TB4-03055

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 File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB4-03055 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Redetermination of the Appeal Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX(a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX) Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision November 04, 2015 Date de la décision Panel Robert Bebbington Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Anthony P. Navaneelan Conseil(s) du (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated Representative(s) N/A Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX(the Appellant) is a citizen of Yemen. He appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejecting his claim for refugee protection. He also appealed a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) rejecting his claim for refugee protection to the Federal Court of Canada. On July 29, 2015, the Federal Court set aside the RAD decision and his appeal was remitted back to the RAD for reconsideration with a different decision-maker. The Appellant asks that the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) set aside the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) and substitute a decision with its own determination that the Appellant is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. In the alternative, the Appellant requests that the RAD refer the matter back to the RPD with a differently constituted panel. The Appellant has submitted new evidence with the appeal as referred to in s.110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)1 and requests an oral hearing be held pursuant to s.110(6) of the IRPA. DETERMINATION [2] Pursuant to ss. 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the RAD confirms the determination of the RPD and dismisses the appeal. BACKGROUND [3] The Appellant alleged before the RPD that he is a 25-year-old male national of Yemen who has lived in Saudi Arabia his entire life, as his mother is a Saudi national. The Appellant took some university courses beginning in 2010 taught by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, who was visiting from the United States. The courses the Appellant took from XXXX XXXX XXXX compared Saudi culture to Western culture and Christianity to Islam, which piqued the Appellant's interest. The Appellant spoke to XXXX XXXX XXXX once or twice a week to discuss religion or Christianity. These talks led to the Appellant becoming interested in Christianity. [4] The Appellant stopped praying and fasting and started to tell his family about Western culture. He was beaten for not praying at the same time as his family and for discussing Western culture. The Appellant began researching Christianity on the internet and in XXXX of 2013 he told his family that he was planning to convert. The Appellant's mother helped arrange for the Appellant to leave Saudi Arabia, which he did on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2013. He made his refugee claim in early December 2013. [5] The Appellant's refugee claim was heard on February 7, 2014. In a decision of March 13, 2014, the RPD denied the Appellant's claim finding that the Appellant was not credible. [6] The Appellant submits that the RPD unreasonably assessed his religious faith by engaging in a microscopic analysis of his religious doctrinal knowledge and failed to fully examine his sur place claim. ADMISSIBILITY OF NEW EVIDENCE PRESENTED ON APPEAL [7] As provided for in s. 110(3) of 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 refugee Appellant. Subsection 110(4) of 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 present, at the time of the rejection. [8] In determining how the statutory provisions of Section 110(4) apply to this proposed new evidence, the RAD considered the following: First, did the evidence arise after the rejection of the Appellant's refugee claim? * The RAD will consider not only the date on which the document came into existence but the timing of the event or circumstance which the document addresses. It is important to note here that Section 110(4) does not contemplate whether the evidence arose after the RPD's hearing but rather after the rejection of the Appellant's claim. * Where a document arose after the hearing but before the rejection of the refugee claim, it is necessary for the RAD to consider whether the Appellant could have presented the document to the RPD by way of a post-hearing submission. Second, if the RAD finds that the evidence did not arise after the rejection of the Appellant's refugee claim, it must consider the next factor in Section 110(4). * If the evidence is capable of proving only an event that occurred or circumstances that arose prior to the rejection, has the Appellant established that the evidence was not reasonably available for presentation to the RPD before it rejected the claim, or that it proves a fact that was unknown to him at the time of the hearing? Third, if the RAD finds that the evidence did not arise after the rejection of the Appellant's refugee claim and that it was reasonably available at the time of the rejection, it must consider the final part of the Section 110(4) test: * Could the Appellant reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented