TB8-04619

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 / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-04619 TB8-04620 / TB8-04621 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision December 20, 2018 Date de la décision Panel M. Pettinella Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal John Gravel Conseil(s) (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated representative XXXX XXXX XXXX Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW OF THE APPEAL [1] This appeal is dismissed. [2] XXXX XXXX XXXX (Principal Appellant) and her children, XXXX XXXX XXXX (Minor Male Appellant) and XXXX XXXX XXXX (Minor Female Appellant), collectively referred to as "the Appellants", allege that they fear persecution or harm in Jamaica at the hands of a man named XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX They maintain that XXXX is a violent man who took an interest in the Principal Appellant in 2011 and has harassed and threatened her ever since. [3] The Appellants also allege that they fear harm in Jamaica because of several acts of crime they experienced in Jamaica, including the theft of items from a shop the Principal Appellant operated in Montego Bay and witnessing the aftermath of a robbery and shooting incident in their community. They also allege a fear that the Minor Female Appellant will be kidnapped, sexually assaulted and killed because young women have been kidnapped, sexually assaulted and killed in an area close to where they lived. [4] The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denied the claims finding that the Appellants are not being sought by XXXX and they do not have a subjective fear of him. With respect to their fear of crime, the RPD found that there was no nexus to a Convention ground and the risk is a generalized risk faced by all persons living in Jamaica. The RPD also found that there is no serious possibility that the Minor Female Appellant would be kidnapped, sexually assaulted and killed if she were to return to Jamaica. [5] On appeal, the Appellants submit that the RPD erred in its assessment of the Principal Appellant's credibility. They also submit that the RPD erred in its assessment of their subjective fear, and in drawing negative inferences from their delay in claiming and re-availment to Jamaica. [6] Having found that the RPD did not err in its assessment of the evidence or in its findings, I am confirming the decision of the RPD that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection. SCOPE OF THE APPEAL [7] As held by the Federal Court of Appeal in Huruglica, the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) is to review decisions of the RPD on a standard of correctness on questions of law, fact, and mixed fact and law, after conducting an independent assessment of the evidence before it.1 The exception to this rule is where the RPD enjoys a meaningful advantage in the assessment and weighing of oral testimony heard.2 Unless otherwise stated, a correctness standard has been applied. ANALYSIS Request for an oral hearing [8] The Appellants request a hearing under Rule 66 of the Refugee Appellant Division Rules.3 [9] My jurisdiction to convene an oral hearing is limited: there must be admissible new evidence that raises a serious issue of credibility, is central, and determinative.4 No new evidence has been presented or admitted in this appeal, and so no hearing can be convened. The Appellants' request for an oral hearing is therefore denied. Findings of the RPD Credibility Inconsistent evidence regarding the name of the alleged agent of persecution [10] The RPD noted that the Principal Appellant provided inconsistent evidence regarding the name of the man who had allegedly taken an interest in her and had harassed and threatened her in Jamaica. It also noted that at the hearing, the Principal Appellant seemed unsure of the man's full name and wavered in her testimony on this issue. Considering her alleged circumstances, the RPD expected the Principal Appellant to know with certainty the name of her alleged persecutor. The RPD found that the Principal Appellant did not know the name of her alleged persecutor. It also found that the threats and harassment the Principal Appellant alleged to have suffered by a man named XXXX did not occur. [11] The Appellants maintain that the audio recording of the hearing reveals that it is unclear whether the Principal Appellant is saying "XXXX" consistently or alternating between "XXXX" and "XXXX". They maintain the RPD ignored the fact that the Principal Appellant spontaneously and quickly spelled out XXXX name when asked. They point out that the Principal Appellant explained to the RPD that it was possible that her counsel made a mistake in typing the name of her persecutor. The Appellants also maintain that the RPD had trouble understanding the Principal Appellant's accent in English, and should have been culturally sensitive to this. They submit that the RPD, in deciding that the