MB8-08165

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 : MB8-08165 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision - Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Montréal, Quebec Appel instruit à Date of decision April 1, 2019 Date de la décision Panel Me Maria De Andrade Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Me Darius Constantin Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant désigné Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] The appellant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, a citizen of Haiti, is appealing against the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejecting his refugee protection claim on the grounds that his testimony is not credible in regard to the elements central to his refugee protection claim. [2] The appellant argues that this conclusion is unreasonable and that the omissions or inconsistencies noted by the panel should not have served as the grounds for rejecting his refugee protection claim. [3] After an independent assessment of the evidence, I conclude that the RPD has not erred in finding that the inconsistencies on the essential points of his refugee protection claim undermine the credibility of the appellant's allegations. [4] The appeal is dismissed. BACKGROUND [5] In his Basis of Claim Form (BOC Form), the appellant alleges that he was a XXXX in the city of Cap-Haïtien. He states that he is a supporter of the Pitit Dessalines political party and that he was in the habit of displaying posters of that party's leaders in his business. [6] In September and October 2016, supporters of the Parti Haïtien Tèt Kale (PHTK) [Haitian Tèt Kale party] began intimidating him. One evening, they vandalized his business by throwing garbage at it. A few days later, PHTK supporters forced him out of his vehicle and attacked him. The appellant states that he filed a complaint with the police but in vain. [7] Fearing for his safety, he sought refuge in Port-au-Prince. On XXXX XXXX XXXX 2016, he left Haiti. He did not feel safe there because the PHTK was in power. [8] The appellant lived in the United States from XXXX XXXX, 2016, until his arrival in Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017. He submitted an initial BOC Form in mid-September 2017. ISSUES [9] In the context of the appeal, I must decide whether the RPD has erred in its assessment of credibility. SCOPE OF THE APPEAL [10] Except in cases where the credibility of the oral evidence is in question and the RPD enjoys a meaningful advantage, the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) must determine whether the RPD's decision is correct.1 If an error of law, of fact or of mixed law and fact has been made, the RAD must intervene in one of the ways set out in sections 110 and 111 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). [11] If I must defer to the RPD's decision because it enjoyed a meaningful advantage, I will mention it in my analysis. Furthermore, in no case would deference to the RPD equate blind endorsement of its findings.2 MERIT OF THE APPEAL [12] The RPD found that the appellant was not credible in regard to elements central to his refugee protection claim, namely his support of the Ptitit Dessalines political party and that he was the owner of a business where posters of his party's leaders were displayed. Concerning his credibility, the RPD noted the following points: * At question 8 of Form IMM 5669, the appellant did not declare that he was a supporter or member of any political party. * At question 9 of the same form, under "employment history," he did not declare that he was the owner of a business in Cap-Haïtien. * The appellant's failure to apply for asylum in the United States compromises the credibility of his allegations that his life is in danger. [13] The RPD stated that it considered the appellant's testimony to be generally lacking in credibility. It did not believe any of the allegations made in support of the refugee protection claim. Concerning the exhibits submitted, the RPD found that they had no probative value because they simply related facts that the RPD did not find credible. [14] The appellant maintains that the credibility findings are unreasonable. He argues that the RPD should not [translation] "be zealous in identifying contradiction in the testimony." The appellant points out that the inconsistencies must be significant and determinative, which is not the case, in his opinion. Inconsistencies between the Basis of Claim Form and Form IMM 5669 [15] With respect, I am persuaded that the RPD did not err in pointing out the inconsistencies between the BOC Form and the form completed during the refugee protection process. [16] Contrary to what the appellant maintains, they are significant inconsistencies. They are central to his refugee protection claim since they concern his support for the Pitit Dessalines political party and the fact that he does or does not own a business which, according to his allegations in the BOC Form, was vandalized because he is a supporter of that party. [17] In my opinion, these inconsistencies in the evidence are such that I find that the appellant has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that he is a member of