Prompt:
How does this Refugee Appeal Division decision from the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada impact refugee claimants?

RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MC1-03928 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Date of decision February 2, 2022 Date de la décision Panel Me Agnès Connat Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Dan M. Bohbot Conseil de la personne 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, the appellant, is a citizen of Algeria who fears being persecuted in Algeria based on his conversion to Christianity. [2] The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) concluded that the appellant was not credible because of some contradictions and omissions. During the hearing, the RPD rejected two objections from the appellant's counsel. [3] The appellant states that the RPD exhibited bias, that its reasons are insufficiently reasoned and that the analysis of his credibility is incorrect. [4] The determinative issues for the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) are procedural fairness, bias and credibility. DECISION [5] I dismiss the appeal. The RPD correctly determined that the appellant, [REDACTED] is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. NEW EVIDENCE [6] The appellant filed the RPD member's curriculum vitae found online. He states that this new evidence supports his objection and demonstrates the decision-maker's religion, and states that he could not have expected to have to demonstrate the ethnic/religious origins of the member to demonstrate an appearance of bias. He adds that he asked the member to recuse himself from the hearing because he accused the appellant of cheating by reading a text and because the member is allegedly a practising Muslim, [translation] "even a fundamentalist".1 The new evidence submitted by the appellant is rejected [7] The RAD may admit new evidence (i) that arose after the rejection of the claim or (ii) that was not reasonably available before the RPD rendered its decision, or (iii) if it was, that the appellants could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection.2 New evidence that meets at least one of these requirements must meet the three case law criteria of relevance, credibility and newness.3 [8] The RPD member's curriculum vitae meets the third criterion of subsection 110(4): the appellant could not have known that he would be challenging the member's bias on the basis of his religion. This evidence does not meet the case law criterion of relevance. The case law of the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal is clear.4 The religion of a Board member or their inherent characteristics are not relevant to the analysis of bias: The Board, like a corporation, acts through its members. They are flesh and blood. Mr. XXXX may be a man of religion, an agnostic or an atheist. He may be Sunni Muslim, Shia Muslim, Jewish, Roman Catholic, Orthodox Christian, Protestant, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist or an adherent of any other number of religions. The Court does not know. It is irrelevant.5 [Emphasis added] [9] As in Chaudhry, the appellant is basing himself on the same religious biases he is hoping to flee. However, is not entitled to "choose" the religion, if any, of the member who decides his case. [10] As my colleague Edward C. Robinson writes in a case from 2011: It is desirable and, arguably, necessary that the composition of the tribunal reflect the composition of Canadian society and, in particular, the immigrant community which it has been created to serve. As a result, it is highly likely that members will hear the claims of applicants who are from the same country of origin or the same ethnicity as themselves and it is likely that the members will draw upon their knowledge and experience of the country to enhance their understanding of the applicant's claim. This will not result in a breach of natural or fundamental justice provided the member applies this knowledge or experience to the evidence before it.6 [Emphasis added] The request for an oral hearing is denied [11] The appellant is requesting that I hold an oral hearing. I cannot hold an oral hearing because he did not submit any new admissible evidence.7 STANDARD OF REVIEW [12] My role is to review all the evidence, which includes listening to the hearing and determining whether the RPD's decision is correct.8 [13] The appellant claims that the rule by which he is responsible for specifying the RPD's errors that constitute the grounds for appeal and identifying where said errors are located9 is ultra vires. He explains that these rules limit the RAD's discretionary power, contrary to the law, that they are used only in the context of subsection 111(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) under which the RAD must assess whether the RPD decision is wrong in fact or in law. He is of the opinion that the RAD may easily hold an oral hearing if he provides a new piece of evidence, that it must not limit itself to conducting a judicial review of the RPD decision, and that it cannot rule on an issue of credibility without an oral hearing. [14] I do not accept these arguments. The Chairperson of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada has the power to adopt rules in accordance with section 161 (a.2, c, d) of the IRPA,10 and in any case, the appellant identified and located the RPD's errors, in paragraphs 74 to 147 of his memorandum. [15] In Huruglica,11 the Federal Court of Appeal clearly addresses the RAD's role, in particular at paragraph 103. The Federal Court also pointed out12 that when an appellant fails to raise an issue on appeal before the RAD and the RAD confirms the RPD's decision, that issue should not be before it. In other decisions, the Court ruled that the RAD is not required to address unchallenged findings, but that it may set aside a decision if the RAD did not see a significant error in conducting an independent analysis of the file.13 [16] The RAD has some flexibility. When it reviews an appeal file, it conducts its own analysis of the file in order to decide whether the RPD committed the error alleged by the appellant. It also has the power to raise new questions or overturn the RPD's conclusions, even if they are not challenged. [17] Since the appellant identified the errors committed by the RPD and is challenging its credibility findings, I carried out an independent analysis of the evidence. ANALYSIS The RPD did not exhibit bias or breach procedural fairness [18] The appellant alleges two distinct reasons in support of his allegations of a reasonable apprehension of bias: a) The RPD twice asked to verify that the appellant was not using notes or documents during his testimony; b) The RPD member is Muslim, even a fundamentalist: [Translation] A devout practising Muslim who presides over a hearing for a Muslim convert gives an apprehension of bias for the decision that will be rendered since his religious beliefs may influence his decision. A decision for a decision-maker to render on a religious case should be rendered by someone of another religion or an atheist to avoid any influence of personal beliefs.14 [19] The intrinsic characteristics of a Board member are not relevant to the analysis of a reasonable apprehension of bias. The question is rather to determine would an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically-and having thought the matter through-conclude that the RPD, consciously or unconsciously, would not decide fairly.15 [20] The appellant states that the RPD was vindictive against his counsel, which justified the refusal of his request for a recusal. [21] The RPD twice asked the appellant16 and his counsel to show that the appellant was not consulting his notes. If the RPD had doubts, it was normal for it to ask to see what is in front of the appellant and to check that the latter does not have notes. This intervention was courteous. It was rather the appellant's counsel who reacted exaggeratedly to the RPD member's request by insinuating that the member was [translation] "mistrustful." [22] The hearing was virtual, over Microsoft Teams. Virtual hearings present new challenges for appellants, counsel, interpreters and the Board. The RPD could not directly ensure that the appellant, in a teleconference, did not have notes, as it could have done if he had testified before it. If the RPD had a doubt and wanted to check what was in front of the appellant, it had no other choice than to ask him to confirm that he did not have notes. It could ask him to show his surroundings. [23] The RPD first asked the appellant whether he was using notes. Its intervention was not excessive, and its behaviour did not raise any reasonable apprehension of bias, nor did it lead to any breach of procedural fairness. I emphasize that counsel's comment during the hearing on the RPD being mistrustful was not useful. [24] The second time the RPD asked to confirm that the appellant did not have notes, counsel asked the RPD to recuse itself. The RPD had no reason to recuse itself. [25] When the RPD asked him what had led him to Christianity, the appellant spontaneously and very fluidly recited a long surah from the Quran. The RPD then asked him whether he was reciting by heart. It explained that it had the impression that he was reading what he recited. The counsel then reacted strongly, saying that the RPD member was very mistrustful, that the appellant had no papers in front of him, that it was the second time that the RPD had attacked his client's credibility, that he was going to accuse him of bias, that it made no sense and that he was going to ask him to recuse himself. The RPD member responded to counsel that he could ask the person for [translation] "a 360-degree camera view" if he had the impression that the client was reading something and that he refused to recuse himself.17 Whether or not the member knew the surah does not change my conclusion. This changes nothing from the fact that he believed that the appellant was looking at a paper. [26] Whether the hearing is in person or virtual, a refugee protection claimant must not read their Basis of Claim Form (BOC Form) or their notes during the hearing without obtaining the member's authorization. If the member has doubts, it is logical for the member to ask the person or their counsel for verification. An informed person, having thought the matter through, would not conclude that asking someone twice whether a person is reading their notes during a hearing that lasted more than 2.30 hours is excessive. The person also could not conclude that the RPD would not render a fair decision simply because it verified that the hearing was being held properly.18 The RPD had no reason to recuse itself. Throughout the hearing, it asked its clear questions, repeated them as required and kept an open mind. Counsel's statements at the hearing [27] At the time of making his submissions, the appellant's counsel made inappropriate statements about the member's supposed faith. The appellant reiterated nearly all of these statements in his appeal memorandum to support his allegations of bias. He states that the RPD had a closed mind and focused on religious elements that were much less important than the elements associated with his assault and his freedom of conscience. [28] The counsel explained to the RPD that he believed that the latter's faith had influenced the hearing. He detailed his concerns and made a long argument tainted by preconceptions, made shocking statements about physical aspects of the member, such as his skin colour, or the fact that he wore a beard. He made inappropriate statements on Islam and the Muslims of the world, which he reproduced in his memorandum: [Translation] So that's the problem Mr. Board member, so I have trouble seeing why there would be any doubt that you're a devout practising Muslim, as your appearance seems to suggest, that you could have an appearance of bias because, in fact, you could never accept a person who tells you that they renounced Islam and, additionally, the person tells you that Islam is a false religion and that they converted for example or became an atheist. It's a big problem, because a lot of what we see at the international level, many Muslims, especially practising ones, do not accept any criticism of Islam, do not accept for example someone