Principal Appellant inconsistently named her persecutor, did not address her explanation that the spelling of XXXX name in her Basis of Claim Form (BoC) was wrong and her testimony and other documentary evidence - such as the two police customer reference forms - were correct. The Appellants submit that the RPD erred when it unreasonably discounted the customer reference forms which would have supported the Principal Appellant's correct and consistent statement of her persecutor's name. [12] In my view, the Appellant's argument fails for the following reasons. In their BoC, the Appellants name XXXX XXXX as the man who harassed and threatened the Principal Appellant from 2011 until the time they last left Jamaica in 2017. In fact they mention XXXX XXXX twice in the first four paragraphs of their BoC.5 Police customer reference forms name XXXX XXXX as the subject of the reports.6 The Principal Appellant's BoC contains her signed declaration indicating the information she provided was complete, true and correct; and she confirmed that it was at the outset of her hearing. If her counsel had made a mistake in typing the name of the persecutor as alleged, one would expect it to have been identified and corrected before the hearing, or at the outset of the hearing at the latest. [13] There is no indication that the RPD had difficulty understanding the Principal Appellant. A review of the audio recording of the hearing reveals that the Principal Appellant understood all the questions posed to her and the RPD understood her responses. While the Principal Appellant requested that a question be repeated on two occasion, the RPD never requested that the Principal Appellant repeat her response. This is a strong indicator that the RPD clearly understood the Principal Appellant's responses. [14] Considering that the Principal Appellant alleges to have been harassed and threatened by XXXX regularly and consistently from 2011 to August 2017, and reported XXXX to police numerous times, and had known his family in the community, it would be reasonable to expect her to be very familiar with his name. It would have been a name subject to almost daily recall, given the frequency and duration in which the Principal Appellant alleged to have been harassed and threatened by XXXX; harassment and threats that were also allegedly reported to police. There is a significant difference between "XXXX" and "XXXX", especially when reporting to police. The Principal Appellant however, provided inconsistent evidence regarding his name and wavered in her testimony, as the RPD observed. The following excerpts from the hearing clearly demonstrate this. RPD: Okay. The man you were talking about, you started off by talking about, um, this man that was showing you interest and you weren't interested, that guy, what is his name? Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. RPD: Spell the last name? Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. ____________________________________________________ RPD: Okay. I want to double check with you on his last name because you seem unsure. Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX. Yes, XXXX XXXX. His name is on the - some paper there. XXXX XXXX. RPD: All right. Well, that's, um, I am asking you because it's one of the concerns that I have is that, um, on those police - you are referring to those papers and I am assuming you are referring to the police report receipts, Principal Appellant: Yes. RPD: Which there are two in evidence, Principal Appellant: Yes. RPD: In, um, those will be Exhibit 8, in which his name is given as XXXX XXXX. Principal Appellant: Yes. RPD: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX However, you refer to him in your Basis of Claim narrative as XXXX XXXX. Can you explain that? Principal Appellant: No. It's, um, XXXX but maybe my lawyer misunderstand the name. [15] In my view, it is unreasonable for the Principal Appellant to have to rely on the police customer reference forms from 2011 for her persecutor's name, when she alleged that he had pursued her, and she reported him to police, up to the time she last left Jamaica in 2017. As mentioned above, it would have been a name subject to almost daily recall. One would expect the Principal Appellant to have been very familiar with the name of her persecutor and it would be reasonable to expect her to have provided consistent evidence regarding his name. However, she failed to do so. [16] I find that the Principal Appellant's inconsistent and wavering testimony regarding the name of the alleged agent of persecution undermines her credibility, and the credibility of her allegations, including the credibility of her allegation that a man named XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX harassed and threatened her in Jamaica on a regular basis from 2011 until she last left Jamaica in XXXX of 2017. Lack of supporting documents Police customer reference forms [17] The RPD considered two police customer reference