that political party or that his business was vandalized since he has not established that he is the owner of a business. [18] In my opinion, these inconsistencies are sufficient to reject the refugee protection claim since both elements are central to his account. His explanations that the people who helped him to fill out the forms told him that it was not necessary or important to fill out every section are completely insufficient,3 considering that the appellant stated that he had understood the question.4 [19] In addition, his explanations that he did not believe these forms were important to the refugee protection process and that he believed that the forms [translation] "were going to stay in his hands and would not go any further" are at the very least astonishing. They undermine his credibility. Failure to consider exhibits P-1 to P-6 [20] The appellant submitted documents to substantiate the fact that he was a member of the Pitit Dessalines political party and confirm his complaint to the police following an attack. [21] The RPD found that the appellant generally lacked credibility and gave no probative value to documents relating facts it did not believe. [22] The appellant maintains that the RPD erred in giving no probative value to the documents he submitted in support of his claim. [23] With respect, in this case, I do not believe that the RPD acted wrongly. [24] Credibility of testimony and credibility of pieces of evidence are two distinct concepts. Nonetheless, the probative value of the documents submitted is generally assessed considering all of the evidence provided, namely the refugee protection claimant's testimony at the hearing or examining their contents in parallel with other declarations or pieces of evidence. [25] In Hohol,5 the Federal Court states: The RPD is also entitled to make general findings of lack of credibility. The accumulation of inconsistencies, contradictions, etc., taken as a whole, can lead to such a finding. As well, a general finding of lack of credibility can extend to all relevant evidence emanating from the Applicant's version and all documentary evidence he submitted to corroborate his version of the facts (Lawal v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 558 at para 22). [26] In this case, the inconsistencies were central to the refugee protection claim and the explanations offered were insufficient. [27] An assessment of the documents does not change the fact that the appellant's allegations are inconsistent regarding essential elements of his refugee protection claim. Here is why. [28] The appellant declares in his BOC Form that he was only a supporter of the Pitit Dessalines political party. However, if any probative value were to be given to the pieces of evidence submitted, I am astonished that Exhibit P-1, a letter from a friend, and Exhibit P-4, a police certificate, indicates that he was a prominent member of that political party and that for this reason, he was attacked on October 15, 2016. [29] In my opinion, this information is considerably different from what the appellant declares in his BOC Form and in Form IMM 5669, which greatly undermines his credibility. I will explain. If he is a prominent member, it is surprising that in Form IMM 5669, under the question "What organizations have you supported, been a member of or been associated with?", the appellant answered [translation] "none."6 [30] If he were a prominent member, it is astonishing that he states in his BOC Form that he is a supporter of that party. I also find it curious that the appellant did not include in his BOC Form, if only briefly, the circumstances in which he was attacked. [31] These reasons lead me to the finding that the RPD did not err in not giving any probative value to the documents submitted by the appellant. Behaviour [32] The RPD drew a negative inference from the fact that the appellant stayed for nine months without seeking help to apply for asylum. [33] The appellant submits that the RPD erred and failed to consider his explanations. [34] In my opinion, the RPD did not err in considering this factor, among others. As far as I am concerned, I do not believe that it is determinative. [35] In this case, the appellant did not establish, on a balance of probabilities, his allegations that he was a supporter of the Pitit Dessalines political party or that he owned a business in which he displayed posters of the leaders of that party. These are the facts that form the basis of his refugee protection claim. CONCLUSION [36] For these reasons, I confirm the determination of the RPD that the appellant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, is neither a "Convention refugee" nor a "person in need of protection" under section 97 of the IRPA. [37] The appeal is dismissed. Maria De Andrade Me Maria De Andrade April 1, 2019 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93. 2 Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145. 3 CD recording of the hearing, 25:09. 4 CD recording of the hearing, 28:00. 5 Hohol v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2017 FC 870. 6 RPD record, page 108. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : MB8-08165 7 RAD.25.02 (February 7, 2014) Disponible en français