TB9-17392

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-17392 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Calgary, AB Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision July 27, 2020 Date de la décision Panel M. Kingma Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Elyse Korman Barrister and Solicitor 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 INTRODUCTION [1] This appeal by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (Appellant), citizen of Sri Lanka, is dismissed. OVERVIEW The Appellant's Allegations [2] The Appellant says that he will suffer persecution or harm in Sri Lanka from Sri Lankan politician, XXXX XXXX (JA), because the Appellant exposed JA's illegal business activities. [3] The Appellant was born in Sri Lanka in XXXX. He worked mainly as a seaman but also operated some businesses in Sri Lanka. His allegations originate in 2017. The Appellant says that, from XXXXtoXXXX XXXX 2017, he ran a wholesale XXXX business in the XXXX XXXX XXXX Complex with his brother XXXX help. XXXX was an active member and supporter of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) for former president Rjajapaksa. XXXX worked as an organizer for the SLFP in the Wattala Electorate, district of XXXX, supporting MPs Felix Perera and Sarath Kumara Gunarathna and Western Province Council Member Meril Perera. The Appellant says that he is not interested in politics himself but helped his brother by giving rides with his truck, printing posters and delivering food to volunteers. [4] The Appellant says they were threatened by JA's thugs for business competition related to the XXXXtoXXXX XXXX2017XXXX XXXX business. He closed his business in XXXX 2017 and returned to sea. [5] After some months at sea, the ship was sold and the Appellant returned to Sri Lanka. In XXXX 2017, the Appellant moved to XXXX with his spouse and three daughters and engaged in a new XXXX wholesale business under someone else's name: XXXX XXXX. The Appellant's documents include two Applications for Business Registration: a XXXX wholesale business "XXXX XXXX XXXX", to commence on 2017XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX XXXX XXXX, Sri Lanka1 and XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX owned by XXXX XXXX to commence XXXX XXXX 2017.2 [6] The Appellant says that he and XXXX were attacked by JA's thugs in XXXX 2017: the Appellant was detained by police and released with a bribe of XXXX XXXX XXXX rupees and XXXX was hospitalized for two days. The Appellant says that they tried to inform the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) about JA's drug and alcohol empire but were told nothing could be done. [7] After these events, the Appellant moved to Kandy. He heard from a neighbour that police were looking for him in XXXX. [8] The Appellant went back to sea on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017 but in XXXX he had an argument with the Chief Officer. after speaking with a friend in Canada, he left the ship in Quebec on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018. The Appellant went to Toronto and met someone who was supposed to help file a claim but it took too long so, in XXXX 2018, he contacted an immigration lawyer who helped him submit the refugee claim that was received at the RPD on XXXX XXXX, 2018. The RPD Decision [9] In its June 19, 2019 decision, the RPD concluded that the Appellant has an internal flight alternative (IFA) in XXXX, Sri Lanka and therefore rejected the claim. The viability of the IFA rested on RPD findings about the nature of the allegations and how some of the evidence presented by the Appellant was not credible. [10] The RPD Member accepted, for the most part, the Appellant's evidence about his business activities and being attacked in XXXX 2017 and then detained by police in XXXX 2017. There were, however, relevant parts of the Appellant's allegations that the RPD Member found were not credible. The RPD Member did not believe that the Appellant went to the CID with his brother to report illegal activities of JA.3 The RPD found that a newspaper article4 that allegedly confirms how the two brothers reported a politician's corruption to the CID was not authentic and undermined rather than restored the credibility of the Appellant's allegations. [11] The RPD found, in effect, that the evidence did not establish that the Appellant had well-founded fear of persecution. This was an important element in the RPD's assessment of the IFA. The RPD found that there would be little motivation for JA to find the Appellant: he had targeted the Appellant because of XXXX involvement in political activities and because of the Appellant's competing XXXX business. The XXXX business ended and XXXX is no longer in Sri Lanka so the RPD found that there is not a serious possibility that the Appellant would suffer persecution or that, on a balance of probabilities, he would be at risk of torture or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, if he were to move to XXXX. The RPD pointed out that the Appellant did not raise non-security issues against living in XXXX. As a member of the Sinahalese majority and a career history that would not be negatively affected, it was objectively reasonable to live in the multicultural city of XXXX. The Appeal [12] The role of the RAD is to conduct a substantive appeal on the merits and decide if the RPD decided a claim for refugee protection correctly.5 The RAD has these options: to confirm the RPD determination; to set aside the RPD determination and substitute its own or refer the matter back to the RPD for