VB9-05200

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : VB9-05200 VB9-05201 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Persons who are the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Appeal considered / heard at Calgary, AB Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision August 31, 2020 Date de la décision Panel Derek Vermette Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subject of the appeal N/A Conseil des personnes en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXand XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX collectively the Appellants, are citizens of the Philippines. They are appealing a Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decision that denied their claims for refugee protection. [2] In denying their claims, the RPD decided that any risk faced by the Appellants due to President Rodrigo Duterte's war on drugs, or the risk faced by XXXXfrom martial law in Mindanao in the Philippines, are risks faced generally by others in the Philippines. [3] The Appellants argue on this appeal that the RPD erred in its decision because they allege that they do face a greater risk compared to others in the Philippines because of their relationship to XXXXbrother, who is on the drug list. DECISION [4] I find that the RPD correctly decided the Appellants' claims. Any risk faced by the Appellants due to the drug war in the Philippines is faced generally by other individuals in that country. Therefore, they are not entitled to refugee protection. [5] I dismiss the appeals. The RPD was correct in finding that the Appellants are neither Convention1 refugees nor persons in need of protection. NEW EVIDENCE The evidence presented by the Appellants is rejected [6] According to the law,2 I can only accept evidence that: i. arose after the RPD decision; or ii. was not reasonably available at the time of the decision; or iii. that the Appellants could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to bring to the RPD before the decision. [7] If the evidence meets one or more of these requirements, I must decide if the evidence is new, credible, and relevant before I can accept it.3 [8] In their Appellant Record, the Appellants submitted the following: a. An article dated November 1, 2016, entitled, "U.S Halted Sale of Weapons to Philippines over Duterte's Deadly Drug War"; and b. An undated article entitled, "Philippines Events of 2018." [9] I will not admit these documents as new evidence for the following reasons. The Appellants indicated in their Appellant's Record that they were not submitting any new evidence and were not requesting a hearing. There have been no submissions to explain how the articles that have been provided meet the requirements of section 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), referred to above. Having not admitted any documents under section 110(4) of IRPA, I am unable to order a new hearing under section 110(6) of IRPA. ANALYSIS [10] I find that the RPD was correct in its decision, and that the Appellants are not in need of protection because of a risk to their life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.4 The Appellants' fear of President Duterte's war on drugs is a risk faced generally by other individuals in the Philippines.5 [11] In denying the Appellants' claims, the RPD noted that the Appellants both feared being caught in President Duterte's war on drugs, and that XXXXfeared martial law in her home place of Mindanao. However, the RPD found that the Appellants were not Convention refugees because their fear of the war on drugs or martial law were not because of any personal characteristics that might fall within one of the five Convention grounds (i.e. section 96 of IRPA). The RPD also found that there were no allegations of any risk of torture in the Philippines (i.e. section 97(1)(a) of IRPA). The RPD found that the Appellants were not persons in need of protection (i.e. section 97(1)(b) of IRPA) because any risk they face is a risk faced by others in the Philippines and that they are not personally at greater risk. The RPD accepted that the objective evidence is clear that people in the Philippines are at risk of being killed extrajudicially by police or by vigilante groups associated with the police in President Duterte's war on drugs, even if they are not themselves actually involved in drug use. However, the RPD found that such risk is a general risk faced by people at large in the Philippines, and that there was no evidence that either of the Appellants would be more at risk than anyone else. The RPD also found that there is no objective evidence that family members of suspects or people named on the watchlist or people who have been arrested or killed for drug crimes or alleged drug crimes are themselves more at risk. With respect to XXXXfear of martial law, the RPD found that martial law is a law of general application and the risks that she would face are the risks that would be faced by others generally in Mindanao, and that she is therefore not a person in need of protection due to martial law in Mindanao. [12] It is unnecessary for me to deal with certain matters referred to in the RPD decision because the Appellants have not argued on this appeal that the RPD decided those matters incorrectly. Specifically, the Appellants do not argue on this appeal that the RPD incorrectly decided that the Appellants do not meet the requirements of being Convention refugees; or that they do not face a risk of torture;6 or that XXXX is not a person in need of protection because of martial law. The only RPD finding that the Appellants take issue with is the finding that they are not persons in need of protection with respect to President Duterte's war on drugs.7 [13] The Appellants dispute the RPD's finding that there is no evidence that either of them would be more at risk than anyone else in the Philippines. The Appellants argue that they are in greater danger of being killed or harmed in the war on drugs because of their associations and connections with XXXXbrother who is on the watchlist. The Appellants submit that there are numerous cases of mistaken identity in extra-judicial killings, and that the police and killing squads have killed innocent bystanders, family members and children while attempting to assassinate individuals who are targets on the drug watch list. The Appellants argue that XXXX has greater risk of being