MB9-27426

RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB9-27426 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 Montréal, QC Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision January 12, 2021 Date de la décision Panel Me Maria De Andrade Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Angelica Pantiru Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] The appellant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, citizen of Mexico, is claiming refugee protection in Canada because she fears her ex-spouse. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejected her refugee protection claim on the basis that credibility was the determinative issue. [2] The appellant submits that the RPD erred in not considering Chairperson's Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution in assessing her credibility. The appellant did not submit any new evidence in support of the appeal. She is asking the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) to set aside the determination and refer the matter to the RPD for her refugee protection claim to be analyzed by a different panel. [3] After a complete and independent analysis of the evidence, I am of the opinion that the decision rendered is correct. The panel is presumed to have considered Guideline 4 in its assessment of the appellant's credibility. In this case, I have no reason to conclude otherwise. Numerous inconsistencies and contradictions were noted. Sometimes, the appellant's testimony was inconsistent with the evidence filed and other times, the appellant contradicted her oral testimony. [4] The appeal is dismissed. BACKGROUND [5] The appellant is from Comitan de Dominguez in the state of Chiapas. In her Basis of Claim Form (BOC Form), she states that she fears her ex-spouse, a XXXX XXXX XXXX who assaulted her and threatened to kill her. [6] She alleges that she met him in XXXX 2017 during an XXXX with the XXXX XXXX affiliated with the criminal court of Chiapas. In approximately XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017, she left her mother's house to go live with her spouse. Six months later, around XXXX 2018, their relationship went downhill, and her spouse would beat her when she refused to give in to his whims. She did not file a complaint out of fear that he would seek revenge, because he knew all of the judges and prosecutors. [7] She confided her problems to her boss, who offered her work in one of the chain's XXXX in Puebla. That is how, on or around XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, she left the marital home to go work in Puebla. [8] Around XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, her spouse found her. He promised that he had changed and that he was sorry for his violent behaviour. Around XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, she went back to Comitan with her spouse, but one week later, he started beating her again. [9] The appellant alleges that around XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, he came home drunk and assaulted her. The next day, after he left the house, she left the marital home to go sleep at her mother's house. The appellant allegedly filed a complaint for domestic violence with the State Attorney General of Chiapas, and left for Tuxtla after quitting her job. [10] In Tuxtla, she claims that she went to see the police. One week later, while she was walking, her spouse approached her and forced her into a van. He drove her to a motel and allegedly assaulted her. A security guard heard her screaming, knocked on the door and told them that the police would be there soon. Her spouse allegedly fled. The appellant claims she took a taxi and went to the State Attorney General's office to file a complaint. She was informed that her previously filed complaint was being processed. The appellant returned to Comitan to live with her grandparents. [11] Fearing for her safety, she took steps to leave Mexico. The appellant arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, to claim refugee protection. Impugned decision [12] The RPD found that an accumulation of contradictions, omissions in the written account and major inconsistencies in the chronology of the alleged incidents seriously undermined the appellant's overall credibility. Arguments submitted on appeal [13] On appeal, it is submitted that the RPD erred in failing to consider Guideline 4 in its analysis of the appellant's behaviour and credibility. ANALYSIS [14] In my independent analysis of the evidence, I considered Chairperson's Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution. Inconsistencies with regard to when the violence started [15] From the outset, the RPD found that inconsistencies in the evidence regarding when the violence allegedly started undermine the appellant's credibility. [16] The RPD noted that in her written account and at the hearing, the appellant stated that her ex-spouse started beating her after six months of cohabitation, that is, around the beginning of XXXX 2018. However, the complaint, Exhibit C-31 dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, states the following: [translation] ... in 2016 I met XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, whom I became friends with. Then in 2017 we started living together. In the beginning, everything was calm and normal, but about two months ago my partner started becoming a violent person, to the point that he beat me three times. The last time he beat me was last Monday, that is XXXX XXXX of this year, that is the reason I have come before this social institution to report the events that occurred.2 Which suggests that the violence allegedly started in XXXX 2018. [17] The appellant explains that she did not mention problems prior to XXXX 2018 because she believed in a fresh start when she went back to Comitan with her spouse in XXXX 2018. [18] The appellant submits that RPD's conclusion on the matter is erroneous because it was drawn without regard for Guideline 4, which informs decision-makers that certain women try to minimize the violence they experience.3 [19] The appellant was right to underscore the importance of being sensitive to the fact that it is difficult for some women to admit that they are in a romantic relationship with a violent person. However, in this case, the RPD did not err. That inconsistency in the evidence cannot be considered in an isolated manner. I also note that in the complaint, the appellant states that she met her spouse in 2016, whereas she testified that she met him in XXXX 2017, when she started her internship with the criminal court's correctional service. At this point, I would also note that I am surprised that the appellant did not write in the forms she completed for her refugee protection claim that she did an internship with the criminal court. But there is more. Incident of XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018 [20] The RPD was correct to conclude that the appellant did not conclusively establish that she was the victim of violence on or around XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018. [21] At the hearing, the appellant stated that she went to Puebla on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, because she wanted to get away from her violent spouse. He allegedly found her around XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018. She claims that they lived together in Puebla for one month without any problems. Around XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX she went back to the marital home with him after he promised to change. One week after she returned to Comitan, on around XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, her spouse started beating her again4 and the next day, she left for her mother's house. [22] However, the complaint dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, states that her ex-spouse hit her on three occasions and that the last time was on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018. [23] When the panel asked her to explain herself, she stated that she may have made a mistake and that the assault occurred toward the end of XXXX. Then she stated that he beat her on XXXX XXXX XXXX that she reported him on XXXX XXXX and that the day after she quit her job.5 For the RPD, the explanations did not dispel the doubt raised by the inconsistencies between the statements and the contents of Exhibit C-3, hence the conclusion that this exhibit does not support the appellant's claims. [24] The memorandum states that: [translation] 34. This is not a contradiction. 