled are the government agencies responsible for protecting the rights of persons with disabilities. Due to problems of accessibility and to discrimination, persons with disabilities were sometimes excluded from mainstream government health, education, and social protective services. The government reduced taxes on several hundred items, such as wheelchairs, hearing aids, braille machines, orthotics, and prostheses, designed to assist persons with disabilities. [25] As noted earlier, the RAD finds, in the Appellant's personal circumstances. that there is insufficient evidence that there were serious restrictions on his right to earn a living; that he was denied access to education and health care; or that he required social protective services. [26] The RAD acknowledges that the Appellant's life in Bangladesh was difficult, but finds that the experiences he had relating to his disability do not amount to persecution, given his personal circumstances. [27] The RAD has considered whether the Appellant's disability has an impact on his situation in relation to his family being extorted for money and land by individuals associated with the Awami League. The RAD notes that his brother stated in the letter dated May 7, 20186 that the family has been told that the Appellant will be attacked because he is a disabled person and cannot secure his life himself. It is unclear from the letter when that threat was made and who uttered the threat. The RAD notes that the land dispute has been ongoing since 2012. The RAD further notes that the Appellant did not leave Bangladesh until 2016 and there is no evidence in the RPD record that he was physically harmed in any way by the individuals seeking to extort land and money from his family. The RAD finds that this comment in the letter is insufficient to establish that the Appellant's disability was a focus for the alleged agents of persecution. The Appellant's Second Marriage Port of Entry [28] The RPD found that the Appellant's failure to mention the threat of being killed by his wife's family at the port of entry detracted from his credibility. The RPD noted that the Appellant only made his claim for refugee protection upon arrival in Canada after being denied entry. At that time the Appellant did not state that he feared his wife's family. The RPD rejected the Appellant's explanation that he did raise the threat from his in-laws but that it was not recorded due to a possible lack of understanding on the officer's part. The RPD found that explanation was more likely than not untrue as the officer's notes record the Appellant's complaints about how he was treated in his country because of his medical disability and also mention his claim to have recently married in secret. The RPD found that it was reasonable to expect that these notes would have mentioned violent threats from his wife's family, which is more serious and endangering than what had been written down, if the Appellant had told the officer about that fear. [29] The RPD noted that the Appellant did subsequently mention the alleged risk from his in-laws when he returned to the port of entry three days later for additional questioning with an eight paragraph letter addressed to the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB). The RPD noted that the danger from his wife's family was only incidentally alluded to in the comment "they might even kill me/her", but did not elaborate on that fear. The RPD further noted that during the second immigration interview the Appellant emphasized general country conditions in Bangladesh, rather than a specific threat from his in-laws. When asked by a different officer what he feared, the Appellant responded that nothing is XXXX XXXX, "there are people who blame, respect me and neglect me. There is nowhere for handicapped person to go to work."7 The RPD noted that it was only when specifically asked why his wife could not care for him that the Appellant told the officer that her family might kill her and even him. The RPD noted the Appellant also met with the Minister's Delegate (a third officer) and that this person's notes make no reference to the Appellant's spouse or her family. [30] The RPD found that more likely than not, a person who genuinely feared being killed by their in-laws would first raise that specific danger before mentioning general discrimination. [31] The Appellant argues that the RPD stated both that the in-laws' threat was not mentioned and subsequently mentioned in passing at an interview three days later, which shows that the RPD was fixated with finding his every action suspicious. The Appellant submits that the record plainly shows that his risk was mentioned. [32] The RAD has reviewed the record and agrees with the RPD that the Appellant did not initially mention any risk of harm from his wife's family when he made his claim for refugee protection. It is written in the examining officer's notes dated February 4, 20168 that the Appellant stated during the interview that due to his medical disability, he is disrespected and cannot find employment in Bangladesh. It is noted that when asked about why he misrepresented himself on the 2015 Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) application which stated that he was married, the Appellant responded that he had only recently married again on XXXX XXXX, 2016 and that he had married his wife secretly against the wishes of her parents. There is no mention that the wife's parents would harm or kill him, despite the Appellant having mentioned that the marriage was secret. [33] The Appellant was questioned at a second interview three days later on February 7, 2016 and was asked what or who he was afraid of. The Appellant responded that nothing is XXXX XXXX XXXX that there are people who blame, respect him and neglect him; and that there is nowhere for a handicapped person to go to work. When asked why he was afraid he replied that because he is disabled, they do not respect him. The officer later asked the Appellant about his wife and he elaborated that the marriage was secret and because his wife was highly educated, her family will force her to marry someone else. He further stated that "her family might kill her and even me". He referred to a letter that he had written. The RAD notes that this letter contains information