the evidence prior to the rejection of his refugee claim? If so, the evidence need not be considered. If the Appellant could not reasonably have been expected to present the evidence to the RPD, the RAD will proceed to weigh the evidence and assess its probative value. [9] The Appellant has tendered the following proposed new evidence in support of his appeal. a) A letter from Rev. XXXX XXXX of XXXX XXXX XXXXAnglican church2 dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 2014, which acknowledges that the Appellant contacted him at XXXX XXXX XXXX church in XXXX 2013 and that the Appellant is a member of XXXX XXXX XXXX. b) A letter from Reverend XXXX XXXX of XXXX XXXX XXXX church3 dated XXXX XXXX, 2014, who acknowledges that the Appellant has been a member of the church and was baptized in XXXX 2013. c) A letter from Reverend XXXX XXXX of XXXX XXXX XXXX church4, not dated, who speaks to the Appellant's involvement in the church over a one month period since she joined the church on XXXX XXXX, 2014. [10] In addition, the Appellant has tendered two additional documents5 as proposed new evidence in support of his appeal in the De novo redetermination. a) A Summons/Warrant document issued XXXX XXXX, 2014 b) A Circular Letter issued XXXX XXXX, 2014 [11] In reference to the first three documents,6 the RAD finds that, although these documents tendered are dated following the rejection of the Appellant's claim, they all relate to the Appellant's allegations before the RPD that he is a practicing Christian in Canada. [12] The Appellant submits that these three documents should be admitted because he could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented the evidence at the time of his rejection. The Appellant argues that he was unable to obtain "a number" of these documents in time for his refugee hearing. It was only after the refusal of his refugee claim that he was able to obtain additional corroborating documents. [13] The RAD is not persuaded by the Appellant's argument in this regard. The issue of the Appellant's Christian activities in Canada is the central component of his claim for refugee protection. The Appellant and his counsel knew the key issues in the claim and could have sought to provide this evidence at the RPD hearing or applied to submit them as post-hearing documents. [14] The RAD has considered the content of the first two letters from Rev. XXXX XXXX and Reverend XXXX XXXX. The RAD notes as much as the dates of issuing of these letters post-date the rejection of the Appellant's claim for refugee protection, the information contained in the letters refers to the Appellant's attendance and activities at church prior to the rejection of his claim on March 13, 2014. While the Appellant argues that he was unable to obtain these letters prior to the rejection of his claim he has not provided any explanation of why he was unable to provide the documents. The RAD notes that the letters themselves do not provide any explanation for why they could not have been tendered prior to the rejection of the claim. The RAD finds that the evidence contained in these letters could reasonably have been expected to have been submitted to the RPD prior to the time of the rejection. Therefore, the RAD finds that the first two documents7 are not admissible under subsection 110(4). [15] The RAD has further considered the third letter8 from Reverend XXXX XXXX. The RAD notes this letter does not contain a date of issuance, but it contains a statement indicating Reverend XXXX was XXXX to the church on XXXX XXXX, 2014. The author further states that she has known the Appellant for approximately one month. The RAD finds this letter is admissible as new evidence in this claim. [16] In respect to documents 4 and 5, the proposed new evidence was issued on December 7, 2014 and December 13, 2014, after the issuing of a decision in the Appellant's claim. The RAD finds these two documents meet the requirements of s. 110(4) and upon review they do provide information that is relevant to the Appellant's risk should he return to Yemen. The RAD finds documents 4 and 5 are admissible as new evidence in this Appeal. ROLE OF THE RAD [17] The RAD finds that the recent Federal Court decision, in Huruglica,9 provides the RAD with guidance in relation to the appropriate standard that must be applied by the RAD to decisions of the RPD. Justice Phelan states in paragraphs 54 and 55 of the foregoing decision: [54] Having concluded that the RAD erred in reviewing the RPD's decision on the standard of reasonableness, I have further concluded that for the reasons above, the RAD is required to conduct a hybrid appeal. It must review all aspects of the RPD's decision and come to an independent assessment of whether the Appellant is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. Where its assessment departs from that of the RPD, the RAD must substitute its own decision. [55] In conducting its assessment, it can recognize and respect the conclusion of the RPD on such issues as credibility and/or where the RPD enjoys a particular advantage in reaching such a conclusion but it is not restricted, as an appellate court is, to intervening on facts only where there is an "overriding and palpable error". [18] Accordingly, the RAD will conduct its own assessment of the RPD's decision and