destroying the Quran or tearing out a page or anything of the sort. Therefore, these people in the world get accused of blasphemy by people who are practising Muslims and that leads me to doubt and that leads me to raise a question."19 [29] I did not identify at the hearing or in his reasons any bias from the member with respect to the appellant's faith or his conversion. If there was a doubt about whether the appellant was reading a document while testifying, he could ask him for a verification. Whether or not the RPD knew the surah from the Quran in question does not change my opinion since it was not on this basis that it asked the appellant to confirm that he was not reading a document. [30] Despite what happened at the end of the hearing, I am not of the opinion that this raised an issue of procedural fairness for the appellant since it occurred after the questioning had finished and his counsel was making his representations. An informed person, having thought the matter through, would not conclude that this incident prevented the RPD from rendering a fair decision. The conflict between the member and the counsel [31] On listening to the hearing and reading the appeal memorandum, I note a conflict between the Board member and the counsel. At the hearing, the counsel criticized the member for not having rendered a decision in another of the counsel's files.20 I therefore wondered whether this conflict had generated an appearance of bias from the member. [32] The RPD's questions were respectful, it demonstrated patience and asked the appellant to explain certain omissions or contradictions that it thought it had found between the BOC Form and the appellant's testimony. It asked the appellant questions about his path to Christianity, his practice of the religion in Algeria and the events of XXXX 2017. These are all important elements that are relevant to the analysis of the file of the appellant who alleges that his fear is based on his conversion. The surah from the Quran was recited on the appellant's initiative and not following a question from the RPD about Islam. The appellant is the one who recited this surah when the RPD asked him what had pushed him toward Christianity.21 Since the appellant states that he left Islam to join Christianity, it is logical for the RPD to wonder whether he knew by heart a passage from the holy book of a religion that the appellant chose to abandon. [33] The appellant was questioned by the RPD on its concerns and its conclusions regarding the elements on which it based its decision. It listened to the appellant, repeated questions that were unclear and ensured that he understood the questions. It ensured that it understood the appellant's answers when the interpretation was cut off by sound problems. It proceeded informally and quickly, and took measures that were useful to the proceeding.22 The RPD reviewed the appellant's file with an open mind. The fact that the RPD may have committed errors in analyzing the appellant's credibility does not lead to a breach of procedural fairness. [34] "What would an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically-and having thought the matter through-conclude? Would he think that it is more likely than not that [the decision-maker], whether consciously or unconsciously, would not decide fairly?" [35] Not only would an informed person not call into question the member's impartiality at the hearing, but also, they would be impressed by his calm in the circumstances. The inappropriate behaviour and hostile environment were the work of the appellant's counsel and not the RPD. Even though the RPD's decision has errors, I have corrected them and the RPD did not have to recuse itself. Credibility findings [36] The appellant states that the RPD accepted his conversion but did not render a decision on the credible facts. [37] At the beginning of its reasons, the RPD states that the appellant testified openly and spontaneously, but that it noticed a few contradictions and omissions that seriously undermined his credibility. These two statements are contradictory, and the rest of the reasons do not elucidate how the appellant could at the same time testify openly and spontaneously, and not be credible. [38] The RPD did not really conclude on the appellant's path to conversion. It found that the letter from XXXX, a friend of the appellant, contradicts his testimony at the hearing and that this undermines his credibility. However, that is not the case. The letter from XXXX does not contradict his testimony. He testifies that he was present at the appellant's baptism, that he lost contact with the pastor, that brothers and sisters were victims of assault, that the appellant told him that he was assaulted on XXXX XXXX, 2017, after he exited the church, and that his family then learned of his conversion. He confirms that he went to XXXX XXXX and that he did not find the pastor. This error is not determinative since I remedied the RPD's errors. [39] In his BOC Form, the appellant explains that he was a Muslim by birth and that he started to become interested in Christianity in 2015. He explains that for him, Islam is a religion of violence, and Jesus is a religion of peace. He was baptized on XXXX XXXX, 2015, at the XXXX XXXX church, then attended the church in XXXX XXXX. One day, when he was leaving the church, a group of Islamist fanatics attacked the pilgrims leaving the church. He escaped. On XXXX XXXX, 2017, he was offered a ride home upon leaving church. He was attacked and asked if he was Christian. He was struck, and the individuals took him back to the road. He went to the hospital with his father. When he left the hospital, he went to the police to file a complaint. The officers did not help him and told him that there was no place for people like him in Algeria. He never returned to the church. He applied for a visa for France, which would be refused. His father asked him to return to Islam to protect himself. The appellant refused. He travelled to Canada with his father in XXXX 2018. [40] At the hearing, the appellant testified that he began to be interested in Christianity with his friend XXXX in 2014. He specified that, from 2015 to the incident in XXXX 2017, he went to church every Saturday. He stated that he first attended the church in XXXX XXXX, then later the church in XXXX XXXX. Evidence filed by the appellant [41] The appellant states that the RPD does not mention the letter from the appellant's father in its reasons; he challenges the analysis of XXXX letter and criticizes the RPD for not considering all the evidence. I therefore conducted an independent analysis of this evidence. XXXX written testimony [42] XXXX written testimony states that the appellant was baptized on XXXX XXXX, 2015, which is consistent with the BOC Form and the appellant's testimony. He then writes that the appellant did not return to church with him and that, [translation] "since many of our brothers and sisters were victims of physical and verbal assaults, I also lost contact with [REDACTED] XXXX". This assertion does not contradict the testimony of the appellant, who explained at the hearing and stated in his BOC Form that he instead went to the church in XXXX XXXX. [43] XXXX then writes that the appellant informed him that he was assaulted in 2017. Since XXXX did not witness these facts, his letter cannot corroborate them. This can merely corroborate the fact that the appellant told him that he was attacked. The rest of the letter states that the appellant tried to reach the pastor in XXXX XXXX, and that no one knows where he is. [44] The appellant has established that he was baptized in 2015. The letter from XXXX corroborates the appellant's testimony and BOC Form that he converted in 2015 and was baptized. Certificate of baptism [45] The appellant states that he wonders about the link between the [translation] "so-called contradictions" in the appellant's testimony and the conclusion that the certificate of baptism and the letter from the father have no weight. [46] The appellant is asking me to analyze the probative value of the baptism certificate. I reviewed the document. I note that it is in French, while the official language of Algeria is Arabic and that in Kabylia, Kabyle is spoken. I also note several spelling mistakes such as the French word registre (regsitre) [registry], the name of the city of XXXX (XXXX), the month of December, décembre (décemebre) and especially the word XXXX instead of XXXX in the email address. For these reasons, I cannot confirm that this document is authentic. Despite that, this is insufficient to cast doubt on my finding that the appellant was baptized in 2015, based on his and XXXX testimony. Letter from the appellant's father [47] The appellant is asking me to analyze the probative value of his father's letter. This letter confirms that the appellant was the victim of a violent assault on XXXX XXXX, 2017, by guardians of the Muslim faith in a completely isolated location, that he recounted everything that night to his father, who recommended he go file a complaint with the police, that he did not accept his son's conversion, but that to protect him, he told him to forsake Christianity and attend mosque, that he accompanied him to Canada and told him not to come back. [48] The letter from the appellant's father corroborates what his son told him; namely, that he was attacked once by the guardians of the Muslim faith, that he did not appreciate his son's conversion and that he helped him come to Canada, not hesitating to accompany him there. Medical certificate and surgical report [49] The appellant filed a medical certificate dated XXXX XXXX, 2017, which states that he was examined for [translation] "blows and injuries further to an assault with weapons". The certificate does not mention the severity of the injuries. The certificate has weight to establish that the appellant went to the hospital and suffered injuries further to an assault. [50] The appellant filed a surgical report that states that he suffered a [translation] "[REDACTED] XXXX of the XXXX XXXX" when he was XXXX years old, on XXXX XXXX, 2001. The document has no probative value or weight to establish that the appellant was injured after the attack in 2017 or the nature of the injuries in question. [51] The RPD faulted the appellant for not having filed a letter from the pastor of the church in XXXX XXXX. It is true that the best evidence to corroborate regular attendance at the [REDACTED] church would have been a letter from the pastor in XXXX XXXX or from a person who attended the church and/or who reportedly knew of the assault. The appellant's explanation that he saw on the television that the church had been closed is adequate to explain the absence of a letter from the pastor, but it does not explain why the appellant did not try to find other testimony. However, I do not draw a negative inference from the absence of a letter from the pastor corroborating the appellant's allegations. [52] The appellant's testimony is consistent with his BOC Form on some aspects of his refugee protection claim. Some documentary evidence corroborates these aspects. The appellant has established that he was baptized in 2015, that he attended church weekly since 2015, that his parents learned of his conversion, that his father did not [translation] "appreciate" his conversion, that he was attacked in XXXX 2017, and that he tried to file a complaint. The appellant's path, his knowledge of his new religion, his practice in Algeria and in Canada [53] The appellant asked how his testimony was superficial, and pointed out that he cited passages from the Bible and the life of Jesus, which indicates that the RPD was acting in bad faith. He added that even if he had insufficient knowledge of Christianity, he has a right to his freedom of conscience and asked who decides on the necessary quantity of information to be convinced that Islam is bad or if Christianity is good. He specified that the RPD was not questioning the reasons that justified the appellant no longer believing in Islam. [54] The RPD asked questions at the hearing23 about what attracted the appellant to Christianity. It concluded that he remained very superficial when it asked him what had marked him the most in his new faith, and he limited himself to reiterating the messages of peace and love, that the religion recommends loving one's neighbour, that