that the Appellant married his second wife XXXX days before coming to Canada without her family's permission and that he fears that they will force her to divorce him and marry someone else. He includes the statement "they might even kill me/her". This information is contained in paragraph five of the letter and is secondary to his fears regarding his difficulties because of his disability. [34] The RAD has considered that at the time the Appellant came to Canada his marriage was approximately one week old and his fear that he could be harmed or killed by his wife's family was hypothetical, which is reflected in his letter provided, and oral statements made, at the second interview. It does not appear that her family was aware of the marriage at the time the Appellant arrived in Canada as he stated that it was a secret marriage. [35] The RAD finds that the Appellant's statements at the immigration interviews did not establish on a balance of probabilities that his in-laws intend to harm him or that that his fear in that regard was a primary consideration for why he left Bangladesh. Wife's Letters [36] The RPD found that the statement in the first letter9 from the Appellant's wife that she did not reveal his name to her family was inconsistent with the Appellant's testimony that she had told her family his name in XXXX 2015. The RPD rejected the Appellant's explanation that he knew his wife had said his name, but had not given his family background, as the wife's letter clearly contradicted this explanation. [37] The RPD gave little weight to the second letter from the Appellant's wife stating that her parents have tried to force her into a marriage with another man, as her marriage to the Appellant was a Muslim marriage and his wife would face difficulties under the Islamic personal laws in obtaining a divorce without her husband's consent. [38] The Appellant argues that he stated at the hearing that he knew she had told them his given name but that she provided no extra identifying details that could put them at risk, like his family name and background. He submits that his wife's imprecise language should not be considered an obvious contradiction as he had provided a simple clarification. [39] The Appellant argues that there are a wide range of grounds under which women can initiate divorce proceedings, including prolonged absences by the husband. [40] The RAD has reviewed the record and agrees with the RPD that the Appellant did not reasonably explain the contradiction between his wife's letter and his testimony regarding what her family knew about him. The letter clearly states that the wife did not mention her husband's name or address to her family because she did not want them to attack or hurt him. The RAD finds that there is no evidence on the record to find on a balance of probabilities that the wife's family is aware of the Appellant's identity. The RAD notes that the second letter10 written by the Appellant's wife also does not indicate that she had revealed the Appellant's full identity to her family members. The letter from the Appellant's brother dated XXXX XXXX, 2018 11speaks about helping the Appellant's wife to go into hiding but does not mention that her family was aware of the Appellant's identity or that any member of the Appellant's family living in Bangladesh was approached by the wife's family. The RAD notes that there is no current evidence to indicate that the wife has been found or harmed in any way by her family members in Bangladesh or that they continued to seek her whereabouts. [41] The RAD notes that a wife can initiate divorce proceedings in Bangladesh according to the documentary evidence. However the Appellant's wife has stated in her letters that she does not wish to do so. [42] The RAD finds, based on the evidence in the record, that the Appellant's wife married him against her family's wishes; that her family does not know the Appellant's identity; that her family wanted her to marry someone else which caused his wife to go into hiding in XXXX 2016; and that since that date she has not been found or harmed in any way. There is much information missing from the record in regard to the Appellant's wife's situation. The Appellant has stated that his wife is well-educated, but there is no information on whether she is employed. He has not included any information as to where she is allegedly in hiding or any details about her personal circumstances. He stated that he sends her money and his brother's letter states that the brother supports her. There is no information regarding specific efforts made by his wife's family to find her. Although she has stated that the police and her family are looking for her, this is not supported by any evidence in the record. The RAD finds that the Appellant has established on a balance of probabilities that he and his wife married without the approval of her family and that the wife went into hiding in XXXX 2016 because her family wanted her to marry another man. The RAD finds that it has not been established on a balance of probabilities that her family have continued to try to find his wife since she left her family's home in XXXX 2016. Although she has alleged that her family is powerful and can find and kill her and the Appellant, there is insufficient evidence in the record to establish the family's profile. Photographs of her family member standing next to a policeman are insufficient to establish a relationship. A photograph of a man with a gun does not reveal the circumstances in which the photograph was taken and it is insufficient to show that her family engages in violent and deadly activities.12 The RAD finds that the Appellant has not established on a balance of probabilities that his wife's family continues to seek her out to harm her or that her family is powerful and can find and kill her and the Appellant. Summary [43] Having reviewed all the evidence that the RPD finds that the RAD did not err in finding that the Appellant did not credibly establish the harm he fears from his wife's family. Extortion Risk Failure to Mention Extortion at the Port of Entry [44] The RPD found that the Appellant had not reasonably explained why he had not mentioned his fear of extortion by Awami league members in any of the three interviews he had with different Canadian