come to an independent assessment of whether the Appellant is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. The RAD will recognize and respect the credibility findings of the RPD. ANALYSIS OF THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL The Appellant's Christian identity [19] The RPD made a number of adverse credibility findings concerning the Appellant's Christian faith. The Appellant submits that the RPD's decision was not based upon inconsistencies between his BoC form and his testimony, but that the RPD based its decision on its perception that the Appellant demonstrated no more than a superficial knowledge of his new religion. The RAD is not persuaded by the argument of the Appellant. [20] The Appellant further argues that the Federal Court has consistently found that "testing a claimant's understanding of religious tenets through trivia" is contrary to law. The Appellant argues that the RPD's assessment of the Appellant's Christian knowledge was microscopic in nature and that his religious faith should not be impugned on the basis of his inability to match doctrinal knowledge with that of the RPD member at his refugee hearing. The RAD is not persuaded by the Appellant's argument in this regard. [21] The RAD is cognizant of the Federal Court jurisprudence on the assessment of religious knowledge and recognizes that a panel should not reach an adverse conclusion based on minutiae or by holding a refugee claimant to an unreasonably high standard of religious knowledge. The RAD notes though that Federal Court Jurisprudence also makes it clear that it is not improper for the RPD to engage in religious questioning in an effort to gauge the genuineness of a claimant's beliefs or to consider whether the claimant holds a level of religious knowledge that would be expected of someone in the claimant's position.10 [22] The RAD notes that the Federal Court has also stated in cases of religious persecution, the RPD is required to assess whether the person is an adherent of the religion and in doing so, the member is entitled to ask questions about the basic tenets of that religion.11 [23] In reviewing the audio recording of the hearing and evidence submitted in this appeal, the RAD notes that the method of inquiry utilized by the RPD assessed the sincerity and credibility of the Appellant's faith based upon his knowledge of basic fundamental principles associated with the Christian faith. The RAD finds that the RPD engaged in a thoughtful and fair assessment of the genuineness of the Appellant's alleged conversion to Christianity and that the assessment was not microscopic in nature. In assessing the sincerity and credibility of the Appellant's faith the RPD concluded his faith was lacking in credibility. [24] The RAD has considered that although the Appellant has only practiced his religion in Canada for a short time, he testified that he underwent a religious "epiphany" in 2010 while studying with an American professor. He stated that he met with the professor at least once or twice per week in an effort to get to know more about Christianity. He further testified to researching and studying Christianity on the internet both in Saudi Arabia and in Canada. The RAD finds it reasonable to expect that the Appellant would be able to identify basic key components of his faith. [25] It is clear from the review of the audio recording that the RPD considered the Appellant's religious profile, his immersion into the Christian faith, his access to religious instruction and teachings as well as his education when formulating questions and in weighing the expected outcome. The RPD's reasons address the fact that responses to religious questions can have more than one acceptable answer particularly where the questions are basic and fundamental. [26] The RAD finds that that the answers provided to the questions posed to the Appellant were inconsistent with his alleged religious profile. The RAD concurs with the RPD finding that his responses to questions were "either general [in nature], nonsensical and simply incorrect" and that he demonstrated no more than a superficial knowledge of his new professed faith. An example of this was the Appellant's response to an inquiry about events immediately following the birth of Jesus. The Appellant testified, "The miracle was he was a newborn and he spoke". The RAD is not aware that this is an event that is described in the Bible, but notes that it is described in the Quran. The RAD finds the Appellant is confusing his Muslim teachings with those of Christianity. His testimony further undermines his allegations that he has spent extensive time in the study of the Christian faith. [27] Further to this, during questioning by counsel for the Appellant he was asked to explain why he wore a "cross". The Appellant testified that it "made him feel belonging and that he was part of the church". He was subsequently asked to describe his favourite portions of the Bible. The Appellant identified the "Old Testament", stating it is part of wisdom. He was given an opportunity to clarify his statement, but he was unable to provide any clear explanation. The RAD finds even with counsel's attempts to lead him in this area of his testimony, the Appellant was unable to provide anything beyond vague generalized comments about the Bible and