redetermination if it cannot make a new decision without hearing evidence that was presented to the RPD.6 [13] The Appellant's identity is not at issue. It was adequately established with documentary evidence including a copy of his passport, a birth certificate, a marriage certificate, and a Sri Lankan driver's license with security features. [14] The Appellant is asking the RAD to set aside the RPD decision and find that he is a Convention7 refugee or a person in need of protection. ln the alternative, the Appellant requests that the RAD refer the matter back to the RPD for redetermination. [15] The appeal arguments fall into these two categories: a. That the RPD made unsustainable credibility findings; and, b. That the RPD erred in finding that the Appellant has an IFA in Trincomalee. ANALYSIS [16] After considering all of the evidence, I find myself in agreement with the RPD's conclusions and confirm that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. [17] The Appellant failed to establish, with clear and convincing evidence, that there is a serious possibility of persecution in the IFA of XXXX or that, on a balance of probabilities, he would be subjected to section 97 harms in XXXX, or that it is objectively unreasonable for him to live there. The Evidence [18] The information that I am relying on in this appeal includes the RPD and Appellant Records. The RPD Record contains the Appellant's documentary evidence and the audio recording of the RPD hearing that I have listened to. No new evidence was submitted for the appeal. I have the Immigration and Refugee Board's NDP for Sri Lanka: it was updated since the RPD decision but my decision does not turn on any updated NDP information. [19] The evidence before me includes the Appellant's own allegations as set out in his Basis of Claim Form (BOC) and at the in person RPD hearing. The Appellant described specific events that he says led him to leave Sri Lanka and cause his fear of returning. The documentary evidence with the claim includes the following: a. SLFP Political Workshop invites for the Appellant and his brother, XXXX SLFP Membership Card, and an SLFP Letter about XXXX political affiliation and activities.8 b. An XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019 letter from a lawyer in Sri Lanka to Whom it May Concern offering "Legal Advice for Life Threatening Situation" to his client, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX who contacted him on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017 while hiding in Kandy, Sri Lanka.9 c. Medical information called a Diagnosis Ticket regarding a XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017 admission for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, a XXXX XXXXyear-old male who fell from a motorbike and injured his right radius. The patient was discharged on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017.10 d. Photographs in the Record that are marked as XXXX with the former president, Mahinda Rajapaksh, and others that show XXXX in Japan. The Appellant told the RPD that his brother is working in Japan in computers and has not made a claim for asylum.11 Credibility is an evidentiary tool [20] The Appellant's Counsel understandably refers to the RPD as having impugned the Appellant's credibility. The RPD did, indeed, give reasons for finding that the Appellant's evidence lacked credibility in some material ways. [21] Credibility is a tool to assist in weighing evidence. In contrast, issues are the questions that need to be answered to decide a claim. The critical questions for addressing a refugee claim flow from the definitions of Convention12 refugee and person in need of protection.13 Evidence is the vehicle by which those questions are answered. Evidence needs to be relevant and also reliable, to have positive weight: assessing the credibility of evidence is a helpful tool in determining its reliability. [22] Weighing evidence should not be distracted by a goal of impugning or affirming a Claimant's credibility for its own sake. Doing so does not provide an answer to the questions that define whether a person is a refugee. Rather, a clear understanding of the determinative questions, followed by an objective weighing of the evidence, will answer the final issue of whether the Claimant is a Convention refugee or person in need of protection. [23] By adopting the above framework for analysis, credibility concerns about a claimant's evidence are properly situated such that, even where the credibility of a claimant's evidence may be found lacking, the totality of evidence will be assessed to see if there is sufficient probative, reliable and credible evidence to establish the claim. [24] The RPD decision in this case reflects an understanding of the framework I have described. At the outset of the RPD hearing, the RPD correctly explained that the hearing would focus on the credibility of Appellant's narrative and profile (i.e., his evidence), whether there is a nexus to a Convention ground, the reasonable use of state protection, whether the Appellant has a subjective and rational basis for his fear, and the availability of an IFA in Trincomalee. The determinative issues in the appeal [25] The determinative issue in the RPD's analysis of this claim was whether the Appellant has a viable IFA in XXXX. I agree that is a determinative issue. To be successful in this appeal, the Appellant has to show that the RPD weighed evidence incorrectly and demonstrate, with sufficient reliable and trustworthy evidence, that he does not have an IFA in XXXX. [26] The appeal arguments do