TB7-03940

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 File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB7-03940 TB7-03941 TB7-03942 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (A.K.A. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (A.K.A. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX) Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision August 18, 2017 Date de la décision Panel G. Erauw Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Luke Mcrae Conseil(s) du (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated Representative(s) N/A Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the "principal Appellant"), his wife XXXX XXXX XXXX-XXXX (the "adult female Appellant"), and their adult daughter XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the "daughter") are citizens of Iraq. They are appealing a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying their claims for refugee protection. The Appellant is requesting that the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) set aside the RPD's negative determination and find that they are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection. In the alternative, the Appellants request the RAD refer the matter back to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel. The Appellants have requested to submit new evidence and have requested an oral hearing. DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL [2] The RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection, pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).1 BACKGROUND [3] The principal Appellant alleges that he and his family are at risk in Iraq because of his work at the XXXX XXXX office. The principal Appellant alleges that he was a XXXX and XXXX and he exposed corruption amongst high-ranking officials. On XXXX XXXX, 2015, he alleges that someone tried to assassinate him by placing a bomb in his car. He was not in the car at the time, but the explosion injured his driver. If the Appellants return to Iraq they fear they will be threatened and killed due to the principal Appellant's work in exposing corruption. They also claim to fear persecution based on their Shi'a and Sunni sect and being in a mixed marriage due to widespread sectarian violence in Iraq. [4] The adult female Appellant obtained a visa to Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2015; the principal Appellant obtained a visa to Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2015; the daughter Appellant obtained a visa to Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2015. They left Iraq for Canada via Turkey on XXXX XXXX, 2016. They arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2016 and made inland refugee claims on May 20, 2016. [5] The Appellants had a refugee determination hearing on December 7, 2016. In a written decision issued on February 2, 2017 the RPD rejected the claim. The RPD panel found the Appellants lacking in credibility and subjective fear. Therefore, the RPD concluded that the Appellants do not have a well-founded fear of persecution on a Convention ground, or that they would not personally be subjected to a risk to life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or a danger of torture upon return to Iraq. [6] The Appellants argue that the RPD erred in its credibility assessment, its subjective fear assessment, and its assessment of whether they are at risk should they return to Iraq. ROLE OF THE RAD [7] For questions of fact, mixed fact and law, and law, the RAD applies the standard of correctness in accordance with the Federal Court of Appeal's decision in Huruglica.2 In assessing findings involving the credibility of oral testimony, the RAD applies the standard of reasonableness, modified for the RAD context, in situations where the RPD enjoys a meaningful advantage.3 Unless otherwise stated in the reasons, the RAD uses the correctness standard on all findings and will consider the overall refugee determination on a standard of correctness, even where the RAD has deferred on some or all findings. ADMISSIBILTY OF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED ON APPEAL [8] In support of their appeal, the Appellants propose eight documents as new evidence: 1) Translation of Green Zone Identity Card, dated XXXX XXXX 2016;4 2) Translation of Authorization to Carry Personal Weapon Card, dated XXXX XXXX 2016;5 3) Translation of Identity Card No. XXXX XXXX, dated XXXX XXXX 2016;6 4) Translation and Letter from the XXXX XXXX Acknowledging XXXX XXXX Training, dated XXXX 2009;7 5) Translation and Letter from the XXXX XXXX Acknowledging Service of Principal Appellant, dated XXXX XXXX 2014;8 6) Translation and Letter from the XXXX XXXX Nominating Principal Appellant for XXXX XXXX XXXX, dated XXXX XXXX 2009;9 7) Translation and Letter Nominating Principal Appellant for Session on XXXX XXXX XXXX, dated XXXX XXXX 2009;10 and, 8) Translation and Letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, dated XXXX XXXX 2013.11 [9] Subsection 110(4) of the IRPA provides that Appellants may present only evidence that arose after the rejection of their claims or that was not reasonably available, or that they could not reasonably have been expected12 in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection. It is for the Appellants to make full and detailed submissions in their memorandum about how any proposed new evidence meets the requirements of subsection 110(4) and how that evidence relates to the appellants.13 [10] In addition, if the new evidence meets one of the explicit legislative factors in subsection 110(4), then the second step of the analysis is for the RAD to apply the adapted Raza factors