Jesus said to turn the other cheek or again that he begged that the people who crucified him be forgiven. [55] The RPD could review what motivated the appellant to practise his new religion. His answers to the questions were vague and superficial. He did not really explain why the messages of peace and love in his new religion had reached him. He testified that he had been interested in Christianity since 2014, that his faith pushed him toward Christianity, that what led him to make his decision is that Islam is not a just religion and that Christianity is a religion of justice.24 He also did not explain his spiritual journey. [56] The RPD questioned the appellant about his knowledge of Christianity and about his practice.25 It concluded that it had no reason to doubt the veracity of the ritual and prayer that the appellant talked about, but that his knowledge is superficial and known to the general public, that it is reasonable to expect that he would have more knowledge of his new religion especially since he claimed to have regularly attended church, every XXXX from 2015 to 2017. It added that he was able to recite a specific surah from the Quran and the verse number in Arabic and translated into Kabyle. It was of the opinion that it would therefore be reasonable to expect that in the same manner, he could have more knowledge of his new faith. [57] The appellant states that he joined a religion for which he could be persecuted in Algeria, and yet his testimony on his knowledge of his new religion was vague. Since he has allegedly been a convert since 2015 and attended a church regularly, it is therefore logical to expect that he would know the most basic elements of it in order to assess his credibility. Since he alleges that he went to church weekly for two years, he must be well aware of the practices and principles of his new religion. For example, when the RPD asked him to describe the Saturday activities, the appellant replied that they sang songs, that the pastor would preach the word, and that the word was to follow the religion of peace, to love one's neighbour and to turn the other cheek.26 I consider this information to be vague and known to the general public. [58] While the Federal Court27 instructs that a person who says that he is persecuted because of his religious beliefs must be familiar with the basic information relating to this religious belief, I am of the opinion that the appellant has established that he converted to Christianity in 2015, and that he regularly attended his church in XXXX XXXX until his departure in 2017. In his particular case, his vague answers are insufficient to conclude that he did not convert, especially because of the corroborating evidence filed by the appellant. However, the vague nature of his responses does lead me to conclude that he is not very engaged in practising his Christianity. The harm the appellant faced before his departure from Algeria The attack in XXXX 2017 [59] The appellant states that the XXXX 2017 attack is the most significant event that triggered his departure from Algeria. The RPD questioned him about this event without drawing a conclusion. [60] The appellant's testimony at the hearing on the circumstances of this attack was consistent with his BOC Form. He has established that he was attacked by unknown individuals in XXXX 2017 when he was leaving church in XXXX XXXX. The appellant omitted the threats in his community from his BOC Form [61] The appellant states that the RPD was wrong to find that he omitted stating in his BOC Form that he encountered harassment, threats and insults, and that people would spit on him, after his conversion became known in his community. He states that its analysis is misleading, [translation] "in order to justify a lack of credibility on a minor point, and then he generalizes the lack of credibility to all of the evidence and testimony". [62] At the hearing, the appellant stated that he received threats in his community and when he went to university, people would insult him and spit on him.28 He does not mention anything in his BOC Form. [63] The RPD correctly concluded that the omission from his BOC Form that he endured threats in the community undermines the credibility of these allegations. [64] The appellant testified that after he was beaten, when everyone had heard that he had converted, people would spit on him. He does not mention it in his BOC Form. However, this information is important. If such acts of discrimination and hatred took place, they are essential in the analysis of the risk of persecution since they are an ongoing element that allegedly occurred in the community when everyone found out about his conversion. Since he states that he would be subjected to a serious possibility of persecution by reason of his conversion, the RPD must assess all of the acts of harassment or discrimination that occurred and which, cumulatively, can amount to persecution. The appellant had to mention this information at the core of his refugee protection claim in his BOC Form, which he did not do. [65] When refugee protection claimants complete their BOC Forms, they must include everything that is important to their claim; the form clearly indicates this in capital letters. It is risky not to disclose in the initial BOC Form all of the facts and details that are significant to a claim for refugee protection,29 and the appellant must provide a convincing explanation to justify the omissions. [66] In this case, the appellant replied to the RPD that he did not think of that,30 which is not an adequate explanation, especially since he had been represented by counsel at the time of signing his BOC Form, since he did not amend his written account before the hearing, and since he failed to do so at the beginning of the hearing. [67] The threats, acts of discrimination and hatred suffered in his community are an element at the core of the appellant's refugee protection claim since he states that this is what motivated his departure from Algeria after the XXXX 2017 attack. This omission in the BOC Form undermines the appellant's credibility on the fact that he received threats and suffered harassment in his community after his conversion became known to everyone. [68] Contrary to what the appellant asserts, the RPD's conclusion is not misleading. The threats are also not a minor point in his refugee protection claim. The appellant has not established on a balance of probabilities that after the event of XXXX XXXX, 2017, he suffered threats or acts of harassment or discrimination in his community. The appellant has not established that he would be subjected to a serious possibility of persecution [69] The appellant states that the objective evidence in the National Documentation Package (NDP), as well as the abundant documentation that he submitted on the situation of Christians and the situation of Christian converts in Algeria, establishes that he cannot return to his country, that he could not practise his religion freely and could be charged with blasphemy. He states that the most significant event is the attack of XXXX XXXX, 2017, the police reaction and his father's request to return to Islam. [70] I reviewed the appellant's situation in light of the documentary evidence. The facts established by the appellant are the following: [71] The appellant has established that he has been a convert since 2015 and that he was interested in Christianity since 2014. After his baptism in XXXX 2015, he practised in the XXXX XXXX church for two years, going to activities every Saturday. He was attacked once in XXXX 2017 by unknown individuals who criticized him for attending church, when he was leaving the church. He suffered injuries and went to the police station with his father, without his complaint being accepted. After this event, his father and his community learned of his conversion. He lived with his parents until his departure one year later, on XXXX XXXX, 2018. He did not allege any event from XXXX 2017 to XXXX 2018. He travelled to Canada and his father accompanied him. [72] Documentary evidence concerning the general situation prevailing in the refugee protection claimant's country cannot, in and of itself, establish the merit of his refugee protection claim.31 The appellant must demonstrate a credible link between the documentary evidence and his personal situation, which he did not do.32 Algerian Christians [73] Some sources estimate that Algeria has a community of 20,000 to 200,000 Christians, while others estimate 125,000, out of a population of 42.3 million.33 According to Algerian government officials and religious leaders, most of them are foreign immigrants or students. [74] The appellant, like most Algerian Christians, is Protestant. The Christians live primarily in the Algiers region, the Kabyle region of Bejaia, the provinces of XXXX XXXX ([REDACTED]), Annaba, Ouargla and Oran. The appellant's religious practice and churches [75] The evidence reveals that, since 2017, the Algerian government has closed and raided churches, and that the situation has allegedly worsened since 2019, the year during which the government reportedly closed three of the largest Protestant churches in the country. Parishioners protested against these closures and may have been arrested by the authorities.34 [76] The appellant is a Christian convert who is not very engaged in his new religion. Nothing indicates that he could not return to church on Saturday as he did before. He was able to attend church without issues every Saturday for two years (from 2015 to 2017). Despite the closure of some churches since his departure, which represents a restriction for Christians, 12 of the 45 churches of the Église Protestante d'Algérie (EPA) [Association of Protestant Churches of Algeria] are still closed.35 He could therefore attend one of the 33 churches that remain open. Discrimination against Christians in Algeria [77] According to the documentary evidence, Algerian society acts with intolerance and discrimination against Christians.36 According to many sources, they are exposed to neither population movements nor physical assaults and must deal with the societal pressure exerted by other family members. Other sources report that they must overcome administrative obstacles imposed by the Algerian authorities, such as very long delays to obtain biblical names for their children. [78] Overall, the evidence does not allow for the conclusion that just being a Christian in Algeria would expose the appellant to a serious possibility of persecution. Christians in Algeria may face discrimination without the impact of these discriminatory acts being tantamount to persecution.37 They may encounter some obstacles to practising their faith, face discrimination from the government or the general public, but they are not subjected to a serious possibility of persecution from the sole fact of being Christians. For a person to be recognized as a refugee because they would be subjected to a serious possibility of persecution on the grounds of their religion, they must establish that they would suffer serious acts of discrimination, that their fundamental rights are threatened or that the harms suffered are repetitive, ongoing or systematic. [79] The appellant states in his BOC Form that his conversion [translation] "disturbed his family". He did not establish any act of discrimination or hatred from his family or his community. He did not allege that his right to work, his right to health care (he was received at the hospital) or any of his other basic rights were restricted. For one year (from XXXX 2017 to XXXX 2018), he continued to live in his community. Even though his father asked him to return to Islam, and though he testified in writing that he did not [translation] "appreciate" his son's conversion, the appellant did not allege that his family had committed discriminatory or harassing acts. He continued to live in his father's home and in his community. The fact that his father did not appreciate his conversion is insufficient to establish that, if the appellant were to return to Algeria, he would experience discrimination or persecution from his family or his community. [80] Despite the discrimination that Algerian Christians may suffer, the appellant did not allege any acts of discrimination from his community from 2015 to 2018. He was able to freely practise his religion until XXXX 