his understanding of the Christian faith. [28] The Appellant submits that his answers, while not completely doctrinally correct, do contain a number of answers which demonstrate knowledge of the Christian faith. The Appellant argues that he was able to correctly provide the names of two books of the Bible and was aware that Jesus was born to a virgin, the names of Christian holidays and prayers, and he identified the place where Jesus was born. (The RAD notes that the Appellant has misstated this fact. Christian doctrine indicates that Jesus was born in Bethlehem). The RAD notes that the birth of Jesus is a seminal event of Christianity, and finds it is reasonable to expect that the Appellant would be able to provide accurate and fulsome information about it. While it is true that the Appellant does possess some limited knowledge about the Christian faith, the RAD finds it is more significant what he does not know. Both the Appellant's counsel and the RPD asked simple questions that the RAD finds a person of the Appellant's alleged profile ought to have known. The RAD in its review of the audio recording of the hearing finds the questions put to the Appellant were not microscopic in nature but fundamental and basic inquiries. [29] The RAD notes that the Appellant testified that he has abandoned his lifelong faith for that of Christianity, at great personal risk not only to himself but his family. In addition he has chosen to separate from his family and flee his country of origin in order to pursue his new faith. In light of the Appellant's testimony and statements in his BoC document that while in Saudi Arabia, he was "researching Christianity in his free time on the Internet", "sometimes twice or three times per week", as well as his study of the Christian faith in Canada, the RAD finds it is reasonable to expect the Appellant would possess more than a rudimentary knowledge of Christianity. [30] Additionally, the RAD notes that the RPD's findings with regard to the genuineness of the Appellant's conversion to Christianity were not solely based on the Appellant's lack of knowledge of Christianity. The RAD in its review of the record found that the RPD considered that the Appellant alleged that he had been practicing Christianity and attending church regularly since arriving in Canada in XXXX 2013. When questioned about the celebration of Christmas, the Appellant described in detail his understanding of Christmas in Canada without any religious context. When asked whether he attended church on Christmas, the Appellant answered in the negative. His explanation for not attending was that he did not know it was important and was not aware it was a "big deal" to go to church at Christmas. The RAD finds the Appellant's testimony in this area is inconsistent with his prior testimony in which he identified Christmas as an important holiday in the Christian faith. The RAD finds the Appellant's inconsistent testimony undermines the genuineness of his belief. The RAD further finds his failure to attend his church on one of the most significant Christian celebrations in light of his allegations that he fled Saudi Arabia to pursue his new faith further detracts from the genuineness of his belief. The RAD notes that this was a finding made by the RPD which was not contested by the Appellant. The letter from Reverend XXXX [31] The Appellant submitted a letter12 as new evidence from Reverend XXXX XXXX, who addresses the Appellant's attendance at church and her understanding of his Christian faith through a discussion with him. The RAD finds this document can only attest to the claimant's participation in church activities, they do not attest to his motivation. In this regard, case law13 indicates that a pastor's assessment of the genuineness of a person's faith cannot be substituted for the assessment that the panel is required to make. The RAD having considered its findings in respect to the Appellant's Christian identity gives little evidentiary weight to this document in the assessment of the genuineness of his Christian identity. [32] The RAD acknowledges it is difficult to make a judgement regarding the genuineness of a person's religious practice. However, on the basis of a full assessment of the evidence the RAD finds that the Appellant is not a genuine practicing Christian, and that these credibility findings raise a significant doubt about his general credibility. Having found that the claimant is not a practicing Christian, the RAD finds, on a balance of probabilities, and in the context of findings noted above, that whatever knowledge of Christianity the Appellant possesses was obtained in Canada for the purpose of supporting a fraudulent refugee claim. In the context as noted above, and on the basis of the totality of evidence disclosed and in the context of the Appellant's knowledge of Christian teachings, the panel therefore finds that the Appellant is not a genuine practicing Christian, nor would he be in Yemen. The arrest summons and circular letter [33] The Appellant has submitted new evidence in this appeal as described previously. He has also submitted a personal affidavit14 describing the applicability of these documents. He submits that his father has persuaded Yemeni authorities to order his arrest on the grounds of apostasy. The evidence submitted