endorsed in Singh.14 In Singh, the Federal Court of Appeal held that the RAD should assess the admissibility of the new evidence for its credibility, relevance and newness. The RAD is not to consider the fourth Raza factor of materiality to the admission of new evidence, which is a consideration for subsection 110(6) and the request for an oral hearing.15 Translations of Identity Cards [11] The Appellants submit that the translations of the principal Appellant's "Green Zone" identity card and his "Authorization" to carry a personal weapon card should be admitted as new evidence because they were not aware that the translations were not made. Since they were unaware of the deficiency, they could not reasonably have been expected to have presented the translations. The Appellants do not know why translations of these documents were not provided by their former counsel at the hearing. The Appellants argue these translations benefit the RAD by presenting existing evidence in an accessible format, and the identity cards are relevant as they relate to the principal Appellant's employment in the XXXX XXXX.16 [12] The RAD rejects the Appellants' argument and finds these documents inadmissible. First, the "Green Zone" card is already in the RPD record and on its face contains both English and Arabic, a translation of this card is not necessary. Second, the "Authorization" card to carry a personal weapon is also already in the RPD record. In regards to the "Authorization" card, the RAD notes that the RPD commented on record that it was not translated. The interpreter subsequently translated it into the record, which the RAD has reviewed. As a result, the RAD is aware of what that document says in English. Therefore, these documents do not satisfy the "newness" criteria of the modified Raza factors and the documents are inadmissible as new evidence. [13] Third, with respect the identity card no. XXXX XXXX XXXX the Appellants were alerted during the hearing that some of the principal Appellant's identity cards were not translated. This resulted in the interpreter translating one of his documents during the hearing. The RAD notes that the Appellants provide no evidence to demonstrate that their former counsel was negligent in handling their claim. Considering no such evidence of former counsel being incompetent is submitted, and the Appellants were alerted to the lack of translations at the hearing, the RAD finds the Appellants do not provide a reasonable explanation for why they could not present a translated document to the RPD before it rendered its decision. The RAD further observes that the RPD allowed nearly a month for post-hearing submissions, and did not render its decision for nearly two months after the RPD hearing. However, the Appellants submitted no post-hearing evidence to the RPD. Therefore, the RAD finds the translated copy of identity card no. XXXX XXXX is inadmissible under subsection 110(4). Correspondence Documents [14] With respect to the remaining documents, which provide correspondence from the XXXX XXXX and other organizations about the principal Appellant, the Appellants argue they could not reasonably have been expected to have presented these documents at the RPD hearing. Specifically, the Appellants submit that although the documents are redundant, they were not included because their former counsel advised them that they did not need to submit all of the documents from the XXXX XXXX. The Appellants claim their former counsel told them they already provided more than enough documents confirming the principal Appellant's employment at the XXXX XXXX. The Appellants argue that had they known that every piece of their evidence was seen as insufficient, they would have provided this evidence, even if it was redundant. The Appellants submit that it was reasonable for them not to include other similar documents, as it was unclear what the additional documents would add. The Appellants note that the RPD's concerns with their documentation in the RPD record include the letterheads being of significant different quality, which they could not have anticipated because this is not apparent on the face of the documents. The Appellants submit that these additional correspondences are further proof of his position at the XXXX XXXX and contradict a credibility finding by the RPD, so they should be considered new.17 [15] The RAD rejects the Appellants' submissions and finds the correspondence documents to be inadmissible. First, the RAD notes that all of the documents predate the RPD's date of decision. Second, the issue of the principal Appellant's employment at the XXXX XXXX was a key issue at their RPD hearing and they were alerted to this issue. The RPD questioned extensively on the issue, which included questioning about his identity cards, why the Appellants' visa applications failed to mention the principal Appellant's employment at the XXXX XXXX, and issues with the quality of his letters from the XXXX XXXX. The Appellants were represented by experienced counsel, and absent any evidence that their former counsel was negligent, the Appellants have not established they could not have been expected in their circumstances to have presented these documents to the RPD before the date of rejection. Especially considering the Appellants had nearly two months before the date of the RPD decision to submit post-hearing evidence. Therefore, the RAD finds the criteria under subsection 110(4) is not satisfied and all five of the correspondence documents are inadmissible. Request for an Oral Hearing [16] The RAD may hold a hearing if, in its opinion, there is documentary evidence referred to in section 110(3) that raises