officials upon coming to Canada. The RPD noted that he was interviewed when he first arrived, and again by a different officer three days later and finally by the Minister's Delegate. The RPD rejected the Appellant's explanation that he had written about this in his letter. The RPD found that that was clearly not true. The RPD noted that his family had supposedly faced violent threats and litigation relating to the extortionists since either 2014 or 2012 and found that his failure to broach these allegations weighed against finding them credible. [45] The Appellant argues that he thought he had included this risk in a letter that he submitted to authorities at his second interview, but that he was mistaken. He submits that he likely did not mention this risk at the airport because the land disputes have been going on with various levels of intensity for years, and that the events that were at the top of his mind were his secret marriage and his in-laws' rejection of him because of his disability. He submits that he did not know about refugee claims or what kind of problems they address and it was only when he obtained counsel that his lawyer canvassed the full situation with him. He submits that he provided external objective evidence regarding this land dispute. [46] The RAD has reviewed the record and agrees with the RPD that the Appellant did not reasonably explain why he had omitted mentioning his fears of the Awami League extortion during his three interviews with immigration officers or from his prepared statement that he provided when he returned to the airport three days after he arrived in Canada. Although he states that he did not know about refugee claims, the RAD notes that the Appellant wrote in his Basis of Claim (BOC) narrative and the Schedule A form13 that he had contacted the Netherlands Embassy in Bangladesh by email about making a refugee claim and that they had advised him that he would have to make that claim in the Netherlands. Furthermore, the RAD notes that the Appellant's work and education were computer-based and that the Appellant allegedly made the decision to come to Canada in order to seek protection in this country. The RAD finds that the Appellant was aware of the concept of making a refugee claim and finds it reasonable to expect that he would have researched how to do that in Canada given that he was coming to this country to seek protection. The RAD agrees with the RPD that the Appellant did not reasonably explain why he did not mention his fears of the Awami league and extortion in any of his three interviews or in the statement he prepared for immigration authorities. Inconsistencies [47] The RPD found that the Appellant had not reasonably explained the inconsistency regarding the amount of money, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX taka, demanded by the extortionists noted in his original BOC as compared to the amount noted in his amended BOC and a police complaint document, which was XXXX XXXX taka. The RPD rejected the Appellant's explanation that after speaking with his brother, the persecutors had reduced their demand, as the Appellant had initially testified at the hearing that the amount was XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX taka and not the new, lower amount. The RPD found that this discrepancy undermined the Appellant's allegations and the documents he used to support them. [48] The RPD placed no weight on a note allegedly from his family's lawyer in Bangladesh which stated that he had advised the family not to mention the Awami league in the police complaint and civil litigation. The RPD found that while there may be a valid political reasons for not mentioning the Awami league in public filings in Bangladesh, there was no reason to hide the ruling party's involvement from the RPD in Canada. Furthermore, the alleged lawyer note contains no reference to the Awami league which diminished its value. [49] The RPD found that the documents relating to the police and civil proceedings appeared inconsistent in that the parties in the two lawsuits were different. The RPD rejected his explanation that if all the individuals involved were named, his brother would face harm, as they were incongruities beyond the individuals involved. The RPD noted that the criminal complaint referred to two plots of land each of XXXX XXXX acres; the civil action involved a single parcel of land of XXXX XXXX acres; the police materials referenced ongoing cases with 2012 dates, with different file numbers as in the 2014 dated civil litigation. The RPD found that these discrepancies diminished the trustworthiness of the documents and the underlying claims about the land dispute. [50] The Appellant argues that he clearly wrote in his BOC that "they told me that I would have to pay them XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX taka if I wanted to get my property back" and that in his amendment he wrote that extortionists "threatened my family that if they do not pay XXXX XXXX taka they will attack my family members and take over all of our property". He submits that there is an obvious difference which he reasonably explained. He argues that contrary to what is written in the decision, the RPD did not ask him "how much Awami league supporters were seeking" without specifying who the request was made to. Rather, the RPD asked how much money they wanted from the Appellant, which he understood to refer to himself. He submits that his testimony matched what was in his narrative and that he explained that another amount was later demanded of his brother in his absence. He argues that he cannot be faulted for misunderstanding whether the question meant him only or his family. [51] The Appellant argues that he was never confronted about inconsistencies relating to the court and police documents and that he is not a lawyer and his brothers had naturally been at the forefront of the land dispute. He submits that the RPD wrongly made assumptions about the particular plots of land that have been disputed at various times and the Bengali case file numbering system as the RPD did not know about official procedures in Bangladesh. [52] The RAD has reviewed the record as well as the new documents provided with the appeal and notes that the brother's most recent letter14 indicates that the amount