TB9-29719

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-29719 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 January 27, 2021 Date de la décision Panel J. Bousfield Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Amro Hayek 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] This is the decision in the appeal of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the appellant). The appellant is a citizen of Jordan. He appeals a Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decision dated October 9, 2019, rejecting his claim for refugee protection. He is requesting that the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) set aside the RPD's negative determination and find that he is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. In the alternative, he requests that the RAD refer the matter back to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel. He has requested to submit new evidence but not to hold an oral hearing. DETERMINATION [2] The RAD allows the appeal and sets aside the decision of the RPD. The RAD substitutes the determination that, in its opinion, should have been made, namely, that the appellant is a Convention refugee, pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).1 BACKGROUND Basis of Claim [3] The central allegations of the appellant's claim are as follows. The appellant used to work as a XXXX XXXX at the international airport in Amman. He was pressured by his co-workers to join them in their illegal activities at the airport. When he refused, they started to intimidate and physically and verbally abuse him. They accused him of bad-mouthing the King and government. At the same time, his marriage was failing, and he and his wife got divorced. He fled to the United States (US) in XXXX 2006 and returned to Jordan in XXXX 2006. Fearing reprisal from his co-workers, he returned to the US on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2007. He was without status when he met and married an American woman in XXXX 2010. After marrying her, he converted to Christianity from Islam but kept it secret from his family. Her sponsorship application for him was refused, and he was ordered to leave the US voluntarily on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017. He decided to come to Canada for protection. Since his wife did not want to move, they divorced in XXXX 2018. While in Canada, he confirmed rumours to his family in Canada and back in Jordan that he had converted to Christianity. He primarily fears religious persecution if he returns to Jordan based on his conversion to Christianity from Islam. RPD Decision [4] The RPD rejected the appellant's claim because it found the central allegations not credible. VULNERABLE PERSON [5] The RAD has reviewed a transcript of the RPD hearing. The appellant testified that he has a XXXX XXXX and that he suffers from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXandXXXX XXXX. He testified that he had ingested five pills before the RPD hearing to manage his XXXX during the RPD hearing. His counsel indicated in submissions that they were still waiting for a confirming medical report. [6] The appellant has now provided the medical report2 as an item of new evidence. The RAD is admitting it. The RAD is satisfied that the appellant made efforts to obtain it before the RPD decision but that it did not become available until after. The RAD is also satisfied that the report is new, credible, and relevant to the appellant's credibility as a witness and his vulnerability as a person. [7] Furthermore, as the report confirms that he has a XXXX XXXX and that he suffers from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXandXXXX XXXX issues as he testified, the RAD is satisfied that the appellant's ability to present his case is and was severely impaired. The RAD therefore determines the appellant to be a Vulnerable Person according to Chairperson's Guideline 8.3 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION OF NEW EVIDENCE ALLOWED [8] The appellant requested that the RAD admit multiple other items4 as more new evidence - a baptismal certificate confirming that he was baptized in Canada just after the RPD decision, two letters from his church pastor, a letter from a church minister, a letter from a church secretary, and a letter from a church evangelist. The RAD is admitting all of these items as new evidence. The RAD is satisfied that they are all new, credible, and relevant to the appellant's credibility as a witness and the truth of his alleged conversion to Christianity from Islam. Now, if the appellant were not a Vulnerable Person, the RAD would only have admitted the baptismal certificate and the letter from the pastor discussing his post-RPD decision baptism because the rest of the items concerning his Christian activity would normally be expected to have been obtained and presented to the RPD before it made its decision and therefore fail the requirements of IRPA subsection 110(4). However, in the RAD's view, it is not reasonable for the RAD to expect Vulnerable Persons with a serious impediment like the appellant to marshal evidence in as timely a fashion as an appellant who is not; some flexibility is appropriate where Vulnerable Persons are concerned. The RAD is satisfied that it should not expect this Vulnerable Person appellant to have presented the new items to the RPD before it made its decision, and that therefore all of the new items meet the requirements of IRPA subsection 110(4). ANALYSIS Determinative Issue [9] The determinative issue in this appeal is whether the RPD came to the wrong conclusion about the appellant's credibility as it concerns his alleged Christian conversion and religion. In light of the new evidence, the RAD finds that it did. [10] In rendering this decision, the RAD has done an independent assessment of the record. The RAD is reviewing the RPD's decision on a standard of correctness. Overwhelming corroboration now [11] The appellant argues that the RPD was wrong to find that he is not a true convert to Christianity from Islam. The RAD agrees. Having reviewed a transcript of the hearing, the RAD finds that the appellant was able to provide consistent and reasonably detailed testimony about his Christian religion and activity, in spite of his XXXX XXXX and the pain medication that he had taken for it that day. Moreover, with the new evidence added in, the appellant has now produced a large amount of credible documentation indicating that he has been genuinely baptized as a Christian and that he has been sincerely believing and practicing Christianity for a long time.5 As the appellant argues, the RAD is satisfied that the overall quantum of the appellant's documentary corroboration, in light of the new evidence, combined with his consistent testimony about his religion is sufficient to overwhelm all of the RPD's negative inferences about his credibility - see RPD decision paragraphs [8] - [15]. The RAD therefore finds, contrary to the RPD, that the appellant is a true convert to Christianity from Islam and that he is a genuinely practicing Christian, on a balance of probabilities. Well-foundedness [12] The documentary evidence6 on country conditions indicates that converts to Christianity from Islam do face official harassment, physical and verbal abuse, and ostracism by society in all parts of Jordan and that the Jordanian state does not provide adequate protection. The RAD is, therefore, satisfied that the appellant's fear of religious persecution in Jordan is well-founded as he faces a serious possibility of persecution and that adequate state protection and viable internal flight alternatives (IFAs) are not available to him. CONCLUSION [13] The RPD came to a wrong negative conclusion about the appellant's religious conversion and his Christian religion. [14] After an independent assessment of the evidence in the case and the new evidence admitted by the RAD, the RAD finds that the appellant is a true convert to Christianity from Islam and that he is a genuinely practicing Christian, on a balance of probabilities. The RAD finds that his fear of religious persecution in Jordan by reason of being a convert to Christianity is objectively well-founded, that adequate state protection is not available to him, and that he does not have a viable IFA anywhere in Jordan. [15] The RAD therefore finds that the appellant has a well-founded fear of persecution in Jordan by reason of his Christian religion. [16] The RAD therefore allows the appeal and sets aside the decision of the RPD. The RAD, therefore, substitutes the determination that, in its opinion, should have been made, namely, that the appellant is a Convention refugee, pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(b) of the IRPA. (signed) JOEL BOUSFIELD Joel Bousfield January 27, 2021 Date 1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended. 2 Exhibit P-2, Appellant Record, at p. 23. 3 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Chairperson's Guideline 8: Procedures With Respect to Vulnerable Persons Appearing Before the IRB, Guideline issued by the Chairperson pursuant to paragraph 159(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), Effective date: December 16, 2009, amended December 15, 2012. 4 Exhibit P-2, Appellant Record, at pp. 24-30. 5 Ibid., See also Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 7, pastor letter, at pp. 186-188. 6 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Jordan (August 30, 2019) all items in sections 1, 2 and 12, at p. 172. See also Exhibits 5 and 7, all country conditions items, at pp. 173-174, 189-216. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-29719 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