a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the person who is the subject of the appeal, is central to the decision with respect to the refugee protection claim, and, if accepted, would justify allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claim.18 In this case, no new evidence is admitted; and therefore, an oral hearing cannot occur. The request is denied. ISSUES IN APPEAL [17] The Appellants argue the following issues in their appeal, which the RAD has reworded and reorganized for ease of reference: 1) The RPD erred in its assessment of the Appellants' visa applications;19 2) The RPD erred in finding a lack of subjective fear;20 3) The RPD erred in rejecting the Appellants' supporting documents;21 and, 4) The Appellants are at risk of persecution in Iraq.22 ANALYSIS Credibility The RPD's Findings - Visa Application Omissions and Inconsistencies [18] The RPD found that the Appellants failed to provide credible evidence that the principal Appellant worked at the XXXX XXXX XXXX which is the reason they fear persecution in Iraq. Specifically, the RPD found that the Appellants' 2015 Canadian visa applications all state that the principal Appellant XXXX in 2013. When the RPD put these discrepancies to the principal Appellant, he stated that they wrote that he was XXXX because he applied for XXXX and was eligible to XXXX XXXX but was unable to stop working. The RPD did not accept this explanation; if he was still working at the XXXX XXXX it would expect this to be recorded on the applications, not his "aspiration" for XXXX. In addition, both of the principal Appellant's visa applications from 2015 state he was the XXXX XXXX XXXX at a XXXX hotel before his XXXX. When the RPD put this inconsistency to him, the principal Appellant first stated he did not know why it said that. When he was asked about the discrepancy again for a different visa application, the principal Appellant stated he did not include his true employment history because he was worried that it would be verified by officials, tipping off the XXXX XXXX that he intended to leave the country. The RPD did not accept that explanation as reasonable because the RPD would expect his employer to know he had a daughter in Canada, given the level of security scrutiny required of his alleged high profile position.23 The Appellant's Argument - Visa Omissions and Inconsistencies [19] The Appellants submit that the RPD erred on this issue because the RPD did not consider the principal Appellant's testimony that he was "officially XXXX." In particular, the RPD did not consider the principal Appellant's testimony that he had both practical and strategic reasons for putting that he was XXXX on his visa applications. The Appellants argue that the principal Appellant stated he was working for the XXXX XXXX until he left in 2016, but that the official XXXX age is XXXX, which he would have been in 2013, and he was required to XXXX by then. However, the principal Appellant confirmed twice in his testimony that while he is "officially XXXX," he was asked to finish some projects before he would be released, and the law allows an Iraqi to extend their employment while XXXX if they have pending duties. Therefore, the Appellants submit the principal Appellant's consistent testimony on this matter indicates that for official purposes he was XXXX at the time of the visa applications, even though he was finishing up outstanding tasks for the XXXX XXXX. The Appellants argue this is a plausible course of action to report that he was XXXX on the visa applications, because he considered himself "officially XXXX." The Appellants claim the RPD also erroneously states that he was "eligible to XXXX," and the RPD does not dispute the principal Appellant's evidence that he was "officially XXXX."24 [20] In addition, the Appellants argue the RPD breached procedural fairness in dismissing the principal Appellant's explanation for not disclosing his employment at the XXXX XXXX on his visa applications. The principal Appellant explained that he did not disclose his work at the XXXX XXXX in his application because he feared that Canadian immigration officials would contact the XXXX XXXX, notifying them that he was planning to leave Iraq, which would put him at risk. However, in dismissing this explanation the RPD noted that the principal Appellant did not have difficulty applying for visas to the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.). The Appellants allege the RPD did not put this to him, which is a breach of procedural fairness. The Appellants also submit that the RPD breached procedural fairness by not disclosing its concern that the XXXX XXXX would have understood that he applied for a Canadian visa to visit his child in Canada.25 The RAD's Assessment - Visa Application Omissions and Inconsistencies [21] The issue of the Appellants' visa applications and their omissions and inconsistencies arose during the RPD hearing. The RPD member had the opportunity to determine the questions to be asked, to assess the resulting testimony, and to hear the Appellants' explanation for the apparent omissions and inconsistencies. The RPD was in an advantageous position and its finding deserves deference. [22] The RAD rejects the Appellants' argument and finds the RPD's findings is based on the evidence and the result of a comprehensible reasoning process. In his Basis of Claim (BOC) form, his refugee application documents, and his testimony, the principal Appellant testified that he worked as a XXXX and XXXX in the XXXX XXXX. First, working in the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX until 2007, then in the XXXX XXXX until he left Iraq in 2016. However, it is clear from the record that all of