MC1-05783

Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel es réfugiés RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MC1-05783 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 Date of decision November 30, 2021 Date de la décision Panel Me Richard Sheitoyan Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Géraldine Castellanos 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 I dismiss the appeal. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is a citizen of Peru. He alleges that he was kidnapped in XXXX 2005, was assaulted and tortured and had his XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. After escaping, he made a complaint to the police just as his captors were arrested and imprisoned on other charges. Using a visitor visa valid for six months, he joined some of his siblings in the United States in late XXXX 2005. He stayed beyond the time period, meeting his spouse in 2011 and divorcing in 2017. He moved to Philadelphia in 2013 and held various XXXX XXXX jobs. Facing a number of medical issues and fearing his removal to Peru after the Trump administration was elected, he came to Canada to claim refugee protection in February 2018. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) concluded that Mr. XXXX did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution or, on a balance of probabilities, that he would be subjected to a risk to his life, a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or to a danger of torture should he return to Peru. It reached this conclusion considering the following: - The significant period of time that has passed since he was targeted by his captors - Evidence that establishes the past events but does not demonstrate current interest - The existence of state protection, as demonstrated by the police action in his case The appellant's memorandum of appeal states that the RPD erred in its decision by concluding that he can relocate anywhere else in Peru. The determinative issue for the Refugee Appeal Division is whether, on a balance of probabilities, the appellant would be subjected to a risk to his life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or to a danger of torture should he return to Peru. DETERMINATION I dismiss the appeal. The RPD was correct to determine that the appellant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. ANALYSIS My role is to review all of the evidence and determine whether the RPD decision is correct.1 The appellant's situation is based on an incident that occurred 16 years ago. While the incident is significant, the question that needs to be answered when it comes to protection is whether there is a prospective risk for him if he returns to Peru. The appellant's memorandum argues that when the RPD states that he could relocate anywhere else in Peru, it erred in concluding that there is an internal flight alternative (IFA). However, at no point did the RPD indicate there is any IFA. It noted the lack of evidence of a prospective risk should he return to Peru and proceeded to analyze state protection based on the appellant's testimony about the current activities of his agents of harm. In addition, the memorandum submits that the RPD ignored his reality and the situation that led him to stay in the United States to regularize his status. It argues that the RPD's statement that the appellant did not provide evidence that he personally faces a danger of torture in Peru disregards the Basis of Claim Form. Yet the only reference the appellant makes to the danger he would face is his testimony that he learned from Internet searches that his agents of harm are involved in a group that commits crimes all over Peru and that there is collusion with the police, who are involved more broadly. The findings in support of the RPD decision are the passage of time since the initial incident and the lack of evidence of current incidents. The objection to this decision is based on the argument that criminally active individuals who targeted the appellant in the past would want to come after him if he returns. Unfortunately, the evidence submitted by the appellant does not support the conclusion that he would be personally subjected to a risk to his life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or to a danger of torture should he return to Peru. In addition, the RPD rightly noted that the appellant's personal experience indicates that there is state protection, as demonstrated by the action that was taken in relation to his kidnapping case. The RPD decision is correct. CONCLUSION 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. (signed) Me Richard Sheitoyan Me Richard Sheitoyan November 30, 2021 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145.