TB9-20173

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-20173 TB9-20174 / TB9-20175 / TB9-20176 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Persons who are the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision November 21, 2019 Date de la décision Panel Joel Bousfield Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the \subject of the appeal Orr Kolesnik Conseil des personnes en cause Designated representative XXXX XXXX XXXX Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] The appellants are citizens of Nigeria from Ogun. They appeal a Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decision dated July 11, 2019, rejecting their claims for refugee protection. They are 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, they request that the RAD refer the matter back to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel. They have not requested to submit new evidence or an oral hearing. DETERMINATION [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 Basis of Claim [3] The appellants fear death, harmful tribal rituals and/or other serious harm at the hands of the principal appellant's mother-in-law and her agents. The rest of the central allegations in the case are summarized in paragraph [5] of the RPD decision. RPD Decision [4] The RPD rejected the claims because it found the central allegations not credible. ANALYSIS Determinative Issue [5] The determinative issue in this appeal is whether the RPD erred in assessing the appellants' credibility. For the following reasons and having examined the record and assessed it independently, the RAD finds that it concurs with the RPD that there is insufficient credible evidence upon which to determine the appellants to be Convention refugees or persons in need of protection. [6] In rendering this decision, the RAD has considered Chairperson's Guideline 4.2 The RAD has also done an independent assessment of the record. The RAD is reviewing the RPD decision on a standard of correctness. 2017 Re-availment from the United States (U.S.) [7] The RPD drew a negative credibility inference from the appellants' re-availment to Nigeria after a vacation in the U.S. in 2017, while their history of persecution in Nigeria was allegedly ongoing. The RPD found the principal appellant's explanations that the U.S. was not accommodating and that they did not know anyone there, to be an unreasonable explanation for the re-availment. [8] The appellants argue that the RPD erred when it drew a negative inference from this re-availment. The RAD rejects this argument. The RAD finds that it is not plausible that the appellants would have voluntarily returned to Nigeria from the U.S. in 2017 in the context of the alleged events of past persecution in Nigeria up to then. The RAD also finds that the RPD correctly concluded that the principal appellant's explanations for the voluntary re-availment - that the U.S. was not accommodating and that they did not know anyone there - are not reasonable in the context of the rest of the allegations. The RAD therefore draws a negative credibility inference from this re-availment and the appellants' failure to provide a reasonable explanation. Inconsistencies about when and where the principal appellant moved from her parent's home to her husband's [9] The RPD drew a negative credibility inference from inconsistencies in the principal appellant's evidence as to where and when she moved out of her parents' home to live with her husband. At one point, she testified that she moved to an Ogun state address to live with him in 2011. At another point, she indicated she moved to an Ondo state address to live with him. When confronted, the principal appellant had no explanation. The RPD also noted that this testimony also conflicted with the addresses contained in her claim intake forms. [10] The RPD drew a negative inference from an inconsistency between her Basis of Claim (BOC) narrative and her oral testimony as to when she relocated to Ogun state. Her BOC narrative indicated she relocated to Ogun state after she was poisoned in 2013. However, her oral testimony and her claim intake forms indicated she relocated to Ogun state in 2011. When confronted the principal appellant indicated that she had been told to summarize, and her counsel explained that her BOC narrative was not in chronological order. The RPD rejected these explanations because the BOC narrative question asked for a clear chronology, because she was represented by counsel at the time her BOC narrative was executed, and because she had already amended her BOC narrative to specify the chronology of other alleged events. [11] The appellants argue that the RPD erred in drawing a negative inference from these inconsistencies. The appellants argue that there were no inconsistencies here. The appellants also argue that the RPD ignored the pastor's letter3 and her BOC narrative which could have explained the inconsistencies. The RAD rejects these arguments. Having reviewed the record and assessed it independently, the RAD finds that there were inconsistencies in the principal appellant's evidence here, and that she did not provide a reasonable explanation. At one point, she testified that she moved to an Ogun state address to live with her husband in 2011. At another point, she indicated she moved to an Ondo state address to live with him. Moreover, when confronted during the hearing, the RAD finds that she did not provide an explanation. Moreover, as the RPD did, the RAD finds that her testimony in this regard also conflicted with the addresses contained in her claim intake forms.4 The pastor's letter does not assist the appellants because it only supports one version of the testimony but does not explain why the testimony was inconsistent. The RAD therefore draws another negative credibility inference from these inconsistencies and the appellants' failure to provide a reasonable explanation. XXXX 2018 threat(s) [12] The RPD drew a negative credibility inference from an inconsistency between the principal appellant's testimony and her BOC narrative as to the number of threats she received in XXXX 2018. In her oral testimony, she indicated she received one threat in that month - a threatening letter from her mother-in-law. In her BOC narrative, she indicated that she also received other threats during XXXX 2018. When confronted, the principal appellant did not provide an explanation. [13] The appellants argue that the principal appellant did not indicate that she only received one threat in XXXX 2018, and that the RPD erred in finding that she did. The RAD rejects this argument. Having reviewed the record and assessed it independently, the RAD finds that, in her oral testimony, the principal appellant indicated she received one threat in that month - a threatening letter from her mother-in-law, but, in her BOC narrative,5 she indicated that she also received other threats during XXXX 2018. The RAD also finds that the principal appellant did not provide an explanation when she was confronted. The RAD therefore draws another negative credibility inference from these inconsistencies