the Appellants' visa applications to Canada, which were submitted on four separate occasions, fail to make any reference to the principal Appellant's employment at the XXXX XXXX.26 Instead, the applications all state that the principal Appellant XXXX in 2013. When the RPD asked why all of their visa applications state that he was XXXX, the principal Appellant testified that it was because he was "officially XXXX," stating that in 2013 he was XXXX, which XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. However, he claims he was not allowed to leave the job at that time because they wanted him to complete pending tasks, and the law allows him to continue working in such cases. [23] The Appellants' submission that the principal Appellant was both "officially XXXX" and "continued working" at the XXXX XXXX is inconsistent. The RAD would reasonably expect that if the principal Appellant was "officially XXXX" he would not continue working at the XXXX XXXX until 2016. In addition, if he was working at the XXXX XXXX, as he alleges, one would reasonably expect such employment to be indicated on their visa applications, and his other documents submitted for his refugee application would logically also refer to his XXXX. They do not. The Appellants also provide no documentary evidence to support their allegation that simply because the principal Appellant was XXXX in 2013, he was "officially XXXX" under the laws of Iraq and no longer considered employed. Nor to do they provide any evidence that the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Therefore, the RPD did not err in finding that if the principal Appellant was employed at the XXXX XXXX in 2015, as he alleges, this would be reflected on their visa applications. [24] Furthermore, the principal Appellant's two visa applications specifically mention that prior to XXXX he worked as an XXXX XXXX at XXXX Hotel in Baghdad. The RPD put this inconsistency to the principal Appellant when asking about his XXXX 2015 visa application. The principal Appellant stated he "did not know" why his application says he worked at the XXXX Hotel. When the RPD asked him why his XXXX 2015 visa application also states that he worked at the XXXX Hotel, the principal Appellant's testimony evolved and was evasive, stating he "was not sure" why it says he worked there, but "believes" he did not put the XXXX XXXX as his employment because the Canadian Embassy may have asked about his work and he might be a victim because of it.27 The RAD does not accept the principal Appellants explanation because he did not provide this as his answer initially, and he was hesitant and evasive when providing his final answer about why he put on his application that he worked at the XXXX Hotel. [25] The RAD acknowledges that Appellants may need to lie in order to obtain a visa to get to Canada and make refugee claims, but when they do so, they ought to immediately correct the record and most certainly not later than when the refugee claim is made. In this case, the Appellants have not taken such corrective measures, despite being represented by experienced counsel, and the RAD does not find that the RPD's negative credibility findings in this respect were an error.28 The RPD's findings are based on the evidence, and are also the result of a comprehensible reasoning process. There was an inconsistency and omission, and the Appellants were given an opportunity to explain. The RPD found that the explanation was evolving and unsatisfactory, and this too is based on the evidence. [26] In regard to the Appellants' argument that the RPD breached procedural fairness by not putting to them that the XXXX XXXX would know that he was visiting his daughter in Canada, the RAD rejects this submission. Breaches of procedural fairness are to be assessed on the correctness standard, and the RAD finds the RPD did not breach procedural fairness. The RPD clearly put this matter to the principal Appellant, stating that given the advanced security clearance required to work in the XXXX XXXX, staff in the XXXX XXXX would likely have known he had a daughter in Canada, which would explain his need for a visitor visa had Canadian immigration officials called to confirm his employment. In response, the principal Appellant was again evasive and did not directly answer the question. He simply indicated that the XXXX XXXX would know he was fleeing Iraq because he was threatened, received a direct threat in the past, and he had submitted reports about how they wanted to keep government property.29 The RAD would expect that given his alleged high ranking position and the security clearance needed, his employer would know that he had a daughter in Canada and that a visitor visa to go see her, which was the basis of his visa application, would not create alarm amongst people in the XXXX XXXX. [27] Finally, with respect to the Appellant's argument that the RPD should have put to him that his frequent trips to the U.A.E. undermined his explanation that he could not leave Iraq without being at further risk, the RAD agrees this should have been put to him. However, this is not of any consequence. The RPD's finding about his trips to the U.A.E. duplicates the RPD and RAD finding above about whether his employer knew he had a daughter in Canada, which was put to the principal Appellant. Therefore, the RPD's failure to put its concerns on this matter to the principal Appellant is not significant to the outcome. The RPD's Findings - Subjective Fear [28] The RPD found that the Appellants' actions were indicative of a lack of subjective fear. The RPD found the Appellants' re-availed several times to Iraq after receiving their Canadian visas in the U.A.E. For