MB7-02260

RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB7-02260 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision - Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject(s) of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Montréal, Quebec Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision March 27, 2019 Date de la décision Panel Me Elaine Doyle Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal N/A 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 XXXX (the appellant), a citizen of the Dominican Republic, is appealing against the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) from November 14, 2016. [2] The Minister has not intervened in this appeal. DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL [3] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the RPD's determination that the appellant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection under paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act1 (the Act). BACKGROUND [4] The appellant alleges that her ex-husband wants to kill her because she refuses to go back to live with him. She reportedly got married in 2000 and claims to have been subjected to domestic violence throughout her relationship. She did not want to leave her husband because of their three children. She stated that she had contacted the police on multiple occasions but they did not truly intervene and only asked that he calm down. She finally divorced in 2009. She stated that she lived a peaceful life until April 2016, when her ex-husband came to see her to resume their relationship. Despite the appellant's refusal, her ex-husband would not stop following her and causing scenes everywhere and in front of everyone. REFUGEE PROTECTION DIVISION DECISION [5] The RPD rejected the refugee protection claim on the basis that it did not find the appellant credible. The RPD was not satisfied with the appellant's explanations for the contradiction in the date when her problems began, the contradictions in the intention of her stay in Canada, and the failure to indicate in her Basis of Claim Form (BOC Form) that her ex-husband had returned to her mother's approximately twice after the November 20, 2016, visit. APPELLANT'S ARGUMENTS [6] In his memorandum, counsel for the appellant cites case law indicating that, to find that there is a lack of credibility, the contradictions must be of a serious nature. The decision-maker should not draw a negative inference from minor incoherencies. Counsel for the appellant submits that it is possible that the appellant simply mixed up the dates. [7] Counsel submits that the appellant properly explained her intention in regard to the duration of her stay in Canada and that she is not responsible for the duration of stay indicated by her friend on the invitation to come to Canada. Counsel also submits that the appellant's explanation for her failure to indicate that her ex-husband had returned to her mother's on two other occasions was satisfactory since these events occurred after she had filed her refugee protection claim. [8] Therefore, the appellant is asking the RAD to allow the appeal. SCOPE OF THE APPEAL [9] The role of the RAD is to review the decisions of the RPD while making sure to carry out an independent analysis to determine if the decision of the RPD is correct, after having listened to the recording of the hearing held before the RPD and, in this case, taking into account the Chairperson's Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution. ANALYSIS [10] The issue in this case is to determine whether the RPD erred in finding that the appellant is not credible. I am of the opinion that the RPD has not committed any errors, for the reasons that follow. [11] Counsel for the appellant has not indicated any specific error committed by the RPD, other than pointing out that to find that there was a lack of credibility, the contradictions must be of a serious nature, and that, in his opinion, the appellant's explanations were satisfactory. [12] I am of the opinion that the appellant's testimony at her hearing before the RPD was, overall, vague, changing and inconsistent. Moment when her ex-husband returned to see her [13] The appellant testified that she decided to ask her friend in Canada for help in April 2016, after her ex-husband had come to see her and started following her everywhere and causing scandals in front of everyone. She stated that she wanted to temporarily distance herself by coming to Canada for a vacation; she was not looking to flee her country. When confronted with the fact that her friend's letter of invitation to come to Canada preceded her ex-husband's reappearance in her life, specifically that it was dated March 2016, the appellant vaguely replied that she must have made a mistake in the letter's date. Afterwards, when confronted with the date written on the letter, she stated that she must have made a mistake in regard to the date of her ex-husband's return. [14] I agree with the RPD that this explanation is not satisfactory. The appellant stated that she had been living peacefully since her divorce and that it was in April 2016 that her ex-husband returned to harass and threaten her. This was an important moment for the appellant and, according to her, was what made her decide to come to Canada. It is reasonable to believe that she would remember this, especially since it was relatively shortly before she completed her BOC Form in November 2016. Intent of her stay in Canada [15] The testimony of the appellant in regard to her intent in coming to Canada was inconsistent and contradictory. First she stated that she wanted to come for five or six months. When confronted with the information in her visa application, which states that she wanted to come for 15 days, the appellant replied that when she arrived in Canada she was told that she could stay for six months, which was why she stated six months. After, she stated that she was thinking of staying for three months, since that was how much vacation time she had. Then, she stated six months, because there was not much work. Confronted with her visa application, which states 15 days, the appellant confirmed and added that her plan had always been to stay for six months. Confronted with the letter of invitation from her friend, which indicates a stay of 15 days, she replied in a stunned manner [translation] "oh yes?" [16] I am of the opinion that the appellant's answers were not spontaneous and that she was trying to adjust her testimony to the contradictions presented to her. Ex-husband's visits to the appellant's mother's home [17] The appellant failed to indicate in her BOC Form, either by addendum before the hearing, or at the start of the hearing when the member asked her if her account was complete and correct, that her ex-husband had returned to the mother's at least twice to look for her and threatened her. I agree with the RPD that the answers provided by the appellant to explain this omission, which I consider very serious, are not satisfactory. If the ex-husband had returned to the appellant's mother's on more than one occasion to look for her and threaten her, these events would be very important in regard to the fear brought up by the appellant. However, the appellant did not mention these events in her account, or in an addendum after submitting her BOC Form, or at the start of the hearing. I am of the opinion that this omission is very serious since it is at the heart of the fear alleged by the appellant, namely that her ex-husband wants to harm her. The fact that she failed to mention these visits weighs heavily in the evaluation of the appellant's credibility, since while a person cannot be expected to recall every event in minute detail, these visits, during which her ex-husband allegedly made threats against her, are events that, in my opinion, are ones that a person who had lived through them would remember. [18] Overall, and given the evidence on the record, I am of the opinion that the appellant did not demonstrate that the RPD erred in a way that justifies the RAD's intervention. I find the RPD's analysis to be correct, considering the evidence before it. CONCLUSION [19] Consequently, I dismiss the appeal and confirm the RPD's determination that the appellant is neither a "Convention refugee" nor a "person in need of protection" pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Act. Elaine Doyle Elaine Doyle March 27, 2018 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, amended. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB7 02260 RAD.25.02 (September 18, 2018) Disponible en françcais 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 françcais