not disclose disagreement with the RPD's statement of the legal test for IFA and I confirm that it was correctly stated in paragraph 27. [27] The Appellant's disagreements are about how the RPD assessed the evidence of what he is afraid of if he returns to Sri Lanka and why he feels that it is not safe for him to live in XXXX. The Appellant needed to establish that there is a serious possibility he will be persecuted or harmed if he returns to Sri Lanka, specifically in the identified IFA of XXXX. One of the critical questions for the appeal is whether the Appellant's fear is well-founded. It is not enough to express subjective fear. His fear must be objectively well-founded. The related, and determinative question for the appeal, is whether the Appellant can live safely in XXXX. The Appellant has not established an objective basis for fear [28] The Appellant's subjective fear relates to events that he associates with his brother's political activism. I have provided information about politics in Sri Lanka at the relevant times, for context. My summarized information is taken from the NDP. [29] XXXX XXXX (XXXX XXXX is a UNP politician who figures prominently in the Appellant's allegations but the National Documentation Package (NDP) contains no specific details about him or his activities related to the business enterprises described by the Appellant. [30] In the period since independence from the United Kingdom in 1948, the Sri Lankan government has been led by the Sinhalese majority with special constitutional status to Buddhism. The most notable political strife has been with the Tamils, whose interests emerged through the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) formed in 1976. The group's de facto control of northern areas in Sri Lanka led to a civil war that ended in 2009. Political tensions emerged after a presidential election in January 2015 when Maithripala Sirisena defeated former president Mahinda Rajapaksa. Sirisena appointed Ranil Wickremesinghe, leader of the former opposition United National Party (UNP), as Prime Minister. In August 2015, parliamentary elections resulted in a coalition of parties that included the UNP and SLFP members. Former President Rajapaksa's UPFA, including his SLFP faction, secured 95 seats. In February 2018, Rajapaksa contested in local government elections representing the newly formed Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) party. The SLPP governs most of Sri Lanka's over 300 local councils. Thus, President Sirisena presided over a diverse coalition of more than a dozen political parties, which are comprised predominantly of Sinhalese Buddhists but also include Muslim and Tamil members. This is the backdrop for the Appellant's allegations. [31] The Appellant says that he was seriously affected by peripheral involvement with XXXX political activism to the extent that he now fears for his life if he returns to Sri Lanka. This allegation is neither subjectively nor objectively well-founded, for a number of reasons that are explained in the analysis that follows. [32] The Appellant himself is not political: he is not a member of any political party and has not actively campaigned for a particular candidate. The Appellant's evidence does not reflect personal engagement with the politics of Sri Lanka. He said as much, both in his BOC and at the hearing. He confirmed his own disinterest and said that it was XXXX who was active in politics. The supporting documents reflect XXXX political activities and not activism by the Appellant. [33] The Appellant's evidence about his limited interest and involvement in politics was credible because it is consistent, coherent, plausible and does not run counter to other information. [34] The Appellant's evidence about fearing political repercussions contains some credible information but other material aspects of his allegations lack credibility and thus detract from finding that his fear is objectively well-founded. [35] The Appellant said he opened a wholesale XXXX business in XXXX 2017. The Appellant's business included delivering XXXX to hotels and selling at the XXXX XXXX. The Appellant intersperses descriptions of what happened to him personally, with information about political tensions and XXXX political activism, and about UNP politician XXXX XXXX in particular. He says in his BOC that his wholesale XXXX business "disturbed [JA] and his associates" and that, at the end of XXXX 2017, four of JA's thugs attacked him in XXXX. He said they beat him and warned him to stop his business and to stop helping his brother politically. He says that associates of JA also warned the farms that were selling him his XXXX inventory to stop selling to him. As a result, he closed his business and resumed working as a seaman as of XXXX 2017. [36] At the hearing, the RPD understandably sought more details about this and other events referred to in the BOC. The Appellant told the RPD that the XXXX 2017 beating incident happened when a van blocked his vehicle and pulled him over as he was driving to Colombo to collect some payments. Two of the four thugs pulled him out of his unmarked van and said he would be killed if he did not stop his business. Afterwards, the Appellant called his brother and he decided to return to work on the ships. This evidence of interference with his business is presumed true because there is no valid reason not to believe it. This incident and the later allegation of a police detention for false accusations inspired by JA, are consistent with country evidence. There is information that confirms ongoing political interference