example, the adult female Appellant after receiving her visa in the U.A.E., travelled to Canada and returned to Iraq in XXXX 2015. The principal Appellant returned to Iraq in XXXX 2015 after receiving his Canadian visa in the U.A.E. The daughter Appellant returned to Iraq in XXXX 2016 after receiving her Canadian visa in the U.A.E. The Appellants then left Iraq for Canada in XXXX 2016. The RPD did not accept their explanations for their reavailment, which was that they all returned in order to help the other children who could not get Canadian visas. The RPD found their responses were vague about how they helped in this regard and why all three of them were required to return to Iraq to assist with finding a safe place to live. The RPD found that if they were truly afraid after the car bombing and threats, and if they were targeted by some of the most powerful people in the country, they would not return to Iraq under a vague mission to leave together with other family members, since they could have remained in safety while waiting to find out if the other family members obtained visas. The RPD also did not find credible the daughter Appellant's reasons for returning, which was to gather her transcript and certificate, since these were issued nearly a year before she returned to Iraq from the U.A.E. after obtaining her Canadian visa.30 The Appellant's Arguments - Subjective Fear [29] The Appellants argue that the RPD erred in its subjective fear assessment by not considering their explanation that they decided not to flee separately because they did not want to alert authorities to the fact that they fled and put the family that remained in danger. Furthermore, the Appellants' submit that they reasonably explained that they returned to Iraq because the principal Appellant stated they could not leave his two other children in Iraq if they were not safe. The Appellants also contend they reasonably explained that they wanted to leave together because if they were aware that the principal Appellant was fleeing the country, they would seek to target him and his family. The Appellants submit this is further corroborated by his actions at work, when he did not draw attention to himself by not sending in his resignation at work because he did not want them to know that he and his family fled until they were safely out of the country. The Appellants submit this is a plausible explanation for their delay in leaving Iraq.31 The RAD's Assessment - Subjective Fear [30] The RAD rejects the Appellants argument and finds the RPD did not err. The RAD does not accept the Appellants' explanation for why they needed to return to Iraq and for their delay in leaving Iraq. In 2015, the two children remaining in Iraq were 26 and 29 years old respectively. The Appellants provide no persuasive evidence for why all three of the Appellants were required in order to ensure they were in a "safe place" before they left Iraq, or why such arrangements could not have been made from outside Iraq with the assistance of other family members. Even assuming, without accepting that the principal Appellant needed to return to find them a safe place to live, and so that authorities would not be alerted to his escape from Iraq, this does not reasonably explain why the wife Appellant and daughter Appellant also needed to return to Iraq. There is no evidence that their absence or departure from Iraq alerted authorities, which would place the rest of the family at risk, or that their presence in Iraq was necessary in order to ensure the other two children had a "safe place" to live in Iraq before their departure in XXXX 2016. This undermines the Appellants' argument that they all needed to leave Iraq together. The RAD notes that the Appellants take no issue with the RPD's finding about the daughter's own reasons for why she returned to Iraq, which is that she needed to gather her school certificate and transcript. Having reviewed the record, the RAD sees no reason to interfere with that finding.32 The RAD finds the Appellants do not provide a reasonable explanation for returning to Iraq nor their delay in leaving Iraq. The Appellants' actions are demonstrative of a lack of subjective fear. The RAD also finds that their reavailment to Iraq and delay in leaving Iraq undermines the credibility of their allegations that the whole family was threatened and that the principal Appellant was the subject of an assassination attempt in XXXX 2015. The RPD's Findings - Supporting Documents [31] The RPD noted a number of issues with the Appellants' supporting documentation and that they were insufficient to establish that the principal Appellant held the position he alleges. In particular, the RPD noted that he provided "Green Zone" access cards, mostly in original form, which appeared genuine. However, cards that referred specifically to his work at the XXXX XXXX were not in original form and appeared less genuine because text was cut off and laminates were poorly applied. The RPD found that given the difference in the quality of the cards, it was likely that the "Green Zone" access cards were issued because he worked at the XXXX Hotel, which was in the Green Zone, and the other cards are false documents intended to establish his work at the XXXX XXXX. The RPD also found his additional documentary evidence about his work were not sufficiently reliable to establish the claim. This is because the documents purportedly from the XXXX XXXX do not have security features, some of the letters have unclear crests and letterheads, and his training certificates and pictures do not establish his employment at any particular place and could have been related to his employment at