forms the Appellants presented as proof the Principal Appellant reported her alleged persecutor to the police. It found that the documents lacked probative value because of the inconsistent evidence regarding the perpetrator's name, the Principal Appellant's name is not on the forms, and one of the forms refers to the nature of the report as being a threat against the perpetrator (XXXX). The RPD gave the forms little weight. [18] The Appellants submit that the RPD erred in its assessment of the customer reference forms because it did not ask the Principal Appellant why one of the forms indicates that the nature of the report is a threat against XXXX XXXX, and the RPD did not take into consideration that the other form indicates that the nature of the report is against XXXX XXXX. They point out that while the RPD did not like some elements of the customer reference forms, it did not find them to be fraudulent or suspect, and it did not find that the overall credibility of the Principal Appellant was seriously questioned. They submit that there was no reason for the RPD to also require a witness to corroborate the customer reference forms. [19] In my view, the RPD was not wrong to give the police customer reference forms little weight. Besides the irregularities on the face of the documents and the lack of information they contain, the Principal Appellant and her allegations regarding XXXX have been found to lack credibility. These alone are sufficient to warrant the granting of little weight to the forms. [20] Further, the Principal Appellant alleged that a man named XXXX relentlessly harassed and threatened her from 2011 until she last left Jamaica in XXXX 2017, and she reported him to police "many, many times".7 The customer reference forms are from 2011.8 Even if the Principal Appellant reported a man named XXXX to police in 2011, the Appellants have provided no credible evidence that the Principal Appellant was harassed and threatened by this man after 2011. Also, the Principal Appellant made no effort to obtain documents to corroborate her allegation that a man harassed and threatened her in Jamaica from 2012 to 2017. This further undermines the credibility of her allegation. [21] I give the police customer reference forms little weight in terms of supporting the Principal Appellant's allegation that she was harassed and threatened by a man named XXXX from 2012 until she last left Jamaica in XXXX 2017. Lack of other documents and omission of significant incident from BoC [22] The RPD noted the lack of corroborating documents with respect to the Appellants' allegations involving XXXX. The Principal Appellant's explanation for the lack of supporting evidence included an allegation regarding a confrontation she had with XXXX in 2017; an allegation that was not included in her BoC. The RPD found the Principal Appellant's explanation for the lack of supporting documents not reasonable or credible. It did not believe that the Principal Appellant confronted her alleged persecutor in a shop as alleged because she omitted this information from her BoC. The RPD drew a negative credibility inference about her alleged experiences with XXXX based on a lack of supporting documentation. [23] The Appellants point out that there is a requirement to provide some documentation to support a refugee claim; but where there are no serious credibility issues, a refugee claimant's testimony is presumed to be truthful and, once presumed, there is no requirement to provide corroborating documentation. [24] In my view, the RPD was not wrong to expect documents to corroborate the Appellants' allegations regarding the harassment and threats the Principal Appellant was subject to from a man named XXXX from 2011 until XXXX 2017. Credibility concerns regarding these allegations are significant and addressed above. I note that the Principal Appellant indicated at her hearing that her boyfriend in Jamaica, the father of her yet-to-be born child (as of the date of the hearing), is a XXXX XXXX with the XXXX XXXX XXXX. One would expect the boyfriend to have ready access to any documented police complaints the Principal Appellant made against a man named XXXX in Jamaica. At the very least, the boyfriend could have facilitated the Principal Appellant's access to such documents or provided a statement regarding his knowledge of the events. However, the Principal Appellant made no mention of asking her boyfriend to provide her with supporting documentation or facilitate their release to her. [25] Not only did the Principal Appellant make no mention of asking her police boyfriend to obtain or assist in obtaining supporting documentation, she provided vague testimony regarding her boyfriend's efforts to help her obtain police assistance in her case. The following excerpt from the hearing demonstrates this. RPD: All right. So have, um, have you asked him to pursue, um, this matter with Mr. XXXX? Principal Appellant: Um, yes. Well, he helped a little bit because Mr. XXXX - we are not in his division. So he could only, um, call Kingsville Police and you know how they talk to Mr. XXXX, stuff like that. RPD: And so - okay. So did he call some of his - his --- Principal Appellant: I guess. RPD: Police brothers in - in Kingsville? Principal Appellant: Yes, I guess. I --- RPD: Don't guess. If you don't know --- Principal Appellant: Yes, I - yes, he call and tell him to - tell him to stop and stuff like that. But, um, my - my current boyfriend, I don't have him come around because he is a police and I don't want Mr. XXXX to know (inaudible), you understand? And also I - my community is very violent and I don't want people, like the bad people because I don't know, really know who is who and they see I am with a police officer, they - when - back in Jamaica, when you are involved with a police officer, RPD: Um-hum. Principal Appellant: They say you are an informer. So my - my current boyfriend don't really come at my place often at all. [26] The Principal Appellant's vague testimony regarding her police boyfriend's efforts to help her obtain police assistance in her case further undermines her credibility and the credibility of her allegations, especially the credibility of her allegation that a man named XXXX harassed and threatened her up to the time she left Jamaica. [27] One would expect a XXXX XXXX with the XXXX XXXX XXXX to have influence with the XXXX XXXX XXXX in terms having the Principal Appellant's complaints against XXXX investigated, yet the Principal Appellant provided no credible evidence that he did. Her vague testimony regarding her boyfriend's alleged assistance, or lack thereof, lacks credibility. [28] Also, the Principal Appellant indicated at her hearing that she had a confrontation with XXXX in 2017; however she failed to mention this confrontation in her BoC, and she failed to provide corroborating documents from those involved in the incident. [29] The Appellants submit that it was reasonable to not include the 2017 incident in their BoC because it is against their own interest - as the incident involved the Principal Appellant's intention to harm XXXX. They also submit that it was unreasonable for the RPD to expect corroborating affidavits from those involved in helping the Principal Appellant, as they would have no interest in putting in writing that they assisted the Principal Appellant in almost committing a crime. They submit that the affidavits of family members, who the Principal Appellant could have spoken to about the incidents, would amount to evidence of double or triple hearsay. [30] The alleged 2017 incident regarding the confrontation with XXXX is significant and ought to have been included in the Appellants' BoC. Since no crime was committed in the alleged confrontation with XXXX, there is no good reason that family members and others who assisted the Principal Appellant in the incident would be reluctant to make a statement to confirm the details of the event. The Appellants' contention that including the 2017 incident in their BoC would have been against their interest makes no sense. It would have supported the Principal Appellant's allegation that she was pursued by XXXX, and had had interactions with him, up until the time she left Jamaica. The Appellants' BoC contains no information regarding specific incidents that include a date or year involving XXXX beyond the year 2011, when it would be reasonable to see them considering the allegations of his relentless pursuit. The omission, without a reasonable explanation further undermines the Principal Appellant's credibility and the credibility of her allegations, including the credibility of her alleged pursuit by XXXX. Failure to claim previously in Canada and multiple instances of re-availment to Jamaica [31] The RPD noted that the Principal Appellant had travelled to Canada on a number of occasions prior to her most recent arrival in XXXX 2017. It also noted that she had travelled to Canada on a yearly basis since 2013. The RPD noted the Principal Appellant's testimony that the worst incident involving XXXX had occurred in 2011. The RPD rejected the Principal Appellant's explanation for failing to claim in Canada during her previous trips to this country. It found nothing compelling in the Principal Appellant's testimony that she had to return to Jamaica in order to tend to her business and because her children were in school. It noted that the Principal Appellant brought the Minor Appellants to Canada in 2015 and did not make a claim for protection. The RPD found that the Principal Appellant's actions were not indicative of someone with a subjective fear of persecution and it drew a further adverse inference with respect to her alleged persecution at the hands of XXXX. [32] The RPD considered the Principal Appellant's explanation for why she continually returned to Jamaica if she had a fear for her safety and that of the Minor Appellants. It found her explanation unreasonable. With respect to having to