in local economic activities because of political nepotism and police corruption.14 Thus, the Appellant's allegation that JA had influence with local police and was motivated to oppose commercial interests by people who politically opposed him, is plausible. [37] However, the Appellant says that he fears JA because he and his brother, XXXX, know about and tried to expose that JA operates illegal drug and liquor activities under the cover of his commercial enterprises. He alleged that it was JA's awareness of a formal report by the Appellant and his brother to the CID about JA's corruption that motivated and will continue to motivate JA against the Appellant. Even if that evidence of reporting to the CID was credible, which it is not for reasons discussed below, it had not happened at the time of the XXXX 2017 incident. Rather, the Appellant closed his business after a few months and went back to sea. Thus, even if the XXXX 2017 incident occurred as described, it does not offer compelling evidence of a forward-looking reason to fear JA. [38] The Appellant said that, after coming back to Sri Lanka later in 2017, he tried another wholesale XXXX business. In XXXX 2017, he operated under a friend's name and in a different city. He said he was attacked in XXXX 2017, allegedly by JA's thugs again, and then detained by police. The Appellant said that while he was in police detention, thugs of JA beat XXXX, who received medical attention and, at some point, left for Japan. These events, if true, could explain a subjective fear and offer some basis for finding an objective fear as well but the evidence does not establish that they happened as alleged. [39] There are many factual dots that need to be connected for the events of XXXX 2017 to provide a basis for finding well-founded fear and to show that the Appellant is not safe to live in the IFA of XXXX. The RPD correctly identified and analyzed how the evidence failed to establish the necessary links. The Appellant says that he and XXXX went to the CID to report the illegal activities of JA a few days after the Appellant got out of police detention. The Appellant fears that he is or will be known anywhere because of JA, who knows about the report to the CID and has influence throughout Sri Lanka with the national police force and related watch lists. [40] Two significant findings are these: first, the RPD did not believe that the Appellant and his brother reported to the CID about JA; secondly, the RPD found that a newspaper article purporting to confirm the events - including that they reported actions of a corrupt politician to the CID - is, more likely than not, fake. The Appellant did not make a report to the CID [41] It was not incorrect for the RPD to reject the allegation of reporting to the CID as lacking credibility. There are several valid reasons to doubt the Appellant's allegation of doing so. [42] The Appellant's arguments isolate and microscopically examine small parts of the RPD Member's analysis. The Appellant's arguments fail to show how the evidence, as a whole, provides a reasonable and logical account of going to the CID. [43] According to the Appellant, his brother XXXX believed that JA was operating illegal drug and illicit alcohol businesses behind his commercial fish industries. The evidence offered in support of that allegation is sparse. Evidence of illegality and corrupt business dealings is limited to the suggestion by the Appellant that is based on information from XXXX. In any event, while the Appellant may believe that JA is involved in illegal activities, there is not compelling or credible evidence that the Appellant went to the CID to report JA's illegal activities. [44] In his BOC narrative, the Appellant offered only one sentence about going to the CID: he said that he and his brother provided the CID "with all the information we knew about XXXX XXXX heroin importing /distribution activities". In paragraph 5 of the narrative, the Appellant explains his motivation for going to the CID by saying that they did so three days after finding out that the police were looking for him because he had escaped custody. During the hearing, the Appellant only remembered having gone to the CID after being prompted about it by the RPD Member. The RPD Member logically asked the Appellant if he told the CID about being detained and having to pay a bribe for his release. That was, by the Appellant's own evidence, the personal experience that motivated him to go into hiding, seek help from the CID, secretly obtain legal advice from a lawyer, and then leave the country. [45] The Appellant's responses to the RPD's open-ended questions about what was reported to the CID and why, were superficial. For example, the Appellant did not take the opportunity to tell the RPD Member what specific corrupt or illegal activities of JA he and his brother wanted to share with the CID despite that these concerns were allegedly serious enough to inspire reporting them to the CID. The Appellant deferred to his brother as the source of knowledge about JA's illegal activities and offered no other foundation for his own belief of it. He simply said his brother knew because the brother was in politics. [46] Surprisingly, the Appellant said he did not tell the CID about his false arrest, detention and bribing his way out of jail. When the RPD asked why not, he said that he was scared. He then added, in what appeared to be an afterthought and most likely an embellishment in the moment, that after they started talking to the CID he realized he could not trust them. That is not in his narrative, which