a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The RPD also noted that one of the certificates was missing a signature and there was no evidence about how the documents were sent to him.33 The Appellant's Argument - Supporting Documents [32] The Appellants argue that the RPD failed to take into account that only two of his identification (ID) cards were original (the principal Appellant's "Green Zone" card, and "Authorization" to carry a personal weapon), while three of his documents were laminated photocopies. The laminated photocopies were explained by the principal Appellant, when he stated that employees were issued laminated photocopies of their identification cards as a substitute should an employee lose their identification, the office management sometimes requested the expired original identification card and sometimes did not. This is why the principal Appellant owned some original identification cards and some laminated copies. Therefore, the Appellants submit that the RPD's finding that the laminated IDs are less genuine does not take into account his explanation, and by their nature laminated photocopies will be of lower quality.34 [33] The Appellants also submit that the RPD did not consider that the "Green Zone" card indicates that he was working at the XXXX XXXX, not at a hotel. In particular, the Appellants note that the sponsor on the back of the ID is "XXXX XXXX," who is the XXXX of the XXXX XXXX. This evidence directly contradicts the RPD's finding that the principal Appellant was not employed at the XXXX XXXX.35 The Appellant also argues that the RPD's finding about the lack of clarity of the letterhead and crest, and that they lack security features on some of his documents is irrelevant and not based on the evidence. Specifically, the Appellants submit that there is nothing abnormal with the letterhead of the documents, given they are copies and not original documents, so the quality of the text on the letterhead would be lower. Also, the Appellants claim the RPD does not indicate what "security features" it expects to find on routine correspondence.36 Finally, the Appellant's argue that the RPD erred in finding that the principal Appellant's certificates do not corroborate his employment at the XXXX XXXX. The Appellants submit that the certificates have nothing to do with hotels and pertain to matters of high level governance. In addition, the XXXX XXXX specifically congratulated the principal Appellant for completing the course in "XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXs," which demonstrates he took this course while working for the XXXX XXXX."37 The RAD's Assessment - Supporting Documents [34] The RAD accepts the Appellants' argument that the RPD failed to properly consider the correspondence from the XXXX XXXX, the RPD did not identify what security features it would expect on such letters, or on what basis it believed such letters would have security features. Moreover, the RAD accepts the Appellants' explanation that because the letters are photocopies, this reasonably explains why the letterheads and crests are of poorer quality than the text of the letters. Regardless, even if the RAD accepts the Appellants' argument and all of his supporting documents from the XXXX XXXX, the Appellants' supporting documents are not sufficient to overcome the above-mentioned credibility concerns and establish their allegations. [35] Having reviewed the record, the RAD notes the Appellants have failed to provide any supporting documentation to show that the principal Appellant worked at the XXXX XXXX after 2014. In particular, the RAD observes that the latest correspondence document in the record from the XXXX XXXX is dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 2014.38 In addition, the RAD notes that the principal Appellant informed Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) that he last worked at the XXXX XXXX on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2014.39 In addition, the principal Appellant's last "Green Zone" identification card, which he alleges also demonstrates his employment at the XXXX XXXX, expired on XXXX XXXX, 2014. [36] With respect to the principal Appellant's "Green Zone" identification card, the RPD asked where his most recent identification card was, since he testified that he worked at the XXXX XXXX until he left Iraq in 2016. The Appellant stated that he had to give it back to them when he left and told his colleague on the committee that he was quitting his job. The RPD observed that his 2014 Green Zone ID appeared to be an original, and asked why his other identification cards were laminated photocopies. The principal Appellant explained that management would give them the laminated photocopies in case they lost their original genuine identification card. The principal Appellant also testified that they usually have to give back their original identification card in order to receive a new identification card. The RPD then asked why he did not have to give back his 2014 Green Zone identification card, and the principal Appellant stated that it depends on their instructions at the time, as sometimes they tell the employees to keep the original until they are issued new identification cards, and usually by the end of the year the card expires and it is useless unless a new card is issued.40 The RAD infers from the principal Appellant's testimony that if he worked at the XXXX XXXX from 2014 to 2016 as alleged, he would possess laminated photocopies of identity cards during those years to support his allegation that he worked at the XXXX XXXX. Furthermore, despite the principal Appellant's numerous documents submitted to support his allegations that he worked at