return to Jamaica in 2015 to renew her gun licence to comply with the law, the RPD noted that the Principal Appellant has now placed herself in the very jeopardy with the law in Jamaica that she expressed as the reason she could not make a claim on any of her previous trips. The RPD found nothing compelling in the Principal Appellant's explanation of why she re-availed herself on no less than five occasions before entering Canada in XXXX 2017 and making claims on behalf of her and the Minor Appellants. It also found the Principal Appellant's actions in leaving Canada and returning to the small community of Dias on so many occasions, where she alleged her persecutor lives, are not consistent with someone having a subjective fear of persecution. It drew an adverse credibility inference. [33] The RPD also noted the Principal Appellant's intention to travel to the United States as late as XXXX 2017 for the purpose of visiting friends and shopping and found this, like her several trips to Canada for the same purpose, not indicative of someone with a subjective fear of persecution. In light of its credibility findings, the RPD found that the Appellants are not being sought by XXXX and do not have a subjective fear of him. [34] The Appellants point out that while the Principal Appellant admitted that the worst incident which occurred with XXXX was in 2011, her trips to Canada allowed her in part to escape from him. They also point out that after the theft at the Principal Appellant's shop in Montego Bay, the Principal Appellant spent more time in her town of Dias, which is where XXXX often harassed her. They maintain that even though the worst incident occurred in 2011, the harassing behaviour continued into 2017, and even increased. They submit that the re-availment does not undermine the subjective fear of their claim. They maintain that it is clear from the evidence that they left Jamaica because the Principal Appellant knew she was pregnant and believed XXXX would be a real and imminent threat to her life if he found out about the pregnancy. [35] Considering the Appellants' allegations, it would be reasonable to expect the Principal Appellant to have claimed refugee protection in Canada when she travelled here in 2013, or when she travelled here with the Minor Appellants in 2015, however she did not. Not only did the Principal Appellant not claim refugee protection in Canada in early 2013 when she alleged she was being relentlessly harassed and threatened by XXXX, she did not claim during her trips to Canada in late 2013, in 2014, 2015, or 2016 when she alleged that XXXX continued to relentlessly persecute her. After her previous trips to Canada, the Principal Appellant - and on one occasion the Minor Appellants - re-availed themselves to the protection of Jamaica. Not only did they re-avail themselves to the protection of Jamaica, they returned to the same area where the alleged agent of persecution resided. The Appellants ought to have feared returning to Jamaica, and returning to the same area they had previously resided, during their previous visits to Canada in light of their alleged circumstances. [36] The Appellants' contention that they last left Jamaica because the Principal Appellant knew she was pregnant and believed XXXX would be a real and imminent threat to her life if he found out about the pregnancy lacks credibility. The Appellants' allegations regarding XXXX relentless pursuit of the Principal Appellant have been found to lack credibility. Also, the Principal Appellant's boyfriend - the father to her unborn child (at the time of the hearing) - is a XXXX XXXX with the XXXX XXXX XXXX. This is likely to dissuade any criminal's intention to harass or threaten, let alone harm, the Principal Appellant. [37] I concur with the RPD's assessment of the Appellants' failure to claim previously in Canada and their re-availment to Jamaica. I find that the Appellants' failure to claim previously in Canada, without a reasonable explanation, further undermines the Principal Appellant's credibility with regards to her subjective fear of returning to Jamaica, her overall credibility, and the credibility of her allegations. Her re-availment to Jamaica in 2013, twice in 2014, in 2015, and in early 2017, without a reasonable explanation, further undermines her credibility with regards to her subjective fear of returning to Jamaica, her overall credibility, and her allegations. [38] Considering the above, the RPD was not wrong to find on a balance of probabilities that the Appellants are not being sought by XXXX and they do not have a subjective fear of him. I find the same. Appellants have not demonstrated a serious possibility that the Minor Female Appellant would be kidnapped, sexually assaulted or killed were she to return to Jamaica [39] The RPD considered the Appellants' allegation that young women the same age as the Minor Female Appellant have been kidnapped after school and sexually assaulted and killed in an area close to