TB8-23062

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-23062 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision October 4, 2019 Date de la décision Panel Pasquale Fiorino Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Abdus Samad Howlader Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the Appellant) is a citizen of Bangladesh and appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) which concluded that were some credible issues and that he has a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Bangladesh. The Appellant is submitting new evidence, pursuant to subsection 110(4), and he is requesting a hearing, pursuant to subsection 110(6). For the reasons which follow, the appeal is dismissed. ROLE OF THE RAD [2] For questions of fact, law, and mixed fact and law, the RAD has applied the standard of correctness, as per Huruglica.1 [3] Accordingly, the RAD will conduct its own analysis of the Record to determine if the RPD erred. NEW EVIDENCE [4] I will analyze the admissibility of the proposed new evidence, pursuant to the test set out in subsection 110(4) and in accordance with the Federal Court of Appeal's decision in Singh.2 [5] The Appellant has submitted as new evidence a copy of a letter from a lawyer in Bangladesh.3 However, I note that the same letter was submitted to the RPD.4 Therefore, this is not new evidence. [6] He also submitted a number of articles which discuss the political profile of the agent of persecution.5 The article entitled "XXXX XXXX" has no date, and therefore I cannot ascertain when it was published. I will not accept it as new evidence. The article entitled "XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX" is dated November 4, 2017, and the article entitled "Political tension mounts" is dated February 3, 2018. Both were readily available to the Appellant prior to the RPD rendering its decision. [7] The Appellant submits these documents were not submitted earlier because the Appellant was not aware that the Panel would take issue with the Awami League (AL) leader's profile in Bangladesh.6 I cannot agree with this submission. The Appellant was fully aware that XXXX XXXX was the alleged agent of persecution, and therefore it is reasonable to expect that he would have provided the RPD with all and any information with respect to the agent of persecution's political profile. I do not accept them as new evidence. [8] As a result, the Appellant's request for a new hearing is not allowed. ANALYSIS ON THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL [9] The RPD concluded that there were credibility issues and that the Appellant has a viable IFA in Bangladesh. The Appellants submit that the RPD erred in its credibility analysis and in its IFA conclusion. For the purpose of this appeal, I will only analyze the credibility issue. [10] The Appellant stated that, in 2015, he met XXXX XXXX in the library of the Fani Government Commercial Institute where they were both studying. He was in grade 12 at the time while she was in grade 11. The Appellant stated that they became friends and would study together. They then fell in love and began dating four months after meeting, approximately May 2015. After XXXX uncle, XXXX XXXX, learnt of the relationship, he was allegedly unhappy, believing that any rumor or scandal about the family could damage his political reputation. [11] The Appellant alleges that, on XXXX XXXX, 2016, he was beaten by five to seven people with hockey and bamboo sticks, who then removed his clothes and tied him to a light post. He stated that he reported the matter to the police. [12] The Appellant arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2017. He alleges that close to fifteen people who are presumably affiliated with XXXX XXXX went to his home the day after his departure from Bangladesh. They allegedly vandalised and ransacked the Appellant's home and threatened his parents, stating that, if the Appellant dared to return to the country, they will kill him at the airport. [13] The Appellant alleges that, since August 2017, the month that he arrived in Canada, his mother has told him "every other month" that people have come asking for him. The Appellant stated that, apart from the above text from his mother which referenced a visit on XXXX XXXX, 2018, people went to his father's shop the first week of XXXX 2018 asking about him. He believes that these individuals are affiliated with XXXX XXXX, and they continue to ask his mother: "Where is your son? Is he in the country? Where are you hiding him?" Credibility [14] The RPD concluded that the Appellant had been in a relationship with XXXX XXXX whom he met while they were both pursuing studies at the Fani Government Commercial Institute. However, the RPD concluded that other parts of the Appellant's testimony were not credible. Alleged Assault [15] The Appellant alleges that he was physically assaulted on XXXX XXXX, 2016 by five to seven people and was tied to a light post without his clothes. He stated that he reported the matter to the police who were reluctant to take a complaint against XXXX XXXX, so the Appellant filed a complaint without mentioning names. [16] The RPD asked him if he had a copy of the complaint, and the Appellant replied that the police had not given him a copy. The RPD questioned him as to what efforts he had made to obtain a copy of the report after his arrival in Canada, and he replied that he had not asked his parents to obtain a copy for he feared that XXXX would retaliate against them. The RPD did not accept this explanation. [17] I note that the Appellant submitted a copy of a letter from a lawyer in Bangladesh.7 The author of the letter states that his office contacted the police on behalf of the Appellant, but there is no mention that he had inquired about