is a Yemeni "arrest/summons" and a "circular letter".15 The Appellant submits these documents order the Yemeni Immigration and Border authorities to arrest him immediately at the airport. The RAD has reviewed these documents submitted in evidence. [34] The RAD requested disclosure of the original copy of the "Summons/Arrest" document16 submitted as new evidence in this appeal. The RAD has reviewed the document in respect of its genuineness and notes a number of visible concerns on the face of the documents. The RAD notes that the document is hand filled, produced on plain paper which has the markers of a photocopied form. The RAD further notes the document is produced without security features aside from a stamp that is the only security feature visible on the document. The RAD further finds that the stamp appears to be colour copied onto the document and is not an ink stamp that has been applied to an original document. However, the RAD notes the document appears to have a signature entered over top of the stamp. The purpose of a stamp is to "seal" the document to attest to its genuineness and as a means to demonstrate that it has not been altered or tampered with. The presence of data written over a stamp undermines the integrity of the stamp and as a result, the credibility of the document itself. [35] More significantly, the RAD finds the document contents have been "overwritten" in a number of locations in a crude attempt to alter or amend the document. These concerns occur in: * The first character in the date on the second line in the left upper corner of the document * The fourth character in the line below (third line) in the left upper corner of the document. This character appears to have been added following production of the initial document. * the fourth character in the third line in the right upper corner of the document * a full component of the Appellant's name in the fourth panel of the central aspect of the document [36] As well the RAD notes the document states that the person signing the document is to indicate their position, yet this information has not been entered on the document. [37] The RAD has considered the multiple concerns identified in this document. The RAD finds it reasonable to believe that the authorities in Yemen would not issue a document that is both incomplete and altered. The RAD finds there are persuasive reasons to question the authenticity of this document. With this information in mind, the RAD places no evidentiary weight on the "Summons/Arrest" document presented as support that the Appellant is being sought for arrest in Yemen. The circular letter [38] The RAD requested disclosure of the original copy of the "Circular Letter" submitted as new evidence in this appeal. The RAD has reviewed the document in respect of its genuineness and notes a number of concerns visible on the face of the document. The RAD notes that the document is produced on embossed paper and appears to be printed in a format that could be reproduced with any basic word processing program. The RAD notes the document has been produced without any security features, beyond the use of a series of ink stamps. [39] The RAD further notes when examining the print on this document there appear to be two lines crossing the document at 1.75 cm and 22.9 cm from the top edge. The RAD also notes that there are two areas (top left area below the "registration" number and lower central area adjacent to the statement "signed by the Legalization Judge", that contain what appears to be the border or outline of a stamp (purple), but these areas contain no visible data. Further to this the RAD notes what appear to be two (purple) ink stamps on the right lower portion of the document, but the data in these areas is not legible nor are the stamps complete. The RAD notes there are two additional ink stamps on the document (one red, one blue). The ink in these stamps has "smeared" slightly with handling, as one would expect, but the borders of the four purple stamps are not smeared because they appear to be integral or "printed" on the document. The RAD finds the two stamps with empty data fields, as well as the two stamps with illegible data fields give the appearance that a document was overlaid and copied onto this document. The RAD further notes the top and bottom "lines" described above are not visible on the copy17 that was initially submitted in evidence by the Appellant. The RAD finds these inconsistencies detract from the identification of the document as a genuine document. [40] As discussed, the document contains three ink stamps that are associated with signatures (two purple on the right side and one blue at the bottom of the document). The RAD notes the signatures are entered over the stamp. The purpose of a stamp is to "seal" the document to attest to its genuineness and as a means to demonstrate that it has not been altered or tampered with. The presence of data written over a stamp undermines the integrity of the stamp and as a result, the credibility of the document itself. [41] In addition the RAD notes that there are two additional signatures on the document that are not sealed with stamps. The RAD further notes that none of the signatures on the document contain or are associated with dates that would serve to confirm when these signatures