only says they reported to the CID. The narrative offers little else such as what they actually said to the CID or about distrusting the CID. [47] The Appellant argues that the RPD was engaging in speculation that cannot withstand scrutiny. He argues that there is nothing implausible about the Appellant approaching the CID given his explanation that he believed there was no record of his arrest because it was under false pretenses. I agree that it is not implausible that the Appellant might report a false detention to the CID but, according to his own evidence, he did not report a false detention. The newspaper article is probably fake [48] The only evidence of reporting to the CID apart from the Appellant saying so is a newspaper article.15 That article is, on a balance of probabilities, not an authentic newspaper article and submitting it for the claim as such undermines rather than restores the Appellant's credibility about making a report to the CID. [49] The Appellant's counsel argues that there was no justifiable basis for the RPD's speculation as to how the article should or would have been researched and written. I disagree. It would be wrong for the RPD Member not to ask logical and obvious questions about this evidence so that it could be properly weighed. The argument fails to reflect the whole of the RPD's analysis. The newspaper article is uniquely specific about the Appellant's allegations. It is offered as corroboration for the important allegation of reporting to the CID, an action that the Appellant says puts him at risk in Sri Lanka. The Appellant's own evidence about reporting to the CID was not compelling, for reasons explained above, so cannot be relied on to support the authenticity of the article. All of the evidence indicates it is more likely than not that the article is not authentic. I confirm the RPD finding about the article being fake and as a result, it does not support the Appellant's allegations. [50] The article begins by mentioning the Appellant and his brother by their full names and says they "were taken revenge by a potent UNP minister".16 It talks about the Appellant facing threats from the Minister because he ran a competing shrimp business without the Minister's consent. The reporter suggests knowing that the Minister's thugs reported false allegations about the Appellant and that thugs struck the Appellant's brother as well. It says the two siblings "could not tolerate this injustice any further"17 and went to the CID to reveal about the Minister's illegitimate businesses and that, as a result, the Minister is hunting for the two brothers to kill. Finally, the article says that related authorities are not helping because of the political power of the particular Minister, who, with his thugs, "will not hesitate to suppress whoever tries to confront them".18 [51] The article is notably self-serving so it was correct for the RPD to enquire about the source of the article, the circumstances by which the Appellant received it, and any knowledge he had about how the reporter might have obtained very specific and personalized content that only the Appellant and his brother would know. In general, the Appellant's responses do not make sense. [52] The Appellant did not know how the reporter got his personal information. The article contains very specific information that only the Appellant and his brother would know, yet neither he nor his brother were interviewed for the article. The Appellant suggested maybe the police gave the information but that does not make sense because the article puts the Appellant and his brother in a positive light against a false police arrest and the Minister allegedly responsible. The Appellant could not explain why the newspaper, which according to him did not report the Minister's name out of fear, would not be inhibited by that same fear from reporting at all about the accusations of illegal activity by a high profile Minister of the UNP. As noted by the RPD Member, the font and style of the article on the page are notably different, giving an appearance that the article was not typeset with the other page items. The Appellant did not give clear or logical evidence about how he came to get the article in time for the RPD hearing. Despite being in a national newspaper on December 2017, he said the article came to his attention one week before the hearing and he was vague about how that happened. The Appellant will not be unsafe in XXXX [53] The Appellant does not take issue with the RPD's statement of the two pronged test for assessing IFA. As explained by the RPD, to render the IFA of XXXX unsafe, JA or his agents would have to find out that the Appellant returned to Sri Lanka, discover he had moved to XXXX, and then be motivated and able, to find him in XXXX. [54] The Appellant says that reporting JA's illegal activities to the CID is what places him at risk if he returns. The evidence of going to the CID is not credible for reasons already explained. Even if there was a detention inspired by JA and related to concerns about XXXX political opposition to JA's illegal activities, reported or not, there would also need to be credible foundation for the allegation that the JA has influence throughout Sri Lanka and is motivated to use that influence. [55] The evidence of being detained for a false accusation of attacking JA's office and disturbing his political work is possible but the concern of being targeted and located in XXXX depends on finding credible evidence to support that JA was and is concerned enough about the Appellant to pursue him. The arguments against