a police report. It is reasonable to expect that the Appellant would have asked his lawyer in Bangladesh to obtain the alleged police report. As the RPD pointed out, the RPD Rules require that a claimant obtain the necessary documents to prove his claim. I also note that, although this was an issue raised by the RPD in its reasons, the Appellant has not provided any reliable evidence which would indicate that, since the decision, he has attempted to obtain a copy of the alleged police report. [18] As the Federal Court has stated: On this basis, it was open to the panel to draw a negative inference, first, regarding the applicant's credibility, because of the lack of corroborating evidence and, second, because of the lack of reasonable and credible explanations for his failure to produce that evidence. It is trite law that the panel may make adverse findings based on the fact that applicants failed to produce evidence corroborating their testimony or make any efforts to obtain such corroborating documentation (Muthiyansa v. Canada (M.C.I.), 2001 FCT 17, 103 A.C.W.S. (3d) 809, and Sinnathamby v. Canada (M.C.I.), 2001 FCT 473, 105 A.C.W.S. (3d) 725).8 The Appellant's home is vandalized [19] The Appellant alleges that the day after his departure for Canada, close to fifteen people, who are presumably affiliated with XXXX XXXX, allegedly vandalised and ransacked the claimant's home and threatened his parents, stating that, if the Appellant dared to return to the country, they will kill him at the airport. [20] The RPD did not accept this allegation, and I agree with the RPD. The Appellant stated that he last saw XXXX in September 2016, on her birthday, and he last had contact with her in January 2017, approximately eight months before his arrival in Canada. He also stated that between January 2017 and August 2017, he did not speak to XXXX, although he was still living in Bangladesh. The RPD asked him why he had not spoken with her during that time, and the Appellant replied that, because he had been kidnapped, he realised that, if he stayed in the relationship, he would lose his life. And during this time when he was living in Bangladesh, neither he nor his family were threatened by the agent of persecution. Yet, the day after he leaves Bangladesh, his family begins to receive threats. [21] Furthermore, since the Appellant has consented to the request of the agent of persecution-that he should cease seeing XXXX XXXX-the agent of persecution was no longer motivated to harm the Appellant. The Appellant had thus complied with the demands of the agent of persecution, and therefore he would no longer have an interest in harming the Appellant. [22] I also note that this alleged incident occurred the day after the Appellant had left Bangladesh for Canada. I find that it is too much of a coincidence that, the day after the Appellant leaves Bangladesh, individuals from the agent of persecution vandalize his home. With regard to this coincidence, I am guided by the Federal Court's decision in Ankrah,9 where J. Noel stated: The applicant's story does otherwise reveal a series of events of chance, and it was open to the tribunal to conclude therefrom that the Applicant's testimony was too fortuitous in nature to be believed. [23] I have also considered the decision in Meng, where the Court held that ...the Board's remark that the timing of the alleged church raid is an "extraordinary coincidence" that is suspiciously convenient is not unreasonable in light of the evidence, notably the fact that they were visiting their sister in Canada and their visitor visa was set to expire. Although I agree with the Applicants that there is nothing inherently implausible about a church raid occurring while the Applicants were away, there are a number of suspicious aspects to the timing of their story.10 [24] I find that it is not unreasonable to infer that the timing of the events is improbable. I conclude that the allegation that his home was vandalized the day after his departure is a carefully concocted addition to enhance the appeal and to bolster the believability of the story. I find, on a balance of probabilities, that this coincidence is a reasonable cause to draw a negative inference and to assign little probative value to the events described by the Appellant. [25] The Appellant also testified that the agents of persecution have continued to visit his parent's home looking for him. The Appellant did not mention this allegation in his narrative. The RPD questioned him with respect to this omission, and he replied that he had been stressed out. The RPD did not accept this explanation. [26] I cannot agree with the explanation provided by the Appellant with respect to his reasons for this omission. As the Federal Court has stated: ... the contradictions in the applicant's evidence were not peripheral, but were directed to important aspects of the applicant's narrative. It is common and completely proper for the Board to compare a claimant's evidence from the Port of Entry, PIF, and oral testimony....11 [27] The new information in his oral testimony amounts to omissions regarding significant aspects that go directly to the heart of the Appellant's claim.12 It is reasonable to expect the Appellant to have remembered this allegation when writing his narrative in the Basis of Claim form. [28] I note that the Appellant did not make any submissions with respect to these credibility findings. [29] The Appellant's submissions are, for the most part, broad and generalized; whereas, in compliance with RAD Rule 3(3)(g), an appellant is required to make full and detailed submissions with respect to the errors the RPD is alleged to have made and the location of those errors. The submissions contain a random collection of assorted legal principles and case law which