2017 and lived there for the year between the time his conversion came to light and his departure for Canada. He was baptized in 2015, after having started to attend Christian church in 2014. For three years, he suffered no acts of discrimination or persecution in association with his new faith. He suffered one attack when he was leaving church in 2017 and was injured. This attack alone does not equate to persecution. After this attack, all of his community, as well as his family, learned of his conversion. Despite that, he suffered no acts of discrimination until he left for Canada, although he continued to live with his parents. His father asked him to return to Islam without rejecting him since he continued to house his son and even accompanied him to Canada. [81] In light of the evidence, and contrary to what other Algerian Christian converts like him may experience, the appellant has not established that he suffered situations of intolerance or discrimination in his community. He has not established that he suffered other acts of violence or discrimination before his departure for Canada, although he testified that, after the XXXX 2017 incident, everyone knew that he had converted. He has not established that he would be subjected to a serious possibility of persecution on the sole ground that he is an Algerian Christian convert. The XXXX 2017 attack and the police complaint [82] The appellant suffered a single attack in three years (from 2014 to 2017). The fact that he was attacked once after the service by unknown individuals who claimed to be defenders of the Muslim faith does not allow me to conclude that the appellant experienced discrimination to the point that it could be considered persecution, nor that he experienced events that were sufficiently serious by their nature and repetition for them to constitute a serious violation of a fundamental human right or for that to present a "sustained or systemic violation of basic human rights" of the appellant. [83] The appellant was attacked by individuals whom his father described as, [translation] "guardians of the Muslim faith" in a completely isolated location.38 This unfortunate event that should not have happened remains an isolated event. Even though the appellant's left arm was injured, his assailants released him. [84] In his BOC Form, the appellant alleges that he explained everything to the police and that instead of helping him, they asked him, [translation] "what I expected in a Muslim country" and stated that it was his fault if Muslims had attacked him. I do not believe that a police officer's refusal means that the state could not adequately protect the appellant. [85] According to the report from the British Home Office, the gendarmerie police forces are made up of 330,000 people.39 It is probable that in the whole police force, or military, individuals may display negligent behaviour. According to the documentary evidence, an individual can also file a complaint with the public prosecutor.40 By itself, the refusal by the local police to take his complaint is insufficient to conclude that state protection was not adequate or that it will not be if the appellant were to return to Algeria. Blasphemy and proselytism [86] Although Algeria's constitution allows freedom of conscience and religion, Islam is the state religion. Algerians may practise their religion, but offending or insulting Islam is blasphemous. Blasphemy and proselytism are crimes. [87] The appellant states that he could be charged with blasphemy, because he explained that he decided to leave Islam because it is a religion that promotes violence, whereas Christianity is a religion of peace. Other than this statement, nothing in the evidence indicates to me that if the appellant returned to Algeria, he could be charged with blasphemy. He was baptized in 2015 and practised for two years without incident, except for a single attack by unknown individuals. It is unlikely that he would be charged with blasphemy if he were to return to his community. [88] As for the allegations that he could be charged with proselytism, he clearly testified at the hearing that he never carried out activities to convert people.41 It is unlikely that he would do so if he were to return to Algeria. The appellant has not established that he would be subjected to a serious possibility of persecution on religious grounds if he were to return to Algeria. [89] The appellant has established that he has been a Christian convert since 2015, that he regularly attended church until an attack by unknown [translation] "fundamentalists" in XXXX 2017 when he was leaving church. After that date, and before his departure for Canada in XXXX 2018, he has not established that he experienced additional acts of violence or discrimination based on his religion. The documentary evidence does not allow for the conclusion that all Algerian Christian converts are subjected to persecution. If the appellant were to return to Algeria, nothing indicates that he would be unable to practise his faith, that he would be subjected to serious acts of discrimination, that his fundamental rights would be threatened or that he would be subjected to repeated, ongoing or systematic harm. [90] The appellant's risk is a mere possibility and not a serious possibility of persecution. [91] The RPD decision is correct. The appellant has not established that he would be subjected to a serious possibility of persecution on religious grounds if he were to return to Algeria. CONCLUSION [92] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the determination of the RPD that the appellant, XXXX XXXX, is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. (signed) Me Agnès Connat Me Agnès Connat February 2, 2022 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 P-2, Appellant's record, appellant's appeal memorandum, paragraph 76. 2 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), S.C. 2001, c. 27, subsection 110(4). 3 Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, 2016 FCA 96. 4 Nartey v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] FCJ No. 120; Tekyi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1995] FCJ No. 225; Badu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] FCJ No. 5; Mends v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1994] FCJ No. 1096; isagaperumal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1994] FCJ No. 1656; Jokhulall v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1995] FCJ No. 319; Chaudhry, Mohammad Sadfar v. MCI (FC, No. IMM-4257-04), Harrington, February 8, 2005, 2005 CF 200. 5 Chaudhry v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 200, paragraph 11. 6 X (Re), 2011 CanLII 99019 (CA IRB). 7 IRPA, S.C. 2001, c. 27, subsection. 110(6). 8 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145. 9 Refugee Appeal Division Rules, SOR/2012-257, subparagraph 3(3)(g)(i) "the errors that are the grounds of the appeal; ii) where the errors are located in the written reasons for the Refugee Protection Division's decision that the appellant is appealing or in the transcript or in any audio or other electronic recording of the Refugee Protection Division hearing." 10 IRPA, S.C. 2001, c. 27, subsection 161(1) Subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, and in consultation with the Deputy Chairpersons, the Chairperson may make rules respecting (a) the referral of a claim for refugee protection to the Refugee Protection Division; (a.1) the factors to be taken into account in fixing or changing the date of the hearing referred to in subsection 100(4.1); (a.2) the activities, practice and procedure of each of the Divisions of the Board, including the periods for appeal, other than in respect of appeals of decisions of the Refugee Protection Division, the priority to be given to proceedings, the notice that is required and the period in which notice must be given; b) the conduct of persons in proceedings before the Board, as well as the consequences of, and sanctions for, the breach of those rules; c) the information that may be required and the manner in which, and the time within which, it must be provided with respect to a proceeding before the Board; and d) any other matter considered by the Chairperson to require rules. [Emphasis added] 11 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145. 12 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93, paragraph 103. 13 Xiao v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 386, paragraph 26; and Abdullah v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 76, paragraph 21; Wu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 475, paragraph 15 (file before the FCA). 14 P-2, Appellant's record, appellant's memorandum, paragraph 98. 15 Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy Board, [1978] 1 SCR 369, "What would an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically-and having thought the matter through-conclude. Would he think that it is more likely than not that [the decision-maker], whether consciously or unconsciously, would not decide fairly?" 16 Recording of Refugee Protection Division (RPD) hearing held on May 6, 2021, at 00:58:10 and at 01:23:35. 17 Recording of RPD hearing held on May 6, 2021, at 01:23:35. 18 Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy Board, [1978] 1 SCR 369 19 P-2, Appellant's record, appellant's memorandum, paragraph 92. 20 Recording of RPD hearing held on May 6, 2021, starting at 02:02:10. 21 Recording of RPD hearing held on May 6, 2021, at 01:18:43. 22 IRPA, S.C. 2001, c. 27, sections 152.1, 162 and 165. 23 Recording of RPD hearing held on May 6, 2021, at 01:18:43. 24 Recording of RPD hearing held on May 6, 2021, at 01:36:25. 25 Recording of RPD hearing held on May 6, 2021, at 01:28:45. 26 Recording of RPD hearing held on May 6, 2021, at 01:28:45. 27 Bouarif v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2020 FC 49, paragraph 10. 28 Recording of RPD hearing held on May 6, 2021, at 00:35:25. 29 Occilus v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 374, paragraphs 23 to 25. 30 Recording of RPD hearing held on May 6, 2021, at 00:36:27. 31 Hissein v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 698; Alexibich v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCTD 53; Joseph Ithibu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCTD 288; Morales Alba v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 1116. 32 Rahaman v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCA 89 (CanLII), [2002] 3 FC 537. 33 SAR-1, National Documentation Package (NDP) on Algeria, April 16, 2021, Tab 12.1: Algeria. International Religious Freedom Report for 2019. United States. Department of State. June 10, 2020. 34 SAR-1, NDP on Algeria, April 16, 2021, Tab 12.2: Algeria. United States Commission on International Religious Freedom 2020 Annual Report. United States. Commission on International Religious Freedom. April 2020. 35 SAR-1, NDP on Algeria, April 16, 2021, Tab 12.2: Algeria. United States Commission on International Religious Freedom 2020 Annual Report. United States. Commission on International Religious Freedom. April 2020. 36 SAR-1, NDP on Algeria, April 16, 2021, Tab 12.3: Situation of individuals who have converted from Islam to Christianity, including treatment by society and authorities; availability of state protection (2014-May 2015). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB). June 30, 2015. DZA105210.E. 37 SAR-1, NDP on Algeria, April 16, 2021, Tab 12.3: Situation of individuals who have converted from Islam to Christianity, including treatment by society and authorities; availability of state protection (2014-May 2015). IRB. June 30, 2015. DZA105210.E. 38 SPR-1, RPD record, letter from the appellant's father, page 95. 39 SAR-1, NDP on Algeria, April 16, 2021, Tab 10.3: Country Policy and Information Note. Algeria: Actors of protection. Version 1.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. August 2020. 40 SAR-1, NDP on Algeria, April 16, 2021, Tab 10.3: Country Policy and Information Note. Algeria: Actors of protection. Version 1.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. August 2020. 41 Recording of RPD hearing held on May 6, 2021, at 01:43:50. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MC1-03928 RAD.25.02 (August 20, 2021) 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 (August 20, 2021) Disponible en français