wanted by the extortionists changes from time to time. It is noted in the letter that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX taka was demanded of the family, as well as XXXX XXXX taka and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX taka, all at different times. No dates are provided and the RAD finds that it is impossible to conduct an adequate analysis regarding amounts and timing of demands. However it is clear to the RAD that the Appellant was never individually approached for money and that all of these amounts noted were required of the family. All of the documentation provided, including the Appellant's BOC narrative and amendments and letters from family, contain no details in regard to when incidents happened, who was involved and other clarifying details that would bolster the credibility of the allegations. [53] The RAD has considered that the Appellant was not presented with the inconsistencies between the court and the police documents in relation to the file numbers and the details of the plots of land and agrees that the RPD erred by not confronting the Appellant about these inconsistencies. However the RPD did question the Appellant about the inconsistencies regarding the names of the people involved in these documents and the failure of the documents to mention the Awami League. The RAD agrees with the RPD that the Appellant's explanation for why the parties in the documents were different - that his brother would face harm - is not reasonable given that the body of the documents from 2012 and 2014 reference all of the brothers and there is no evidence that the Appellant was harmed prior to leaving Bangladesh in 2016. [54] The RAD has furthermore considered that the court document from 201415 includes the Appellant as plaintiff number one on the cover page and two of his brothers,Md. XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX as plaintiffs numbers two and three. However in the body of the document, the Appellant is never mentioned, and there is reference to plaintiffs number two and number three purchasing the land in 2002 and 2006. It is noted that plaintiffs number two and three are the owners of the land. It is unclear why the Appellant is listed as plaintiff number one given that he is not represented in the body of the document as an owner of the land. The RAD notes that he has not provided any documentation showing that he was one of the owners. [55] The RAD notes that the Appellant's name does not appear in the police prayers and complaint from 2016 and 201716. The petitioner was the Appellant's brother XXXX XXXX XXXX, who only states in the documents "I and my other brothers are the owners and possessors of the schedule mentioned land", and "I and my brothers purchased...." The RAD notes that there are no actual ownership documents in the record to show which brothers purchased the land. [56] Furthermore, the Appellant stated in his BOC narrative that he tried to go to court to force the people who had taken his property to return it and that as a result, the court issued an interim order holding that the members of the Awami League should leave his property alone until ownership was decided. It is further stated in the narrative that when the people who took his property found out about the interim order, they threatened to kill him so that they could keep property. The RAD notes that an interim order from the court has not been presented with the other court documents and that none of the documents that were submitted indicate anything about the Awami League. The RAD has additionally considered that the Appellant has provided no dates and details regarding specific threats made against him; and that he personally was never harmed. [57] The RAD finds that the court and police documents are not probative in establishing that the Appellant is an owner of disputed land, and that there is a link to the Awami league political party. The party is not mentioned in any of the documents. The newspaper articles submitted as new evidence17 do not specifically mention the Appellant's name. Although the brother's letter submitted with the appeal18 references the Appellant as being an owner of the land and states that he will be pressured by the Awami league to transfer his ownership to the extortionists, there is no documentation in the record to establish that ownership. The RAD finds that it is reasonable to expect that he would have provided this documentation given that he has submitted a plethora of other documents relating to the land dispute and other aspects of his claim. [58] The RAD finds that the Appellant has not established on a balance of probabilities that he is an owner of land that is at heart of a dispute between his family and Awami league members. Supporting Documents [59] The RPD found that although the Appellant had provided many documents relating to his brother XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, he had only provided a single, illegible paper to document his brother XXXX XXXX injuries relating to the violent attacks by the extortionists. The RPD rejected the Appellant's explanation that he did not have more documentation regarding his brother's injuries as he had only received preliminary treatment before being released and that there were no serious medical records. The RPD found that this explanation contradicted the amended BOC which stated that XXXX was severely injured and hospitalized. The RPD considered that XXXX played a critical role in the Appellant's story as a victim of the Awami league members and as the brother who supposedly helped his wife hide from her family. The RPD drew a negative credibility inference from the Appellant's failure to provide supporting evidence from his brother because he had not thought to ask him for it. [60] The Appellant argues that he consulted his counsel about getting a letter from his brother and was told that it was not needed. He submits that it is known that letters from family members are routinely given little weight compared to objective evidence which he has provided. He argues that, given the non-impact of other personal letters that were tendered, even if his brother had written something his statement would have been easily dismissed. [61] The RAD has reviewed the record and agrees with the