the XXXX XXXX, there is a noticeable dearth of evidence during the period the Appellants allege they faced great threats and an attempted assassination plot. The RAD further notes, that there is no supporting documentation that his car, which was allegedly provided by the XXXX XXXX, was bombed, nor is there supporting evidence that the driver hired by the XXXX XXXX was injured. [37] Based on his unreliable testimony about his visa application inconsistencies and omissions, the Appellants' lack of subjective fear, and the lack of supporting documentation to corroborate that the principal Appellant was employed at the XXXX XXXX after 2014, the RAD finds the principal Appellant has failed to provide sufficient credible evidence that he and his family are targeted due to his anti-corruption work. Specifically, the RAD finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the principal Appellant was XXXX from 2014 until he left Iraq in 2016, and that he was not employed at the XXXX XXXX during this time. Consequently, the RAD finds on a balance of probabilities, that his government owned car was not bombed in an attempted assassination, nor was his whole family threatened. Therefore, the RAD finds the Appellants' would not face more than a mere possibility of persecution should they return to Iraq, due to the principal Appellant's alleged profile as a "government employee" and "anti-corruption" official. Well-founded Fear of Persecution [38] Finally, the Appellants argue that they are at risk because the principal Appellant is Shi'a and his wife, the adult female Appellant is Sunni. The RPD found that this was not credible, since the Appellants raised this issue near the end of their hearing, omitted it as a concern in their BOC, and their frequent returns to Iraq indicate that this is not a credible risk for them.41 The Appellants do not make submissions on the RPD's specific findings on this issue, but claim the documentary evidence from Iraq demonstrates that they would be at risk.42 [39] The RAD rejects the Appellants' argument and finds the RPD did not err. First, the RAD notes that the Appellants state that there was "no reason" why they failed to mention that being Shia or Sunni was a concern for them in their BOC.43 In addition, the Appellants made no mention of having faced threats or experienced any attacks based on their Sunni or Shi'a faiths in Iraq. Rather, the principal Appellant simply states his family wanted him to get a divorce and that they were not happy with him about being married to a Sunni woman when the sectarian violence began. [40] In regard to the documentary evidence, the RAD prefers more recent information in the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Iraq to that cited by the Appellants. Of particular relevance is a United Kingdom (U.K.) Home Office Report from August 2016, which discusses the situation in the Appellants' neighbourhood in Baghdad. The report states that the majority of attacks in Baghdad continue to target Shi'a citizens and areas, but in Mansour, where the Appellants reside, it is predominately Sunni. As a result, in Mansour "[l]evels of violent activity tend to be lower than elsewhere in Baghdad" and this is due to the high number of Iraqi government buildings and embassies in the neighbourhood. Furthermore, "[t]he majority of attacks that do take place in Mansour typically comprise low-yield IEDs targeting ISF [Iraqi Security Forces] and GoI [Government of Iraq] personnel and SAF [small arms fire] attacks...It is assessed that Da'esh may well use these areas as safe-havens from which to house insurgents and from which to mount operations in the city."44 Furthermore, the NDP indicates that there is no significant risk for mixed sect couples and families in urban areas of Iraq, such as Baghdad.45 Therefore, the RAD finds their mixed marriage would not create problems for them. [41] The objective evidence illustrating that their neighbourhood has low level of violence compared to other areas of Baghdad and that targets tend to be security forces, along with the Appellants' frequent returns to Iraq and the lack of evidence of past persecution, indicates to the RAD that they would not face more than a mere possibility of persecution if they returned to Iraq because of their Sunni and Shi'a faiths. The RAD acknowledges that the test for well-founded fear is forward-looking, but notes that evidence of past persecution is one of the most effective means of showing that a fear of future persecution is objectively well-founded.46 In this case that lack of evidence is significant, when combined with recent documentary evidence in the NDP. Therefore, the RAD finds the RPD did not err in finding the Appellants would not be at risk based on their Sunni and Shi'a faiths if they returned to Iraq. CONCLUSION [42] After conducting its own analysis of the entire record, the RAD finds that the RPD did not err in its credibility findings and its subjective fear assessment. While the RAD has concerns over a couple of the RPD's findings with respect to the supporting documents, they are not fatal to its final determination that the Appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection. The Appellants failed to provide sufficient credible evidence to support their allegations and they do not possess a profile that places them at risk. Disposition [43] Pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, the RAD confirms the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. This appeal is dismissed. (signed) "G. Erauw" G. Erauw "August 18, 2017" Date 1 Section 111(1)(a), Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c.27, last amended on February 6, 2014. 