Response:
## Analysis of Refugee Decision: MC1-03928

### Key Issues
orrect. [4] The determinative issues for the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) are procedural fairness, bias and credibility. DECISION [5] I dismiss the appeal. The RPD correctly deter

### Legal Analysis
The decision analyzes refugee protection criteria by examining: ciently reasoned and that the analysis of his credibility is incorrect. [4] The determinative issues for the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) are procedural fairness, bias and credibility. DECISION [5] I dismiss the appeal. The RPD correctly determined that the appellant, [REDACTED] is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in n

### Implications for Immigration Practice
This decision provides guidance for refugee claimants on evidentiary requirements and credibility assessments. Legal practitioners should carefully document client narratives and address potential inconsistencies proactively. The case demonstrates the importance of thorough country conditions research and proper preparation of witnesses.


Prompt:
Explain the credibility assessment in this Refugee Protection Division decision from the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada:

RPD File No. / N° de dossier de la SPR: TA6-16995 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Claimant(s) XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX Demandeur(e)(s) d'asile Date(s) of Hearing January 7, 2009 Date(s) de l'audience Place of Hearing TORONTO Lieu de l'audience Date of Decision February 24, 2009 Date de la décision Panel Stephen E. Rudin Tribunal Counsel for the Claimant(s) Vania Campana Barrister and Solicitor Conseil(s) du / de la / des demandeur(e)(s) d'asile Tribunal Officer J. Dalrymple Agent(e) des tribunaux Designated Representative(s) N/A Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre The claimant, XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX, a citizen of the People's Republic of China (China) is claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The claimant bases her need for protection on her fear of persecution as a member of a house church practicing Christianity in China. ALLEGATIONS Living in Anhui Province, China, the claimant alleges that saddened by the death of her father, at the suggestion of her friend, XXXXX XXXXX, she first attended the house church on XXXXX, 2004. After she had attended a few meetings, the claimant learned from XXXXX XXXXX that the house church was illegal. The claimant continued to attend until XXXXX 2006 when she came to Canada on a Visitor's Visa. She had planned to remain in Canada for six months. Wanting to help her daughter move into a new property, the claimant extended her stay by applying for and being granted an extension to her Visitor's Visa. In XXXXX 2006, while still in Canada, the claimant learned in a phone call with her sister that the house church she attended was discovered. She also learned that police had visited three times that week wanting to know when the claimant would return to China. The Public Security Bureau (PSB) also left a summons. The claimant also learned that all the members of the church had been arrested in XXXXX 2006. The claimant fears that if she returns to China she will be arrested by the PSB and she applied for refugee protection on XXXXX, 2006. DETERMINATION The panel finds that the claimant has not satisfied the burden of establishing a serious possibility that she would be persecuted if she returned to China. She is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection for the following reasons. IDENTITY The panel finds the claimant is a citizen of China. Her citizenship is established based on a People's Republic of China Resident Identity Card,1 a People's Republic of China Passport2 and a Household Register Card.3 ANALYSIS The key questions are: was the claimant practicing Christianity as a member of a house church in China; does she continue her practice of Christianity in Canada; and, would she face a serious possibility of being persecuted, arrested or imprisonment by the Chinese authorities if she returned to China. Was the claimant practicing Christianity as a member of a house church in China? The claimant testified that she attended the underground house church in China from XXXXX, 2004 until her departure for Canada in XXXXX 2006. Although there were some questions the claimant did not answer correctly ? How many times is Jesus mentioned by name in the Old Testament and why was Jesus crucified in her testimony, the claimant demonstrated a good knowledge of Christianity. She correctly recited the Lord's Prayer. She was also able to recite the 23rd Psalm and identified it as a passage that Christians turn to in times of trouble. The claimant properly identified two of the sacraments as being baptism and communion, properly testifying that baptism symbolized the washing away of a person's sins and that it preceded communion. She correctly answered that John the Baptist baptized Jesus and that Holy Communion is comprised of two elements, the body and blood of Christ symbolizing the suffering of Jesus. Although not determinative, the claimant had difficulty describing the resurrection, was not aware of the crime that Jesus was accused of that led to his execution and improperly testified that Jesus is mentioned by name numerous times in the Old Testament. The panel finds that, on a balance of probabilities, the claimant did practice Christianity in China. Does the claimant continue her practice of Christianity in Canada? According to letters4 of December 5, 2008 and January 7, 2007 from Reverend XXXXX, the claimant has been a member of XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX since XXXXX, 2006. Reverend XXXXX indicates that the claimant is actively involved in the Sunday Bible Study Class and the Saturday Fellowship. She volunteers in a number of church activities, serving as a member of the XXXXX XXXXX and as a XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX. Reverend XXXXX baptized5 the claimant on XXXXX, 2006. The panel finds that, on a balance of probabilities, the claimant continues her practice of Christianity in Canada. Does the claimant face a serious possibility of being persecuted should she return to China? Documentation6 reveals that treatment of house churches varies regionally. In some parts of the country, unregistered house churches with hundreds of members meet openly with the full knowledge of the local authorities that characterize the meetings as informal gatherings to pray, sing and study the Bible. In other areas, house churches of more than a handful of family members and friends are not permitted. House churches often encounter difficulties when their membership grows, when they arrange to use regular facilities for conducting the specific religious activities, when they forge links with other unregistered or overseas groups, when they attempt to meet in large groups and travel within and outside the country for religious meetings. Meetings of unregistered churches in small cities and rural areas may number in the hundreds. The claimant testified that she lived in Anhui Province. The Annual Report of Persecution by the Government on Christian House Churches within Mainland China January-December 20077 published by the China Aid Society USA in February 2008 reports that during 2007, only 6 people were arrested in Anhui Province. A Missionary was arrested and received administrative detention; the leader of a house church in Zhangchong Township and two other unidentified people were arrested; a leader of a house church was arrested for illegal distribution of Bibles; and, another leader of a house church was arrested for leading many students in Bible study. Other documentation8 reports that the Chinese authorities were holding 70 Protestant leaders of house churches in Anhui Province. With respect to the allegation that the church group was raided and all the members were arrested, the panel preferred the documentary evidence to that of the claimant's evidence. With respect to the documentary evidence9 before the panel, "getting reliable numbers about the number of Christians in China is notoriously difficult." Estimates vary between 40 million to 70 million Protestants, of which only 10 million are registered members of government churches. The panel finds if 6 people in Anhui Province with church leadership roles were arrested in 2007;10 the panel finds that it is not plausible that "everybody in the church had been arrested". The claimant testified that the house church she attended had a constant membership that never exceeded 9 people. According to her testimony, the claimant was not aware of any outside affiliations with other underground churches or churches outside of China. She also testified that she would not describe herself in any way as a leader. The panel also finds that on a balance of probabilities the house church would not be raided by the PSB, nor would the claimant be subject to arrest and imprisonment and could return to China to practice her religion. The claimant has been in Canada since XXXXX 2006, and based on the foregoing, the panel finds that the PSB would not continue to search for the claimant if they were ever looking for her in the first place. CONCLUSION The panel recognizes that persecution of Christians does exist in China11 and the panel understands the claimant's fear of persecution. However, in the particular circumstances of this claimant, the documentary evidence does not support that there is a serious possibility that she would be persecuted because of her religious beliefs. The panel places more weight on the documentary evidence than the claimant's testimony as the documentary evidence is gathered from various sources that do not have a personal interest in the outcome of the hearing. In this particular claim, having considered the documentary evidence, the claimant's testimony and submissions, the panel finds that the claimant has failed to satisfy the burden of establishing that there is a serious possibility that the claimant would be persecuted, or that she would be subjected personally to a danger of torture or a risk to her life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment by any authority in China. Having considered all the evidence, the panel finds that the claimant is neither a Convention refugee under section 96, nor a person in need of protection within the meaning of section 97(1)(a) or (b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The Refugee Protection Division therefore rejects her claim. "Stephen E. Rudin" Stephen E. Rudin February 24, 2009 Date REFUGEE PROTECTION DIVISION / RELIGIOUS PRACTICE / FREEDOM OF RELIGION / VISA / VISITOR / RELIGIOUS GROUPS / PROFILE / FEMALE / NEGATIVE / CHINA 1 Exhibit C-3. 2 Exhibit R/A-2, Citizenship and Immigration Canada Information. 3 Exhibit C-3. 4 Exhibit C-3, Letters from Reverend XXXXX XXXXX. 5 Exhibit C-3, Certificate of Baptism. 6 Exhibit R/A-1, National Documentation Package, July 30, 2008, item 12.5, Response to Information Request CHN102492.E and item 12.3, Response to Information Request CHN42768.E. 7 Exhibit R/A-1, National Documentation Package, July 30, 2008, item 12.10, pp. 11. 8 Exhibit C-2, "Rights Group Reports China Crackdown on Churches", pp. 1. 9 Exhibit R/A-1, item 2.3, United Kingdom, Home Office, Country of Origin Information Report: China, p. 2.3.61. 10 Exhibit C-1, Personal Information Form Narrative. 11 Exhibit C-2, "China Launches Nation-Wide Crackdown on House Churches", pp. 105. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RPD File No. / N° de dossier de la SPR: TA6-16995 5 RPD.15.7 (October 2007) Disponible en français