an IFA in XXXX depend on finding that JA has both interest in the Appellant, and influence that extends nationally. It is possible, as already explained, that JA could have used his influence with local police to interfere with the business competition of the Appellant. It does not logically follow, however, that JA is motivated and has the ability to seek out and target the Appellant if he returns to Sri Lanka and lives in XXXX. [56] The Appellant argues that the RPD incorrectly decided the question of whether the Appellant would be on a watch list and located on return to Sri Lanka, for two main reasons: that the RPD Member disregarded the Appellant's evidence about being in hiding so it stands to reason that he was not bothered by the agents of persecution in Kandy; and, because the RPD Member incorrectly evaluated the objective evidence about who is on watch lists in Sri Lanka. [57] The RPD specifically referred to the fact that JA's attempts to find the Appellant ended after a XXXX 2019 enquiry and warning to his mother in Ja-Ela. The RPD refers to the fact that the Appellant said JA did not send anyone to enquire about him in Kandy. The Appellant's Counsel is correct to point out that, given the Appellant was in hiding in Kandy, no one would seek him there. However, the point correctly made by the RPD is that, after XXXX 2019, JA apparently stopped looking for the Appellant. That leads to the question of whether, if the Appellant returns to Sri Lanka and XXXX in particular, JA or his agents will be looking for him and able to find him. [58] The Appellant's Counsel referred to another decision of this RPD member in support of arguments related to whether the Appellant would be on a watch list. He argues that the RPD was wrong to find that the Appellant would not be "on any watch list" despite being wanted by the police for allegedly fleeing police custody. The Appellant argues that this finding is "particularly concerning given that the RPD Member who decided the Appellant's claim came to the opposite conclusion in a decision that he rendered on a Sri Lankan claim only two months prior to his decision in the Appellant's case."19 [59] There is no inconsistency in the RPD's approach between the two cases. In both, the RPD makes the observational finding from country documents that watch lists and tracking exist within Sri Lanka and points out that they are mainly for those who are linked with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) or terrorism offences, or those with extant arrest warrants.20 [60] The Appellant quoted as follows from the referenced decision: ". . . if the claimant had been wanted for escaping from prison, the panel finds it is more likely than not that the accusation he escaped from prison would have turned up when he was flying in and out of Sri Lanka." In that referenced decision, the RPD found a factual basis for linking the Claimant to the LTTE and accepted that the Claimant had reason to fear a perception by authorities of being an LTTE supporter or sympathizer. In that case, the RPD was concerned about the Claimant's re-availment to Sri Lanka despite the Claimant's legitimate concerns of being on a watch list, and was assessing the Claimant's evidence about how he allegedly entered and left Sri Lanka to renew his passport. [61] Similar factual circumstances between the referenced case and the current appeal do not exist so it was not incorrect for the RPD to find, in this case, that it is unlikely that the Appellant is on a watch list in Sri Lanka. [62] The Appellant has not met his onus to show why he cannot safely live in XXXX or that it would be unduly harsh or objectively unreasonable for him to live there. CONCLUSION [63] The appeal is dismissed. I confirm the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. (signed) M. Kingma M. Kingma July 27, 2020 Date 1 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, pp. 54-55. 2 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, pp. 58-59. 3 RPD Decision, para. 16. 4 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5. 5 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93. 6 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), S.C. 2001, c. 27; section 111. 7 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, "Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status", under the 1951 Convention. 8 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, pp. 52-53. 9 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, p. 64. 10 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, p. 68. 11 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, pp. 71-75. 12 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, "Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status", under the 1951 Convention, as engaged by Section 96 of IRPA. 13 IRPA, section 97. 14 National Documentation Package (NDP) for Sri Lanka (29 March 2019), Item 7.5 Anti-Corruption Agency Strengthening Initiative: Assessment of the Commission to Investigate. 15 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit. 5. 16 Exhibit P-2, Appellant Record, p. 53. 17 Exhibit P-2, Appellant Record, p. 53. 18 Exhibit P-2, Appellant Record, p. 53. 19 The decision referred to is included in the Appeal Record, and the argument notes p. 63 of the Appellant Record in particular. 20 RPD Decision, para. 30, and the referenced decision in the Appellant Record at p. 63. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-17392 RAD.25.02 (January, 2020) Disponible en français 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 (January, 2020) Disponible en français