Hanover. It considered the Principal Appellant's testimony that in her parish of Hanover and in other nearby communities things have become vile; gunmen have started targeting business people, single mothers and young girls and children were being taken away from school and getting raped and killed. The RPD noted that none of the news articles the Appellants presented report on a spate of kidnappings and sexual assaults, or murders, of school-aged children in Hanover. It noted the objective evidence regarding the prevalence of crime and violence in Jamaica, including violence against women. It noted that approximately half of Jamaica's population are women. The RPD found that the likelihood of the Minor Female Appellant being kidnapped and sexually assaulted, or murdered, to be low and the allegation to be speculative. The RPD noted that there was no evidence that the Minor Female Appellant has been targeted for kidnapping or sexual assault in the past. It found that there is no serious possibility that she would be kidnapped or sexually assaulted were she to return to Jamaica. [40] The Appellants maintain that the Minor Female Appellant's fears are founded. They argue that from the perspective of a persecutor, their wealth relative to the rest of the population makes the Minor Female Appellant a target for kidnapping and extortion. They maintain that the documentary evidence demonstrates that children are especially vulnerable to the widespread violence affecting Jamaican society, and they are being targeted for kidnappings that can result in rape and/or murder. The Appellants submit that given the children's and women's guidelines, combined with the objective and persuasive country condition evidence, they have demonstrated that there is more than a mere possibility or a reasonable chance they hold a well-founded fear of persecution. [41] With respect to section 97 of the IRPA, the Appellants maintain that the Minor Female Appellant demonstrated in her narrative that young women she knew of had experienced kidnappings and assaults. They point out that this evidence was repeated at the hearing and corresponded to the BoC evidence. They maintain that the Minor Female Appellant has provided evidence of persons similarly-situated to her and allege that the RPD did not challenge this evidence at the hearing. They submit that the Minor Appellants are in need of protection given their BoC narrative and the uncontradicted evidence of the Principal Appellant, as well as the objective country condition evidence. [42] The Appellants' argument fails for the following reasons. The Principal Appellant's allegations regarding XXXX have been found to lack credibility. This adversely impacts the credibility of her allegation that children and young girls were abducted and raped and killed in and around Hanover, close to the area where she lived in Jamaica. [43] Further, the Appellants provided no news or other types of reports to support their allegation that children and young girls had been abducted, sexually assaulted and killed in or around Hanover. Considering the seriousness of such crimes, one would expect there to be published reports on them. However, none were presented or referred to. The Principal Appellant's testimony regarding similarly-situated individuals lacks credibility and is not supported by the objective evidence. I also note that no evidence or allegation was presented to indicate that the Minor Female Appellant had been targeted for abduction, sexual assault, or murder in Jamaica. [44] There is evidence indicating that women and girls living in inner-city communities are particularly exposed to gang violence; and women and girls are often victims of reprisal crimes, including sexual violence, for being perceived as having reported or actually reporting criminal activity to the police, or in relation to a personal or family vendetta.9 However, the Appellants did not reside in an inner-city community in Jamaica, and they have failed to establish that the Minor Female Appellant has been, or would be subject to, targeting for the reasons noted in the evidence above. [45] While the Appellants maintain that their wealth relative to the rest of the population makes the Minor Female Appellant a target for kidnapping and extortion, no credible evidence was presented to suggest that the Appellants are wealthy or perceived to be wealthy or wealthy business owners, even in relation to the rest of the population in Jamaica. The Appellants' evidence is that the Principal Appellant operated a small street-side bar in her community and, after the break-in at her shop in Montego Bay where she sold watches and sell phones, she continued to sell watches and cell phones from her home. In my view, the Appellants' evidence demonstrates that they had economic status similar to others in their community. [46] I note that the Appellants presented a number of articles regarding murders which occurred in Hanover Parish. In January 2017, armed