35. The RPD confused the three complaints that were filed. The first was filed with the Chiapas State Attorney General after the assault on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, the second one was the report made with the state of Tuxtla police, and the third was that of XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, filed with the Tuxtla State Attorney General, after the assault in the van and motel room. 36. Therefore, the last assault was not the one on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, but the one in the van and motel room on XXXX XXXX. 37. The way in which the Board asked the appellant to explain these so-called contradictions only served to mislead the appellant by providing her with erroneous information.6 [25] Respectfully, the RPD did not err, and it [translation] "did not mislead the appellant by providing her with erroneous information." On the contrary, as noted by the counsel representing the appellant before the RPD, the panel acted fairly, while the appellant's written account and testimony contain several contradictions. [26] In listening to the hearing recording, I note that the appellant's testimony was hesitant and that sometimes she did not answer questions. [27] Even if I accept the appellant's explanations that she made a mistake about the date on which the alleged incident occurred when she returned from Puebla, I note that the arguments that the last assault [translation] "was not the one on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, but the one with the van and motel room on XXXX XXXX," create even more doubt in my mind. [28] The appellant's statements do not allow me to conclude that the incidents that Exhibit C-3 is meant to corroborate describe the incident that occurred in the motel in Tuxtla. Furthermore, if any probative weight were given to Exhibit C-3, it states that the complaint was filed with the Comitan State Attorney General's office. What is more, other than the assault at the marital home at the end of XXXX, the appellant does not state in her written account or when questioned by the panel that she had been the victim of any incident prior to the assault at the motel on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, one week after she arrived in Tuxtla.7 [29] According to her testimony, the day after the incident at the marital home, she left for her mother's house, where she stayed for two weeks, and then she left for Tuxtla after filing a complaint with the Attorney General. The assault in the motel allegedly occurred one week after she arrived in Tuxtla, on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018. [30] I find that the appellant's credibility was seriously undermined by her contradictory statements at the hearing. [31] Specifically, when her counsel asked her to provide more details for the incidents leading to the complaint that was filed (Exhibit C-3) and to understand the chronology of the events and her various moves, the appellant provided a completely different testimony than the one she gave when questioned by the Member. [32] First, when her counsel asked her, she answered that he hit her for the first time on XXXX XXXX, 2018.8 When her counsel reminded her that complaint C-3, dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, indicates that she had been hit on three occasions, and that she reported to the authorities that XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, was the third time, the appellant changed her testimony. She stated that the first time was in XXXX XXXX XXXX and the second time was at the end of XXXX.9 However, she told the panel that between XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, and XXXX XXXX XXXX, when she was living in Puebla with her spouse, the situation was calm. Because she had hope that the situation would keep going well, she returned to Comitan with her spouse around XXXX XXXX XXXX. It was only one week after returning to Comitan that the situation deteriorated and the day after the assault, she left to stay with her mother. [33] I understand that it can be difficult to remember certain traumatic incidents. However, in this case, I note that the relationship with this supposed spouse lasted, if I accept her testimony, less than 18 months. The changes in her testimony are numerous and generate serious doubts about her allegations. Omission in the Basis of Claim Form that her spouse looked for her at her mother's house [34] At the hearing, the appellant testified that after the assault on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, she lived at her mother's house for two weeks,10 and that during that period, her ex-spouse looked for her there. However, this information is not included in her BOC Form. The RPD was correct in noting that the failure to include this information in her written account is another factor casting doubt on the appellant's claims. [35] In my opinion, this is not the omission of unimportant facts, considering that she claims that she filed a complaint after that assault and that she fled to Tuxtla because her ex-spouse was looking for her. In addition, I was surprised that the appellant testified that she did not know how many times this man went looking for her at her mother's house. This lack of interest in knowing how many times her ex-spouse went looking for her at her mother's house also casts serious doubt on the alleged situation. Problems after leaving Mexico [36] The RPD also noted that the appellant answered "no" when she was asked if her ex-spouse looked for her at her mother's house after she left Mexico, when at the start of the hearing she asked that it be added that one and a half months beforehand, her ex-spouse had asked for her. [37] I agree with the RPD that her negative answer casts serious doubt about whether this event occurred. [38] In this case, an accumulation of factors casts serious doubt on the appellant's claims that there is a serious possibility of persecution on the grounds alleged or that her life would be subjected to one of the risks under section 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) if she were to return to Mexico. CONCLUSION [39] For these reasons, I confirm the RPD's determination that the appellant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, is not a "Convention refugee" or a "person in need of protection" within the meaning of section 97 of the IRPA. [40] The appeal is dismissed. (signed) Maria de Andrade Me Maria De Andrade January 12, 2021 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 SPR-1, Refugee Protection Division (RPD) record, Exhibit C-3, copy of the complaint and its French translation, pages 131 to 148 and 151 to 166. 2 SPR-1, RPD record, Exhibit C-2, French translation, page 139. 3 P-2, Appellant's record, appellant's memorandum, pages 12 to 14. 4 Recording of the RPD hearing held October 7, 2019, at around 41:01. 5 Ibid., at around 1:30:25. 6 P-2, Appellant's record, appellant's memorandum, pages 16 and 17. 7 Recording of the RPD hearing held October 7, 2019, at around 51:36. 8 Ibid., at around 2:01:18. 9 Ibid., at around 2:01:36. 10 Ibid., from 41:01 to 43:08. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB9-27426 RAD.25.02 (January 2020) Disponible en français 3 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 (January 2020) Disponible en français