were affixed to the document. The RAD notes that two of the signatures are illegible and are not interpreted. As well three of the signatures do not designate who the individual is or what authority that individual holds. The RAD finds that these signatures and the statements they reference could have been entered on the document at any time following its production and they cannot be relied upon, further detracting from the credibility of the document. [42] As well the RAD notes that the emblem on the document has a bold printed area below it with a large black slash through it and letters faintly visible behind. This portion on the document is not interpreted, but the RAD has considered that this is intended to be a government of Yemen identifying emblem. The RAD finds it is reasonable to believe that the Yemeni Republic, Department of Justice would not issue an official document with visible printing flaws obscuring a portion of its identifying emblem. [43] In addition there are two large "cross hatched" black ink markings on the document contained in the body of the letter. The RAD further notes these markings are not addressed in any form in the interpretation of the document and they appear on the document in a different ink than that utilized in any other component of the letter. The RAD notes the first marking appears to attempt to obscure an unidentifiable entry behind it. The second marking appears to have no information associated with it. The RAD finds these inconsistent entries on the document, further detract from its credibility. [44] The RAD notes no samples of these documents are available in the IRB country documents for comparison to valid original documents. The Federal Court has stated: ...that where there is sufficient evidence to cast doubt on a document's authenticity, whether because of an irregularity on its face or the questionable circumstances in which it was obtained or provided, a document may be assigned little (or no) weight, without expert verification or where such verification is inconclusive.18 19 20 [45] The RAD also notes that submitting a false or irregular document may have an impact on the weight assigned to other documents provided by the claimant, especially when they are interrelated,21 and on the overall credibility of a claimant.22 [46] The RAD has considered the multiple concerns identified in this document. The RAD finds there are persuasive reasons to question the authenticity of this document. With this information in mind, the RAD places no evidentiary weight on the Circular Letter presented as support that the Appellant is being sought in Yemen. [47] Based on the concerns identified in both documents submitted by the Appellant, the RAD finds, on a balance of probabilities, the documents are fraudulent. The RAD further finds that this finding severely undermines the credibility of the Appellant in respect of his allegations of persecution in both Saudi Arabia and Yemen. The Appellant's sur place claim [48] The Appellant submits that the RPD unreasonably assessed his sur place claim for refugee protection. The Appellant argues that the RPD did not conduct an assessment or analysis of the treatment of Christian converts or apostates by Yemen authorities. The Appellant argues that, in failing to asses this factor, the member has misapprehended the test for sur place refugee claims. Although the RPD correctly stated the test, the Appellant argues that the RPD failed to apply the test in a forward-looking manner. The Appellant further argues that, even if the motivation behind his conversion to Christianity was deemed not to be genuine, the RPD still had the obligation to assess the risk that he would be perceived to be a Christian. The RAD is not persuaded by the argument of the Appellant. [49] The RAD has reviewed the record and finds the RPD's reasons clearly indicate that the RPD did appropriately apply the sur place test. The RPD's reasons state: The second way is if a claimant has been practicing in Canada, even for motives which are not genuine, and this may come to the attention of the authorities in the claimant's home country where the activity is banned. This would expose the claimant to a risk upon return to his country. The only documentary evidence before the panel about the claimant's conversion to Christianity is his Baptism Certificate and the brochure from the Church in Canada indicating that the claimant had been baptized. There is nothing before the panel to suggest that authorities in Yemen have seen this document or are aware that the claimant has converted, and no further evidence suggesting the authorities in Yemen are aware of the claimant's activities in Canada has been put before the panel. Finally, the claimant has never set foot in Yemen, nor has he ever pursued his Christian religion in that country, so the panel finds that it is unlikely that authorities there would have any awareness of his activities as a Christian. [50] Contrary to what the Appellant asserts, the RAD finds that the RPD did conduct a forward-looking analysis. The RPD found that the Appellant was not a genuine member of the Christian faith and further, on a balance of probabilities, that he would not be practicing Christianity if he were to return to Yemen. The RPD considered the Appellant's baptismal certificate