thugs killed a man and two children. Police believe the killings were linked to the murder of a woman in the community which the man had witnessed.10 In March 2017 three armed men shot and killed three individuals in a restaurant located in Dias, including the couple who owned the restaurant.11 It is reported that a woman and her son were shot and killed by masked gunmen in Middlesex in May 2017.12 While a possible motive is indicated for one of the incidents, there is no mention of a possible motive for the others. There is no indication that the crimes are related to the perceived wealth of the victims or their gender. The Appellants have failed to establish that they are similarly-situated to the victims of these reported crimes. [47] I acknowledge, as the RPD did, that crime and violence are widespread in Jamaica, and are particularly high in and around certain areas of Kingston and Montego Bay.13 I note that the Appellants are not from Kingston or Montego Bay. The information in the news reports above is consistent with the information contained in the National Documentation Package regarding crime and violence in Jamaica. However, there is a lack of information in the documents to suggest that the abduction and sexual assault and murder of school-aged girls in Hanover or elsewhere has occurred or is a problem in Jamaica. [48] Based on the above, the RPD was not wrong to find that there is no serious possibility that the Minor Female Appellant would be kidnapped or sexually assaulted were she to return to Jamaica. I find the same. For the same reasons and the reasons that follow, I also find on a balance of probabilities that the Minor Female Appellant is not at risk of harm as set out in section 97 of the IRPA. Criminal activity, including theft and shooting incidents No nexus to a Convention ground [49] The RPD found that the Principal Appellant was the victim of crime with respect to the theft at her shop in Montego Bay, and the Appellants were witnesses to a crime with respect to the April 2017 shooting in Dias. It found the particular circumstances alleged by the Appellants in this case are not linked to a Convention ground and therefore assessed the claims under section 97 of the IRPA. Appellants do no face a personal risk of harm pursuant to section 97 of the IRPA [50] The RPD noted documentary evidence reflecting a high rate of crime and violence in Jamaica. It found no evidence to indicate that the person or persons responsible for the break-in and theft of merchandise at the Principal Appellant's shop in Montego Bay targeted the Appellants personally. It also found that the mere fact that the Appellants witnessed four men fleeing a crime scene has not created a personalized risk for them in Jamaica. Rather, it considered that the Appellants were witnesses to the tail end of an act of violence, which it found is a risk faced by the general population in Jamaica. The RPD found that the Appellants' fear arises from criminal activity and is a generalized risk faced by all persons in Jamaica. It found, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellants do not face a personal risk of harm pursuant to section 97 of the IRPA. [51] The Appellants point out that there was a pattern of break-ins at the Principal Appellant's bar since she opened it in the year 2000. They also point out that a local business had been robbed and a person associated with the owners of that shop was murdered. They submit that the Principal Appellant avoids the application of section 97(1)(b)(ii) of the IRPA because she was specifically targeted. [52] The Appellants maintain that children and young women are at a higher risk or specific risk of kidnapping for purposes of ransom, trafficking and abuse. They submit that the evidence demonstrates that state protection from gender-based violence is not available to women, and women face a specific risk to their lives. [53] In my view, the Principal Appellant has failed to establish that she or her family were personally targeted when there was a break-in and theft at her Montego Bay shop. It is unknown who broke in and stole items from her shop. The objective evidence indicates that property crimes are common in Jamaica. These crimes include car theft, break-ins, burglary, and larceny. I note that Hanover Parish has one of the lowest rates of robbery, larceny and break-in, while Saint James Parish (where Montego Bay is located) has a higher rate.14 The evidence supports the RPD's finding that the Appellants were not personally targeted and their fear arises from criminal activity that is a generalized risk faced by all persons in Jamaica. [54] Further, while the Appellants maintain that there was a pattern of break-ins at the Principal Appellant's bar since she opened it in the year 2000, they failed to present such evidence. There is no mention of this in the Appellants' BoC, and the Principal Appellant did not mention it at the hearing. The fact that another bar in the community was robbed