Response:
## Analysis of Refugee Decision: TA6-16995

### Key Issues
ister Card.3 ANALYSIS The key questions are: was the claimant practicing Christianity as a member of a house church in China; does she continue her practice of Christianity in Cana

### Legal Analysis
The decision analyzes refugee protection criteria by examining: d a Household Register Card.3 ANALYSIS The key questions are: was the claimant practicing Christianity as a member of a house church in China; does she continue her practice of Christianity in Canada; and, would she face a serious possibility of being persecuted, arrested or imprisonment by the Chinese authorities if she returne

### Implications for Immigration Practice
This decision provides guidance for refugee claimants on evidentiary requirements and credibility assessments. Legal practitioners should carefully document client narratives and address potential inconsistencies proactively. The case demonstrates the importance of thorough country conditions research and proper preparation of witnesses.


Prompt:
Explain how this Refugee Appeal Division decision from the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada interprets refugee law:

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MC1-04220 MC1-04221 / MC1-04222 / MC1-04223 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Persons who are the subject of the appeal [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] XXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Date of decision January 28, 2022 Date de la décision Panel Harold Shepherd Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subject of the appeal Gisela G. Barraza Conseil des personnes en cause Designated representative [REDACTED] XXXX Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] I dismiss this appeal. The Principal Appellant (PA), [REDACTED] XXXX, his wife the Associate Appellant (AA), [REDACTED] XXXX, and their children the Minor Appellants (MA), [REDACTED] (age 13) and [REDACTED] (age 6), are citizens of Colombia. [2] The Appellants did not apply to file new evidence, nor did they request an oral hearing before the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD). Background [3] The PA states that he is at risk from the Cartel de la Chatarrización [scrapping Cartel], (hereafter referred to as the Cartel). This is a group which defrauded the government by filing fraudulent documents to obtain money for trucks which were never scrapped. The PA was forced to sell a truck at less than fair market value, and then became the victim of extorsion. In addition, [REDACTED] [REDACTED] XXXX XXXX, and he is [REDACTED] XXXX XXXX. Summary of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) reasons for decision [4] The RPD rejected the Appellants' claim for the following reasons: i) The Appellants did not establish the identity of the agents of persecution; ii) The PA lacks credibility about having been kidnapped because this was not in the Basis of Claim (BOC) form; iii) The PA provided contradictory testimony about the monthly payments (vacuna); iv) The PA did not show that he had problems with the Cartel; v) The Appellants have an Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) in the cities of Bucaramanga, Cartagena, and Barranquilla; and vi) The other family members of the PA did not have problems because of their name. Grounds of appeal [5] The Appellants submit that the RPD erred for the following reasons: i) The PA mentioned the Cartel in his BOC narrative and in his complaint at Exhibit D-2; ii) The questions asked by the RPD were unclear about the amount of the vacuna; iii) The RPD erred by failing to consider that an IFA assessment presupposes that the person is at risk; iv) The RPD did not justify the conclusion that the Cartel would not have the motivation to find the Appellants; v) The RPD's analysis is erroneous because it rejected all possibility that the agent of harm could be the Cartel; and vi) There is abundant objective documentary evidence to show that major criminal organizations have the resources to find the Appellants. Summary of the Refugee Appeal Division reasons for decision [6] The determinative issues for the appeal are credibility, the objective basis for the risk, and whether the Appellants have an IFA. I find that the RPD did not err in its conclusion that the people who have been extorting money from the PA under threat are not likely associated with the Cartel, or with any other organized criminal group. The risk is local in nature. The RPD considered the totality of the evidence and explained how it arrived at this decision. My independent assessment of the evidence leads me to the same conclusion. The RPD did not err in concluding that the people who have been threatening the Appellants do not likely have the means to track the Appellants to the proposed IFA locations. The RPD correctly assessed the second part of the IFA test and concluded that the Appellants have viable IFAs. DECISION [7] I dismiss the appeal. The RPD was correct in finding that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.1 ANALYSIS [8] My role is to look at all the evidence and decide if the RPD made the correct decision.2 Did the Appellants establish the identity of the agents of harm? Submissions by the Appellants [9] The RPD concluded that the identity of the agents of harm has not been established for two reasons. First, the evidence does not specifically refer to the Cartel. Second, articles about the Cartel indicate that it colludes in transportation matters, but that it does not target private individuals. Contrary to the RPD's conclusion, the Cartel is mentioned in the complaint to the Office of the Attorney General. Such complaint was drafted by his lawyer and includes all the information which the PA had. He knew that the Cartel was involved and mentioned this in the complaint. [10] The PA's testimony is not contradictory, as alleged by the RPD in paragraph 16 of its reasons for decision. Although the complaint is vague and does not mention the Cartel directly, he implies that it could be responsible. This could have been a strategy on the part of the Appellants' lawyer to protect them. [11] The RPD erred at paragraph 18 by failing to account for paragraphs 2 and 3 of the BOC narrative. He specifically stated that the PA feared the Cartel de la Chatarrización which targeted him with extorsion. The fact that he did not specify how he received the threats is not an omission. Paragraph 2 is a summary of the events which they experience and which led them to leave the country. [12] The RPD states at paragraph 19 and 20 of its reasons and decision that the amended BOC does not mention the Cartel. Paragraph 2 of the BOC provides a summary. Although the PA did not know the names of the people who targeted him, he always knew that they were members of the Cartel. He states at paragraph 9 that he was the victim of this group.3 [13] Although the RPD stated at paragraph 23 that the Cartel does not attack individuals, it indicated at paragraph 22 that it steals money from all Colombians. Although the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Colombia does not mention this Cartel, the uncontradicted evidence corroborates the Appellants' allegations. RAD assessment [14] An editorial in El Espectador journal dated February 16, 2017, indicates that a cartel operates throughout the country which is stealing money from all Colombians.4 It has a monopoly on the transportation of merchandise. About 20 people tied to the Cartel were arrested for defrauding the state. There was an alliance among civil servants (police, secretaries of transport and members of the Ministry), individuals, and trucking leaders who would improperly register licence plate numbers of trucks and falsify documents and stamps from the Ministry of Transport so that garbage trucks, small trucks, dumpsters and buses would be converted into scrap for towing. The scheme netted between 35 and 80 million pesos per vehicle. It is estimated that about 12,000 vehicles were illegally scrapped, and about 600,000 million pesos was defrauded from the government. [15] A February 19, 2017 article indicates that five police officers from the department of Valle del Cauca linked to the "Cartel de la Chatarrización" were sent to prison.5 They used false or modified documents to apply to the Ministry of Transport for payment of 40 to 70 million pesos per truck delivered to be scrapped. Some vehicles did not meet the requirements of the government regulation, and some trucks did not even exist. [16] A June 1, 2018 article indicates that the leader of the truckers, Pedro Aguilar, has been behind bars since February 2017.6 Members of his family have also been arrested. Pedro Aguilar is accused of having taken millions of pesos by means of illegal billings to the state for 12,500 trucks which were never scrapped. Private people, police, and officials from the Ministry of Transportation were involved in the fraud. [17] A January 10, 2019 article indicates that Pedro Aguilar was convicted in December 2018 of leading the "junk cartel" at a national level which charged the state for trucks which were never scrapped.7 Aguilar, the president of the Colombian Association of Truckers, was sentenced to ten years imprisonment. [18] The RPD states at paragraph 16 of its reasons and decision that the PA did not file a complaint against the Cartel with the police before he did in order to protect himself. The RPD quoted the XXXX 2017 Office of the Attorney General of Colombia report at exhibit D-2 according to which the Cartel has public notoriety. The RPD could not understand why the PA would file a complaint with the police in order not to have problems in his last days in Colombia, but nevertheless identify the name of the Cartel which had targeted him. Counsel is correct that the RPD failed to explain why this is a contradiction. If the RPD was making an adverse plausibility finding, it should have explained the basis for its conclusion. [19] Paragraph 18 of the RPD's reasons and decision concerns the 2008 armed robbery of the PA's Kenworth W900B truck. The panel cited what the PA wrote about the issue in his BOC narrative and concluded that it does not specifically mention that the Cartel was