RPD that it was reasonable to expect supporting documentation regarding the alleged violent attack of his brother XXXX. The patient admission form19 submitted to the RPD only contains information that the brother was admitted to hospital and nothing else. Although there is a seal on the document that says police case, there are no police documents or reports to support any police involvement. The RAD notes that this alleged attack on the Appellant's brother was the only incident of violence against his family for which details were provided and that it was the most recent indication of aggression against his family. The RAD finds that it is reasonable to expect that the Appellant would provide fulsome supporting documentation of this incident from his brother who was the victim. The RAD further agrees with the RPD that the Appellant did not reasonably explain why a more detailed medical report regarding this violent attack which necessitated a hospital stay was not available. [62] The RAD has considered the letter from the Appellant's brother submitted with the appeal which reviews the history of the Appellant's claim and adds that he had wounds that required stitching and bandages. The RAD finds that it is reasonable to expect that there would be more documentation of the treatment the Appellant's brother received at the hospital, given the example shown with the submission of the documentation regarding his other brother's hospital treatment. It is further stated in the letter that that it is noted on the hospital admission form that it was a police case, but that he was unable to file the case with the police against the ruling party leader who was involved in the incident. The RAD notes that the Appellant's amended BOC narrative only states that he was attacked by the Awami league. The RAD does not find it plausible that the leader of a national political party would be involved in the violent attack of an individual over a land dispute issue. The RAD notes that the Appellant's brothers filed other documents with the police making allegations against specific individuals and finds it suspect that a document regarding this attack was not filed with the police also stating the names of specific individuals. The RAD finds that the brother's letter is not probative in establishing that he was violently attacked by the leader of the ruling party, the Awami League. The RAD puts little weight on this letter as corroboration of the Appellant's allegations. The RAD finds that the Appellant has not established on a balance of probabilities that his brother XXXX was violently attacked by individuals associated with the Awami league as alleged. Summary [63] The RAD has considered all of the above noted findings regarding the Appellant's fear of extortion and harm. The RAD finds that the Appellant has not established on a balance of probabilities that he is an owner of disputed land or that he has ever been personally targeted by individuals regarding this land. The RAD notes that the dispute appears to have been going on since 2012 and that the Appellant has provided no information or details regarding any specific time that he was personally approached or harmed in regard to this dispute prior to leaving Bangladesh in 2016. The RAD further finds that even if his name was on the titles of the property, given his comment in his statement provided with the appeal that his brothers put his name on the property title, it is reasonable to expect that they can just as easily take his name off the title for his own safety. The RAD furthermore notes that the only incident of violence mentioned was against one of his brothers. The Appellant's BOC indicates that there are three other brothers living in Bangladesh and there is no evidence that they have been harmed. [64] The RAD finds that the Appellant has not established on a balance of probabilities that he is being targeted by members of the ruling party or anyone else because of a land dispute. The RAD finds that there is not a serious possibility that the Appellant will be persecuted or harmed by anyone involved in the land dispute. Determinative Issues [65] The RAD has conducted an independent assessment of the evidence and finds that the Appellant has not established his claim for protection on the basis of his disability, his marriage, or extortion. The RAD finds that these issues are determinative of his claim and will not address the other arguments put forward by the Appellant in this appeal. [66] The RAD finds that there is not a serious possibility that the Appellant would be persecuted for any reason should he return to Bangladesh, nor would he be subjected personally, on a balance of probabilities, to a risk to life, a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or a danger of torture, should he return to Bangladesh. CONCLUSION [67] The RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection, pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA. (signed) "Linda Hart" Linda Hart March 25, 2019 Date 1 RAD Rules, section 29(3). 2 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, p. 3. 3 IRPA, at s. 110(6). 4 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pages 33-34. 5 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Bangladesh (31 October 2016), item 2.1. United States. Department of State. 13 April 2016. 6 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pages 77-83. 7 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 1, page 46. 8 Exhibit RPD-1, Exhibit 1, page 66. 9 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 7, pages 336-338. 10 Ibid., Exhibit 8, pages 391-392. 11 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pages 77-83. 12 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 8, pages 393-398. 13 Exhibit RPD-1, Exhibit 1, pages 58-61. 14 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, page 80. 15 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 7, page 346 16 Ibid., Exhibit 8, pages 404 to 411. 17 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, pages 50-73. 18 Ibid, pages 77-83. 19 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 8, page 412. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB7-08779 RAD.25.02 (September 18, 2018) Disponible en français 21 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