and his Christian activities in Canada and found that it was unlikely that authorities in Yemen would have any knowledge of his misleading Christian activities in Canada. [51] The RAD also finds as noted by the RPD that there was no persuasive evidence adduced at the hearing or in his BOC form that the Appellant's practice of Christianity in Canada has come to the attention of Yemeni authorities or that he would be perceived to be a genuine practitioner. The RAD has further considered the new evidence submitted by the Appellant, which alleges the Yemeni authorities are now aware of the Appellant's Christian associations. The RAD has assessed this evidence and given it little weight. [52] In this respect, the RAD is guided by the Federal Court Trial Division decision in Wang,23 which held that a sur place claim could not be maintained in the absence of evidence that the making of the refugee claim had specifically come to the attention of the authorities of the claimant's country of origin. The Appellant does not submit that the RPD has misconstrued the facts in Wang. [53] The RAD has reviewed the Record, including the audio recording of the hearing as well as the new evidence submitted in this appeal and finds it agrees with the finding of the RPD in respect to the Appellant's sur place claim and the Appellant's argument must fail. REQUEST FOR AN ORAL HEARING [54] According to Section 110(6), upon which the Appellant relies, the RAD may hold a hearing, if, in its opinion, there is documentary evidence referred to in 110(3) that raises a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the Appellant, that is central to the RPD's decision, and that, if accepted, would justify allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claim. In this appeal, where there is no evidence from or in response to the Minister, the documentary evidence referred to in Section 110(3) must be understood in relation to Section 110(4). [55] When read together, Sections 110(3), (4) and (6) establish that the RAD must not hold a hearing in an appeal such as this unless there is new (Section 110(4)) evidence, in which case the RAD may hold a hearing if that new evidence raises a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the Appellant, is central to the RPD's decision, and that, if accepted, would justify allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claim. [56] The RAD has admitted some of the Appellant's new evidence in support of his appeal. However, the RAD finds the new evidence was neither credible nor reliable and so it does not raise a serious issue with respect to credibility, which is capable of changing the outcome of the claim. As such, the RAD must proceed without a hearing on the basis of the RPD's record and the Appellant's application for an oral hearing is denied. CONCLUSION [57] The Appellant has alleged that the RPD erred in rejecting his claim. The RAD finds no such errors and, upon review of the evidence, has reached the same conclusion as the RPD that the Appellant is not credible. [58] The RAD agrees with the RPD's determination and finds that, on the basis of the totality of the evidence in this appeal, the Appellant has not satisfied the burden of establishing a serious possibility that he would be persecuted or that he would be personally subjected to a risk to his life, or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or a danger of torture by any authority in Yemen. [59] Pursuant to Section 111(1)(a) of IRPA, the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. This appeal is dismissed. (signed) "Robert Bebbington" Robert Bebbington November 04, 2015 Date 1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 2. 2 Exhibit P-2, Appellant Record, p.138. 3 Ibid, p.139. 4 Ibid, p.140. 5 Exhibit P-4, pp.5-8. 6 Exhibit P-2, Appellant Record, pp.138,139,140. 7 Exhibit P-2, Appellant Record, pp.138,139. 8 Exhibit P-2, Appellant Record, p.140. 9 Huruglica, Bujar v. M.C.I. (F.C. no. IMM-6362-13), Phelan, August 22, 2014; 2014 FC 799. 10 Gao, Mengmeng v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-7310-14), Southcott, October 6, 2015; 2015 FC 1139. 11 Shen, Huilan v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-7237-14), Annis, July 24, 2015; 2015 FC 903. 12 Exhibit P-2, Appellant Record, p.140. 13 Cao, Wo Ji v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-1303-08), Mosley, October 17, 2008, 2008 FC 1174. 14 Exhibit P-3, New Evidence, p.7-11. 15 Ibid., Exhibit P-4, New Evidence, pp.4-8. 16 Ibid., Exhibit P-4, New Evidence, pp.5, 7. 17 Exhibit P-4, New Evidence, pp.6,8. 18 Adar, Mohamoud Omar v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no IMM-3623-96), Cullen, May 26, 1997. 19 Uddin, Nizam v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-895-01), Gibson, April 26, 2002. 20 Mohanarajan, Sriahilandtharanathan v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-5482-00), Simpson, November 6, 2000. 21 Uddin, Nizam v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-895-01), Gibson, April 26, 2002. 22 Gochez, Julio Cesar v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3545-99), Dubé, September 7, 2000. 23 Wang, Kong Ping v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-6298-99), Pelletier, November 14, 2001; 2001 FCT 1237. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB4-03055