responsible for the theft or the telephone calls which he received at that time. The RPD considered evidence at Exhibit D-3 which indicates that unknown persons were responsible.8 The RPD concluded that the PA had failed to demonstrate that the Cartel was likely responsible for the theft and the telephone calls. The RPD quoted from paragraph 3 of the amended BOC narrative.9 Exhibit D-3 is an April 2008 complaint to the prosecutor concerning the theft of a Kenworth W900B truck by unknown persons.10 Paragraph 2 of the BOC narrative states that the PA fears the Cartel which targeted him and that he was the victim of threats and extorsion. Although paragraph 3 does not specifically mention the Cartel, the context suggests that the PA believes that the Cartel was responsible for the 2008 theft. Despite this mistake, the RPD did not err in its conclusion. The PA told authorities in 2008 that he did not know who stole the truck, and he did not indicate that the Cartel may have been responsible. In addition, his BOC narrative does not explain why and when he formed the opinion that the Cartel was responsible. The RPD did not err in its conclusion on this issue. [20] The RPD noted at paragraphs 19 and 20 that the lawyer's letter at exhibit D-18 and the letter from an acquaintance J.P.11 at exhibit D-19 do not mention the Cartel. Although the PA testified that he had problems with people who identified themselves as belonging to the Cartel, the RPD concluded that the PA did not clearly identify the Cartel when he described his problems in his BOC narrative. He stated at paragraph 4 of the narrative that he received calls from people in 2014 whom he could not identify. At paragraph 6 the PA indicated that he received calls after the sale of his truck from some individuals who said that they were the owners of the truck. He wrote at paragraph 8 that he received calls from different people about payment for the truck. Counsel submits that paragraph 2 introduces the narrative by identifying the Cartel as the agent of harm. Although the PA did not know the names of the people who targeted him, he always believed that they were members of the Cartel. He specified in paragraph 9 that he was a victim of the Cartel. Although counsel is correct that the BOC narrative, when read in its entirety, indicates that the PA attributes all incidents of concern to the Cartel, it does not clearly indicate when he formed this opinion. The RPD is correct that the PA made no mention of this group when he complained to the prosecutor in 2008. Although the letter from the PA's lawyer refers to threats from unknown persons, the complaint to the Office of the Attorney General makes reference to the Cartel.12 The first reference to the Cartel in the supporting evidence is found in the XXXX 2017 complaint to the prosecutor. Although the PA was never able to identify the names of those responsible, he held the Cartel responsible in the XXXX 2017 report and in his BOC narrative. Although the RPD erred in failing to read the entire BOC narrative in context, the fact remains that the totality of the evidence does not support the PA's current opinion that the Cartel was responsible for the 2008 theft and the extorsion which began in 2014. [21] The RPD considered the documentary evidence about the Cartel filed at exhibit D-22 and concluded that the group does not attack individuals. Counsel submits that one article indicates that it steals money from all Colombians. The context in which this sentence is found refers to widespread fraud which cost Colombian taxpayers a lot of money. The Cartel stole money from all Colombians through fraudulently taking public money. It does not support counsel's submission that the Cartel targets individuals. The RPD did not err in its evaluation of the articles about the Cartel. Members of the Truckers' Association including its president, police officers, and some officials in the Ministry of Transportation conspired to defraud the government by filing false documents which alleged that trucks had been scrapped which did not exist, were registered in the name of deceased persons, or were otherwise fraudulent. The Truckers' Association president was arrested, convicted and sentenced to jail. Police officers and government officials have also been charged with participating in the scheme. The RPD is correct that the Cartel was involved in document fraud and the misappropriation of public funds. The documentary evidence does not establish that it was a criminal group which was involved in extorting money from private individuals. [22] The RPD concluded that the PA failed to establish that the people who were extorting money from him before he left Colombia were associated with the Cartel. The documentary evidence does not support the PA's allegation that this group was responsible. Although the PA testified that he was told by the agents of harm that they were members of this Cartel, the RPD did not believe him because this is inconsistent with credible objective evidence, because it is not supported by documentary evidence apart from his statement to the prosecutor the month before he left the country, and because his BOC narrative failed to indicate clearly how he formed the opinion that the Cartel was responsible. Although the RPD erred in some respects in its reasoning, it arrived at the correct conclusion. The PA has failed to establish that the agents of harm are associated with the Cartel. Did the PA provide contradictory testimony about the monthly extorsion payments? Submissions by counsel [23] The 2014 truck sale was made under duress. The interpretation of the Spanish word "entrega" as "gave" cannot be understood as a voluntary transaction. He clearly explained that the PA did not want to sell the truck and that he received one quarter of its fair market value. The PA's testimony was not contradictory. [24] The RPD explained why the PA did not mention that he was kidnapped for one week because this is a detail which he wanted to talk about at the hearing. He was held while the legal procedures for the sale were completed. Although a kidnapping may be very important in some contexts, this was a case in which it was used to complete a transaction. [25] The RPD engaged in a microscopic evaluation without considering all of the facts. [26] The vacuna is mentioned in the police complaint, contrary to what the RPD wrote in Paragraph 32. He mentioned that he was required by threat to pay fees arising from problems with the documents which transferred ownership of the truck. [27] The RPD drew negative credibility conclusions based on the PA's testimony about how much he had to pay in monthly quotas. Although the PA did not answer directly, the RPD's questions were unclear. The PA explained that the amounts varied in accordance with his salary, and that he was giving approximate figures. The RPD did not ask the PA about the [REDACTED] pesos. As a result, he was not given an opportunity to explain. [28] The RPD decision lacks transparency, intelligibility and justification as required by the Supreme Court in Vavilov decision.13 A reading of the reasons and decision does not permit one to understand how the RPD arrived at its decision to reject the claims when it only concluded that there was no link between the Appellants and the Cartel. RAD assessment [29] Counsel submits that the PA did not contradict himself when he first testified that he was forced to give the truck away, but that he later said that he sold the truck for one quarter fair market value. Use of the term "gave" does not denote a voluntary transaction. He testified that he did not want to sell the truck. He did not contradict himself. The RPD did not err in concluding that the PA's testimony was inconsistent. There is a difference between giving something away and selling it for less than fair market value. Although one could use a figure of speech to say that something was given away in the context of a sale below what it was worth, the PA was testifying under oath before an administrative tribunal. In this context, the PA more likely than not provided inconsistent testimony. [30] I find that the RPD did not err in drawing an adverse credibility inference from the fact that the PA did not indicate in his BOC narrative that he had been abducted and held for one week. The RPD correctly concluded that the PA did not provide a reasonable explanation for its absence. Although the PA may have been held while legal procedures for the sale were being conducted, this does not reasonably explain why an important fact which goes to the root of the risk was not mentioned. The Federal Court has held in numerous decisions that all important facts and details must be included in the BOC, and failure to do so may affect the assessment of the person's credibility. Although minor details or collateral information may be added by means of oral testimony, significant facts which go to the core of the claim must be included in the BOC.14 The RPD did not err in concluding that the allegation that the PA was abducted and held by the agents harm for one week is an important fact which goes to the root of the claim and which ought to have been included in the BOC. [31] The RPD also concluded that the PA provided inconsistent testimony about the monthly amounts of the extorsion payments. Although he testified that he paid between [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] pesos, his amended BOC narrative indicates that began making the payments in XXXX 2014 in the amount of [REDACTED] pesos, or sometimes double that amount.15 The RPD did not accept the explanation that he could pay between [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] pesos because his income fluctuated in relationship to his salary which was not fixed. The amount stated in the BOC narrative is well below this, and there is no mention of monthly extortion payments in the complaint to authorities filed in XXXX 2017 at exhibit D-2. Counsel submits that the RPD was wrong because the complaint referred to the monthly quota. Furthermore, the RPD's questions were unclear about this issue. In particular, the RPD did not ask him about the [REDACTED] pesos. [32] I find that counsel is incorrect about the complaint to the