and the appellants' failure to provide a reasonable explanation. Mother-in-law's influence [14] The RPD drew a negative credibility inference because the principal appellant testified that she could not safely relocate within Nigeria because her mother-in-law was influential, but she did not mention her mother-in-law's influence in her BOC narrative. When confronted about this BOC omission, the principal appellant did not provide an explanation. [15] The appellants do not challenge this finding by the RPD. Having reviewed the record and assessed it independently, the RAD finds that the principal appellant testified that she could not safely relocate within Nigeria because her mother-in-law was influential, but she did not mention her mother-in-law's influence in her BOC narrative. The RAD also finds that the principal appellant did not provide an explanation when she was confronted about this BOC narrative omission. The RAD therefore draws another negative credibility inference from this BOC omission and the appellants' failure to provide a reasonable explanation. Psychological report [16] The RPD placed little weight on a supporting psychological report because of the unreasonably explained inconsistencies between it and the other evidence of the principal appellant, because its contents were self-reported by the principal appellant who the RPD found not credible, and because it describes other traumatic events suffered by the principal appellant that could have caused her to suffer psychological trauma. The RPD also rejected the report's diagnosis of short-term memory loss and a lack of concentration as explanations for the inconsistencies in her evidence because the inconsistencies concerned long term memory, and because the claimant never indicated in her testimony that she was having memory difficulties. [17] The appellants argue that the RPD erred in dismissing the psychological report because it found the principal appellant not credible. The appellants argue that the RPD cannot do that. The RAD rejects this argument. The RPD did not challenge the diagnoses in the report. However, it was open to the RPD to place little weight on the report because the report does not explain the many inconsistencies for which the appellant had no reasonable explanation. The RAD also notes that the principal appellant did not allege trauma as an explanation for the inconsistencies when she was confronted with them. The RAD therefore concurs with the RPD in this regard and places little weight on the psychological report as an explanation for the inconsistencies in her evidence. Police report [18] The RPD dismissed a supporting police report because it does not mention why she went to the police - when, according to her BOC, the reason was the attempted poisoning/murder by her mother-in-law in XXXX 2013 - and because the country documentary evidence indicates that fraudulent documents are widely available in Nigeria. [19] The appellants argue that the RPD erred in dismissing the police report because the report was issued on official letterhead and because the RPD only relied on country evidence about fraudulent documents to dismiss it. The RAD rejects this argument. The RPD dismissed the police report because it does not mention why the principal appellant went to the police - the attempted poison murder by her mother-in-law in XXXX 2013.6 Having reviewed the record and assessed it independently, the RAD places little weight on the police report as proof of the central allegations because it does not mention why the principal appellant went to the police - the attempted poison murder by her mother-in-law in XXXX 2013, and because the country documentary evidence on file does indicate that fraudulent documents, including police documents for sale, are widely available in Nigeria.7 The rest of the supporting documents [20] The appellants argue that the RPD erred in dismissing the rest of the supporting documents8 - the medical report, a handwritten threat letter, a letter from the principal appellant's husband, a letter from her former sister-in-law, and a letter from a pastor, as persuasive proof of the central allegations. The appellants argue that the RPD should have provided reasons as to why each of these documents were dismissed. The RAD disagrees with this argument. In the RAD's view, with the exception of the medical report, the RPD did not dismiss these documents. However, it did find them insufficient to tip the overall final credibility assessment balance back toward positive because it found the principal appellant's testimony on determinative facts not credible. The RAD concurs. The RAD finds these documents insufficient to prove that the central allegations are true, on a balance of probabilities, because of all of the negative inferences that the RAD has drawn above. [21] For all of these reasons, the RAD finds that the principal appellant is not a credible or trustworthy witness and that the central allegations in this case are not true, on a balance of probabilities. CONCLUSION [22] The RAD rejects the appellants' submissions. The RAD finds that the RPD's analysis and the multiple reasons it provided for disbelieving the central allegations in the case are correct. [23] As the rest of the appellants relied upon the principal appellant and her testimony to establish their claims, the RAD therefore finds that it has insufficient credible evidence upon which to determine the appellants to be Convention refugees or persons in need of protection. [24] The RAD therefore finds that the appellants do not have a well-founded fear of persecution on a Convention ground and, on a balance of probabilities, would not be personally subjected to a danger of torture or to a risk to their lives or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if they returned to Nigeria. [25] The RAD therefore 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 IRPA. (signed) "Joel Bousfield" Joel Bousfield November 21, 2019 Date 1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended. 2 Chairperson Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution: Update, Guideline Issued by the Chairperson Pursuant to Section 65(3) of the Immigration Act, IRB, Ottawa, March 9, 1993; Update: November 1996, as continued in effect by the Chairperson on June 28, 2002, pursuant section 159(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. 3 Exhibit, RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, at p. 140. 4 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, Schedule A, at p. 90. 5 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, at pp. 26-27, para 12. 6 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, at p. 135. 7 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Nigeria (April 30, 2019), item 3.11, RIR NGA106159.E. 8 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, at pp. 129-137, 140-142. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-20173 TB9-20174 / TB9-20175 / TB9-20176 RAD.25.02 (April 04, 2019) Disponible en français 8 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 (April 04, 2019) Disponible en français