2 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no. A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93. 3 X (Re), 2017 CanLII 33034 (CA IRB). 4 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, Translation of Green Zone Identity Card, at pp. 17-19. 5 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Translation of Authorization to Carry Personal Weapon, at pp. 20-22. 6 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Translation of Identity Card No. XXXX XXXX XXXX at pp. 23-27. 7 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, XXXX XXXX Training Letter, at pp. 30-32. 8 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Acknowledgment of Service Letter, at pp. 33-34. 9 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, XXXX XXXX XXXX Letter, at pp. 35-36. 10 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, XXXX XXXX XXXX Letter, at pp. 37-38. 11 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Letter, at pp. 39-40. 12 In the French version of the IRPA, this phrase is instead the equivalent of "normally have been expected;" see Singh, Parminder v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-6711-13), Gagné, October 28, 2014, 2014 FC 1022, at para 51. 13 Section 3(3)(g)(iii), Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Appeal Division Rules, SOR/2012-257. 14 Raza v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FCA 38; cited in Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, 2016 FCA 96, at para 64. 15 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, 2016 FCA 96, at para 64. 16 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, Appellants' Memorandum, at p. 129, at paras 16-17; Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, Appellants' Affidavit, at pp. 12, at para 6. 17 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, Appellants' Memorandum, at pp. 129-130, at paras 18-19. 18 Section 110(6), Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, last amended on February 6, 2014. 19 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, Appellants' Memorandum, at pp. 137-141, at paras 41-50. 20 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, Appellants' Memorandum, at pp. 141-146, at paras 51-61. 21 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, Appellants' Memorandum, at pp. 130-137, at paras 20-40. 22 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, Appellants' Memorandum, at pp. 146-149, at paras 62-70. 23 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Reasons and Decision, at paras 6-10. 24 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, Appellants' Memorandum, at pp. 138-139, at paras 41-44. 25 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, Appellants' Memorandum, at pp. 139-141, at paras 45-50. 26 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Principal Appellant's TRV Application (XXXX 2015), at pp. 456-465; Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Principal Appellant's TRV Application (XXXX 2015), at pp. 494-504; Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Daughter Appellant TRV (XXXX 2015), at pp. 532-540; Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Adult Female Appellant's TRV (XXXX 2015), at pp. 415-423. 27 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Audio Recording, at 1:19:30-1:39:00. The RAD notes that the Adult Female Appellant's application mentions she also worked at the XXXX Hotel in Baghdad as an XXXX until 2007, which does not correspond with her Schedule A form stating she was a housewife. 28 Wang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 972, at para 11. 29 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Audio Recording, at 2:34:00-2:46:00. 30 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Reasons and Decision, at paras 14-22. 31 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, Appellants' Memorandum, at pp. 141-146, at paras 51-61. 32 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Audio Recording, at 1:39:00-2:26:46. 33 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Reasons and Decision, at paras 11-12. 34 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, Appellants' Memorandum, at pp. 131-133, at paras 22-27. 35 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, Appellants' Memorandum, at pp. 133-134, at paras 28-31. 36 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, Appellants' Memorandum, at pp. 134-136, at paras 32-37. 37 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, Appellants' Memorandum, at pp. 136-137, at paras 38-40. 38 The latest a document is dated from the XXXX XXXX is: Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Letter of XXXX XXXX 2014, at p. 350. Also, his last Green Zone ID expired on XXXX XXXX, 2014; see Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Principal Appellant's Identification, at pp. 367-368. 39 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, CBSA Employment History, at pp. 373-376. 40 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Audio Recording, at 1:03:00-1:19:30. 41 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, RPD's Decision and Reasons, at para 23. 42 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, Appellants' Memorandum, at pp. 148-149, at para 69. 43 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Audio Recording, at 2:26:45-2:34:00. 44 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Iraq (31 October 2016), at item 1.17. 45 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Iraq (31 October 2016), at items 2.3, 2.15, and 1.4. 46 Natynczyk v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 2004 FC 914, at para 71. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB7-03940 TB7-03941 TB7-03942