are not appeal specific. Various general errors are alleged on the part of the RPD, but where these errors occur in the current case remains unspecified. All of these submissions are vague and non-specific and, therefore, not compliant with RAD Rule 3(3)(g). [30] The RPD reached its conclusion by analyzing and referring to specific written and oral testimony of the Appellant. The Appellant does not directly challenge any of these findings by the RPD. He does not provide any explanation which might have clarified the oral or written testimony which he provided to the RPD. The RAD Rules are clear that the Appellant has a responsibility to include full and detailed submissions regarding the errors that are the grounds of the appeal in the memorandum. In this case, specific arguments or analyses of how the RPD erred is missing or obtuse. [31] I find that there is noncompliance with Rule 3(3)(g)(i) and (ii). It is not my duty to engage in a search for errors in the RPD's decision in the absence of guidance from the Appellant. I have completed an independent assessment of the RPD's record, including listening to an audio recording of the RPD hearing and reviewing all of the documentary evidence provided, as it relates to the specific errors alleged in the memorandum. I do not need to look further for errors not disclosed by the Appellant. [32] In Dahal,13 the Federal Court noted: By simply satisfying itself that no such additional errors were made, the RAD's decision should not become vulnerable to being set aside on judicial review, based solely on its general concurrence with findings made by the RPD in respect of matters that were not raised on appeal by the Applicants. In my view, this would largely vitiate the purpose of Rule 3(3)(g) of the Rules, which requires an appellant to identify (i) the errors that are the grounds of the appeal, and (ii) where those errors are located in the RPD's decision, or in the transcript recording of its hearing. [33] Given the above credibility findings, I conclude that the Appellant is not a reliable witness with respect to the allegation that he was assaulted and beaten in XXXX of 2016, which his home was vandalized the day after he left Bangladesh for Canada, and that his family is still receiving threats from the agent of persecution. [34] The Appellant has submitted documentary evidence to support his allegations.14 However, since I have concluded that the Appellant is not a credible witness with respect to this allegation, I find that these documents were submitted in order to embellish his refugee claim. [35] As the Federal Court has stated on a number of occasions, a negative credibility finding by the Board may have a negative finding on documentary evidence. In the Granada decision, the Court stated: Moreover, an applicant's lack of credibility may affect the weight given to documentary evidence and in appropriate circumstances may allow the Refugee Division to discount that evidence. Refugee status does not exist at large, and the applicants must credibly establish that the agents of persecution are targeting them personally (Songue v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1996] F.C.J. No. 1020 (F.C.T.D.) (QL); Hossain v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] F.C.J. No. 160 (F.C.T.D.) (QL); Nasim v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 1199, [2003] F.C.J. No. 1624 (F.C.T.D.) (QL); Waheed v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FCT 329, [2003] F.C.J. No. 466 (F.C.T.D.) (QL)). 15 [36] Having concluded that the Appellant is not a credible witness with respect to his major allegations, I see no need to analyze any other issue in this appeal. DECISION [37] Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Refugee Appeal Division confirms the determination of the Refugee Protection Division that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. The appeal is dismissed. (signed) "Pasquale Fiorino" Pasquale Fiorino October 4, 2019 Date 1 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93. 2 Singh, Parminder v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-512-14), Nadon, Gauthier, de Montigny, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 96, at para. 44. 3 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 31. 4 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 140, Exhibit 5, at p. 1. 5 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 41-45. 6 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 46. 7 RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 140, Exhibit 5, at p. 1. 8 Castañeda, Manuel Alejandro Romero v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-4838-09), Boivin, April 13, 2010, 2010 FC 393, at para. 37. 9 Ankrah, Bismark v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. T-1986-92), Noel, March 16, 1993. 10 Meng, Renxian v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-1102-14), de Montigny, March 23, 2015, 2015 FC 365, at para. 22. 11 Napoleon, Christiana Abiodun v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-6502-10), Zinn, July 5, 2011, 2011 FC 822, at para. 30. 12 Kroka, Miroslav v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-6199-11), Boivin, June 11, 2012, 2012 FC 728, at para. 17. 13 Dahal, Kumar Prasad v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-330-17), Crampton, December 4, 2017, 2017 FC 1102, at para. 37. 14 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 139. 15 Granada, Armando Ramirez v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-83-04), Martineau, December 21, 2004, 2004 FC 1766, 136 ACWS (3d) 123 at para. 13. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-23062 RAD.25.02 (April 04, 2019) Disponible en français 9 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 (April 04, 2019) Disponible en français