and someone was shot during the commission of the crime does not personalize the risk for the Appellants. The objective evidence noted above indicates that robberies, break-ins and larceny are common and occur at homes or other buildings, which would include business establishments. [55] The RPD correctly found that the mere fact that the Appellants witnessed the aftermath of a crime has not, on a balance of probabilities, created a personalized risk for them in Jamaica. The perpetrators of the crime were masked and there is no indication that they were identified or apprehended by police. There is no indication that the perpetrators identified the Appellants among the many individuals fleeing the area during the mayhem following the robbery. Even if the perpetrators recognized any of the Appellants, the Appellants have indicated that they could not identify the perpetrators. Considering the above, there is no reason for the perpetrators to want to harm the Appellants. [56] The Appellants allege a fear of criminals in Jamaica. The fact that there was a break-in and theft at the shop the Principal Appellant once operated in Montego Bay does not mean that she or the Minor Appellants will be specifically targeted by criminals if they return to Jamaica. [57] Further, documentary evidence indicates that crimes such as car theft, break-ins, burglary, and larceny are common in Jamaica, and the declining but still very high rate of violent crime is now fuelled by organized crime, gang activities, and access to guns, among other factors.15 Being a victim of crime in Jamaica, as a business owner or regular citizen, is a risk faced by all in that country. The RPD was not wrong to conclude that the risk the Appellants face in Jamaica is generalized. I find the same. Disposition [58] The Appellants have alleged that the RPD erred in its assessment of the Principal Appellant's credibility, erred in its assessment of subjective fear, and erred in drawing negative inferences from their delay in claiming and re-availment to Jamaica. I have found that the RPD did not err in its assessment of the evidence or in its findings. [59] As a cumulative result of the above-noted findings, I find that the Principal Appellant lacks credibility. I do not accept, on a balance of probabilities, that the events, as described by the Appellants in their Basis of Claim Forms and at their hearing with the RPD, occurred as described. I also find the Appellants' evidence lacking in credibility with respect to the events material to their refugee claims. Therefore, I find that there is not a serious possibility of persecution should they return to Jamaica. I conclude that the Appellants have failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution under section 96 of the IRPA, and, for these same reasons - the lack of credible evidence, and generalized risk, I find that the Appellants are not persons in need of protection or at a risk to life, or at risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or in danger of torture as set out in section 97. CONCLUSION [60] Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, I confirm the decision of the RPD that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection, and dismiss this appeal. (signed) "M. Pettinella" M. Pettinella December 20, 2018 Date 1 M.C.I. v. Huruglica, Bujar (F.C.A., no A-470-14), Gauthier, Webb, Near, March 29, 2016, 2016 FCA 93, at para. 103. 2 Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93, at paras. 69-74. 3 Exhibit P-2, Appellants' Record, at p. 19, para. 2. 4 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), S.C. 2001, c. 27, ss. 110(6). 5 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 28, paras. 1, 4. 6 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 467-468. 7 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 28, para. 5. 8 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 467-468. 9 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 412, section 5.3.1. 10 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 434-437. 11 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at pp. 432-433, 438-439. 12 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 430-431. 13 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 408, section 4.1.1. 14 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 259, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Jamaica (31 March 2017), item 7.9, Inter-American Development Bank, Crime and Violence in Jamaica: IDB Series on Crime and Violence in the Caribbean, at pp. 49-53. 15 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, at p. 259, NDP for Jamaica (31 March 2017), item 7.9, Inter-American Development Bank, Crime and Violence in Jamaica: IDB Series on Crime and Violence in the Caribbean, at pp. 12, 49-53. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-04619 TB8-04620 / TB8-04621 RAD.25.02 (September 18, 2018) Disponible en français 21 RAD.25.02 (September 18, 2018) Disponible en français