prosecutor. The PA stated at paragraph 10 of the BOC that they threatened to attack him and his family if he did not pay them XXXX XXXX pesos.16 He does not say that he made monthly payments. In addition, counsel's submission that the RPD did not ask the PA about the [REDACTED] pesos is incorrect. The RPD told the PA that he wrote at paragraph 6 of his BOC narrative that he made monthly payments of [REDACTED] pesos, and sometimes double. The PA was then asked to explain the difference between this and his testimony that he paid between [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] pesos. Although the RPD asked clear questions, the PA did not provide clear answers.17 The RPD did not err in not accepting the explanation for the inconsistent testimony about how much the extorsion payments were. [33] The RPD correctly made adverse credibility findings. More likely than not, the PA embellished the facts during his testimony to aggravate the risk. A letter from the PA's aunt, C.A., indicates that she witnessed death threats against the Appellants which the PA received by telephone, text and voice messages through WhatsApp. They said that they knew their names and where they lived.18 Although this confirms that the PA has been receiving threats by people who want him to pay money, it does not support the allegation that the Cartel or organized crime is behind the threats. Do the Appellants have an IFA? Submissions by counsel [34] The RPD concluded that the Appellants did not likely have problems with the Cartel de la Chatarrización. As a result, the RPD assessed the IFAs on the premiss that the agent of harm were unidentified. The RPD should have started with the acknowledgment that the Appellants have a well-founded fear of persecution in one region of the country and then determined if the risk extends to the entire country. The RPD committed a mistake by confirming an adverse credibility finding in its IFA analysis. In addition, the RPD should have asked whether the Appellants could safely relocate, given that the PA's family name made him a more vulnerable target. The RPD did not justify its conclusion that the Cartel would not be motivated to locate them in the proposed IFA locations. Future events are not proven, but feared. A fear of persecution justifies protection even if it is less than 50 percent. Rather than consider if the agents of harm have the motivation and ability to hurt them, the RPD should have conducted an overall evaluation of the risk to which the Appellants would be exposed in Colombia. [35] The RPD failed to consider evidence at Exhibit D-19 which collaborates the fear. The RPD never acknowledged the Appellants' allegations in its IFA assessment, and it rejected the possibility that the agent of harm could be the Cartel de la Chatarrización. The documentary evidence shows that the bandas criminales (BACRIM) [criminal bands] have the resources to find the Appellants. They also have the motivation. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees guidelines from Colombia are instructive with respect to IFA.19 The RPD relied on general information in the record in a superficial manner. It failed to justify its conclusions in an intelligible way in accordance with the Vavilov decision. RAD assessment [36] To summarize, counsel submits that an IFA assessment presupposes that one is at risk in one's home community. However, the RPD erred by importing its adverse credibility conclusions into its consideration of the IFAs. The RPD failed to justify its conclusion that the Cartel lacks the motivation to track the Appellants throughout the country. The issue is not whether the PA has proven future risk, but rather whether he has a subjective fear which is well-founded, even if it is less than a 50 percent chance of happening. The RPD erred because it failed to conduct a risk assessment in light of all of the evidence. The RPD rejected the possibility that the Cartel was the agent of harm, and it ignored evidence about the ability of organized crime groups (BACRIMs) have the resources need to find the Appellants. The RPD ignored information and wrote a superficial decision which fails to justify its decision in accordance with the principles set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Vavilov decision.20 [37] First, the RPD concluded at paragraphs 9 and 10 of its decision that the Appellants' claims have no nexus with the definition of a Convention refugee and that the assessment would be based on subsection 97(1) of the IRPA. When asked to make submissions about this issue at the hearing, counsel submitted that he did not think that there was a nexus between the risk and the Refugee Convention.21 The Appellants' Memorandum does not make submissions about nexus. On the facts of this case, the issue concerns extorsion for pecuniary gain without a link to any of the grounds for protection enumerated in the Refugee Convention. However, because the PA was specifically targeted, this does not concern a generalized risk. As a result, this issue is not whether the Appellants have a well-founded fear of persecution, but rather whether they would more likely than not be killed, tortured, or subjected to cruel or unusual treatment or punishment if they would return to Colombia. [38] The RPD provided clear reasons in support of its conclusion that it is unlikely that the Cartel was responsible for the threats. More likely than not, the threats emanated from individuals who demanded money from the PA after the sale of a truck. There is insufficient evidence to establish that those responsible have any links with the Cartel or with any other organized crime group. [39] Although a PA's former colleague wrote that people who identified themselves as friends asked about the PA in other parts of the country, this does not establish that they are likely associated with the people who were demanding money from the PA. Given the PA's history driving trucks, it would not be unusual for friends or acquaintances to inquire about him. They may have been telling the truth when they said that they were friends of the PA. The RPD did not err when it assessed this evidence in light of the totality of the evidence and it concluded that this statement was insufficient to establish that the PA is being sought throughout the country by agents of harm. [40] The RPD considered risk attributed to the name "XXXX" which is [REDACTED] XXXX, including that of [REDACTED] XXXX. The RPD noted that other family members have not experienced problems because of their name. The RPD provided adequate reasons at paragraph 43 to justify its conclusion that the Appellants are not at risk on these grounds. [41] The RPD considered the PA's ability to find work, to find accommodation, to access education and health care, and to access social programmes in support of its conclusion that it would be reasonable for the Appellants to relocate to any of the proposed IFAs in light of their particular circumstances. This analysis was not challenged in the appeal. My independent assessment leads me to conclude that the RPD did not err in its assessment of the second prong of the IFA test.22 [42] The RPD correctly concluded that the Appellants have viable IFAs in Bucaramanga, Cartagena, and Barranquilla. CONCLUSION [43] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the decision of the RPD that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection, pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA. (signed) Harold Shepherd Harold Shepherd January 28, 2022 Date 1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, at para. 111(1)(a). 2 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93 (CanLII), [2016] 4 FCR 157; see also Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145 (CanLII), [2019] 2 FCR 597 3 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2.1, p. 24, para 9. 4 Ibid., Exhibit 4.3, pp. 384-386. 5 Ibid., pp. 389-390. 6 Ibid., pp. 399-401. 7 Ibid., pp. 405-406. 8 Ibid., Exhibit 4.1, p. 458. 9 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4.1, p. 284. 10 Ibid., p. 238. 11 Personal identifiers have been removed, except where necessary to explain the reasoning of the decision. 12 Ibid., p. 304, para 12. 13 Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 (CanLII).[Vavilov] 14 Ogaulu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 547 (CanLII) at para. 18- 20. 15 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4.1, pp. 284-286. 16 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit , p. 230. 17 RPD Hearing audio recording, April 29, 2021, at 02:03:30-02:09:12 (of 03:03:19). 18 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit , pp. 364- 365. 19 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package for Colombia, (12 June 2020), item 1.7. 20 Vavilov, supra, endnote 13. 21 RPD Hearing audio recording, April 29, 2021, at 00:17- 00:17:40 (of 00:36:07). 22 Ranganathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2000 CanLII 16789 (FCA), [2001] 2 FC 164. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MC1-04220 MC1-04221 / MC1-04222 / MC1-04223 RAD.25.02 (August 20, 2021) 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 (August 20, 2021) Disponible en français

Response:
## Analysis of Refugee Decision: MC1-04220

### Key Issues
ecision [6] The determinative issues for the appeal are credibility, the objective basis for the risk, and whether the Appellants have an IFA. I find that the RPD did not err in it

### Legal Analysis
The decision analyzes refugee protection criteria by examining: the Appellants; v) The RPD's analysis is erroneous because it rejected all possibility that the agent of harm could be the Cartel; and vi) There is abundant objective documentary evidence to show that major criminal organizations have the resources to find the Appellants. Summary of the Refugee Appeal Division reasons for decis

### Implications for Immigration Practice
This decision provides guidance for refugee claimants on evidentiary requirements and credibility assessments. Legal practitioners should carefully document client narratives and address potential inconsistencies proactively. The case demonstrates the importance of thorough country conditions research and proper preparation of witnesses.