killed by police extrajudicially because he will be spending time with his brother and his brother's family. It is argued that it is possible that XXXX will be killed in a case of mistaken identity because the police or vigilantes have very little incentive to correctly determine the identity of their targets. The Appellants submit that President Duterte has promised to protect police from prosecution, and that the police have been known to plant evidence to justify killings. [14] I do not accept the Appellants' arguments for the following reasons. [15] I find that the evidence does not support that XXXX still has the relationship he alleges he has to his brother or aunt (who is in jail on drug-related charges and will be discussed below). XXXX came to Canada XXXX XXXX2011. On or about April 19, 2017, the Appellants submitted an application to remain in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.8 In support of that application, XXXXlawyer referred to the fact that, "XXXXand his wife and his daughter have strong ties to Canada while their ties to the Philippines have been severed and are non-existent."9 [16] I also find that both XXXXand XXXX testimony at the RPD hearing does not support that they have profiles sufficient to find that they face any more risk from President Duterte's war on drugs than that faced generally by other individuals in the Philippines.10 Both Appellants testified at the RPD hearing that they have never used illegal drugs in the Philippines or in Canada. XXXX indicated that he does not anticipate using illegal drugs if he were to return to the Philippines. The Appellants testified that they have never been arrested for anything in the Philippines. The Appellants indicated that there was no one in the Philippines who might want to hurt them for any reason, or who is angry or upset with them. The Appellants testified that there is nothing about them that would make the police think that they use or push drugs. XXXX testified that she could not think of anyone who would wrongfully report her as a drug user or pusher. XXXX referred to his auntie who is in jail on drug-related charges but for reasons provided later in this decision, I find that the evidence does not show increased risk of harm to XXXXor XXXX. [17] The RPD member asked XXXX whether there were any reasons, aside from his aunt and brother, as to why the police would pay more attention to him than any other person. XXXX testified that he did not know. XXXX could not think of a reason why the police would pay extra attention to her. [18] The RPD member asked XXXX about her Basis of Claim form that indicated that she had been told by her family and friends the government was looking for her in connection with the war of drugs. XXXX testified that in fact no one in the Philippines has indicated that the government or the police are looking for her. [19] The RPD member asked XXXX about his Basis of Claim form that indicated he had been told by his family and friends that the government was looking for him in connection with the war of drugs. XXXX testified that he was told by his mother that his brother is on the drug users list, and they might thinkXXXX XXXXis a supporter of his brother. XXXX testified that his brother has not been arrested. In any event, the issue is whether XXXX is at risk from his brother being on the list. XXXX testified at the RPD hearing that in fact no one has told him that the police are looking for him. XXXX testified that his other brothers and sisters that live in the Philippines have not had problems with the police. [20] As referenced above, XXXX testified that he has an auntie that was involved in drugs and that she has been in jail since 2016. However, this does not appear to have increased the risk of harm to any other family members either, because XXXX testified that nothing has happened to any other members of his family since her arrest. [21] In addition to the fact that XXXXother relatives have not been harmed because of their relationships to XXXXbrother, who is on the drug list, and his aunt, who is in jail on drug charges, I note that the Appellants have not referred to any objective information that supports their allegation that the war on drugs not only extends to those on the drug list, but to all the relatives of those on the drug list as well. [22] For all of the foregoing reasons, it is my determination that the Appellants are not entitled to refugee protection. CONCLUSION [23] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the decision of the RPD that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection. (signed) Derek Vermette Derek Vermette August 31, 2020 Date 1 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. 2 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), S.C. 2001, c. 27, subsection 110(4). 3 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, 2016 FCA 96; Raza v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FCA 385. 4 IRPA, section 97(1)(b). 5 IRPA, section 97(1)(b)(ii). 6 IRPA, section 96 and 97(1)(a). 7 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 18. The Appellants indicated in their Appellant's Record that the location of the Refugee Protection Division's (RPD) error, in their submission, is located on page 3, line 25 to 29 of the RPD transcript, which provides: "That being said this [war on drugs] is a general risk faced by people at large in general in tire Philippines. There is no evidence that either of you would be more at risk than anyone else. There is no evidence in the objective material that family members of suspects or people named on the watchlist or people who have been arrested or killed for drug crimes or alleged drug crimes are themselves more at risk." 8 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Letter from Citizenship and Immigration Canada and documents thereafter, at pp. 243-289. 9 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Undated letter from Armstrong Law, at p. 285 (see the third page of that letter, and the fifth paragraph under the heading, "Severe Hardship if Required to Process Overseas, Processing Insurance Claim Overseas"). 10 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, June 6, 2019 audio of RPD hearing at approximately 00:39:46 to 00:44:15 and 00:55:33 to 01:11:45. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : VB9-05200 VB9-05201 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