 
Immigration and  
Refugee Board of Canada  
 
Refugee Protection Division    
Commission de l ’immigration  
et du statut de réfugié du Canada  
 
Section de la protection de 
réfugiés  
 
RPD .29.01 (May  12, 2017 ) 
RPD File No. / N° de dossier de la SPR : MB7 -04907  
Client ID No. / N° ID client : 89531492  
Private Proceeding / Huis clos  
Reasons and Decision   Motifs et décision  
Claimant(s)  
XXXX XXXX  Demandeur(e)(s) d ’asile  
Date(s) of Hearing  
June  4, 2018  
 Date(s) de l ’audience  
Place of Hearing  
Montréal, Que bec  Lieu de l ’audience  
Date of Decision  
and Reasons  June  13, 2018  
 Date de la décision  
et des motifs  
Panel  
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
 
 Tribunal  
Counsel for the Claimant(s)  
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  Conseil(s) du (de la/des)  
demandeur(e)(s) d ’asile  
Designated Representative  
N/A  Représentant(e) désigné(e)  
Counsel for the Minister  
N/A  Conseil du (de la) ministre  
2018 CanLII 132441 (CA IRB)
RPD File No.  / N° de dossier de la SPR  : MB7 -04907  
 
1  
REASONS FOR DECISION  
 
INTRODUCTION  
[1] XXXX XXXX  (the claimant ) is a citizen of Haiti . He is claiming refugee protectio n in 
Canada under  section  96 and subsection  97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act  
(IRPA).  
ALLE GATIONS  
[2] The claimant  fears returning to H aiti because of his involvement with the 
non -governmental organization (NGO)  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  
[XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ], which he joined in 2004.   
[3] The claimant states that his life has been  in danger since  July  XXXX , 2005, when he was 
promoted to the position of director , which  enraged the organization’s former director.  
[4] He states that  on November  XXXX , 200 5, this  colleague  threatened him by telephone.  
[5] He states  that on January  XXXX , 2006, he was attacked at his home by armed 
individuals. He successfully escaped because of a transformer failure, which caused a power 
outage that allowed him to leave through a window and sneak into a ravine. After the attack , he 
went to Port -au-Prince. He left Haiti  in September  2006 to pursue  his studies in the Dominican 
Republic .  
[6] On June  XXXX , 2010, the claimant returned to Haiti . Upon his return, he learned that his 
former colleague held an important position in the government.   
[7] The claimant was kidnapped on June  XXXX , 2010 , by armed individuals who told him , 
[translation] “you thoug ht we forgot about you.”1 
[8] He then left Haiti and travel led to Spain in September  2011 and returned to Haiti in 
December  2014.   
                                                 
1  Document 1 —Basis of Claim Form  (narrative  attached ). 
2018 CanLII 132441 (CA IRB)
RPD File No.  / N° de dossier de la SPR  : MB7 -04907  
 
2 [9] The claimant alleges that  in January  2015  his mother was threatened and severely beaten 
by a group of individuals asking for his whereabouts.  
[10]  The claiman t left the country in July  2015  and  then travelled  back and forth  between 
Haiti and the United States. He also made a trip to Canada.  
[11]  On Septe mber  XXXX , 2016, someone set fire to his aunt ’s house, where he was staying . 
A few days later, a letter was left at the scene , which  stated  that the house was set on fire because 
the claimant was staying there .   
[12]  On October  XXXX , 2016, the claimant was robbed while riding his motorcycle. A few 
days after the incident , his aunt received two letters  warning her that the claimant would be 
persecuted throughout  the country.   
[13]  During  the night of March  XXXX  to XXXX , 2017 , the claimant ’s mother was attacked 
and  raped . She died on March  XXXX , 2017. Following his mother ’s death, the appellant made 
the decision to leave his country.  
[14]  He left Haiti on XXXX XXXX , 2017, to come to Canada. He signed his Basi s of Claim 
Form on May  8, 2017.  
DE CISION  
[15]  The panel determine s that the claimant is not a “Convention refugee” or a “person in 
need of protection.”   
ANALYSIS  
Identity  
[16]  The claimant ’s identity was established by means of  a copy of his passport  issued by the 
Haitian authorities  and filed in the record .2 
 
                                                 
2  Document  2—Information package provided by  the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) and/or 
Immigration, Refugee s and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), formerly Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC). 
Copy of the passport.  
2018 CanLII 132441 (CA IRB)
RPD File No.  / N° de dossier de la SPR  : MB7 -04907  
 
3 Credibility  
[17]  The panel is of the opinion  that the claimant ’s testimony was not credible with respect to 
determinative aspects of his refugee protection claim.  
[18]  From the beginning , the panel noted a significant contradiction between his testi mony at 
the hearing and his IMM  56693 form  with respect to his role in the Intégration sociale pour le 
Développement de Baradères  organization . 
[19]  In h is narrative , the claimant alleges  that his problems began when he took over as 
director of the NGO on January  XXXX , 2005. He stated  that the previous director became angry 
when he was appointed and thr eatened him on November  XXXX , 2005 . The same individual 
was also the one responsible for orchestrating the attack at his home by an armed group.  
[20]  However, the panel notes that at questio n 9 of his IMM  5669 form, the claimant stated  
that he was the secretary of this organization from June  2004 to July  2006. This contradicts the 
allegation that he was appointed as  director on January  XXXX , 2005 .4  
[21]  When confronted with this contradiction regarding a central element  in his refugee 
protection claim, the claim ant responded  that he had not fully understood the question when he 
was filling out the form.  
[22]  The panel is of the opinion that this answer is not reasonable . The claimant is an educated 
man . He attended university in Spain and in the Dominican Republic. Moreover , the claimant did 
in fact answer  the question ; he stated  that he was the secretary for the organization from 
June  2004 to July  2006. In this context, the panel rejects the  appellant ’s allegation that he 
misunderstood the question.   
[23]  The panel draws a negative inference from this contradiction, which undermines the 
claimant ’s credibility.  
[24]  Moreover, at the hearing, the claimant stated that he left his job in January  2006 because 
he had been threatened by telephone on November  XXXX , 2005 , and attacked on 
                                                 
3  Document  2—Information package provided by CBSA and/or IRCC, formerly CIC. IMM  5669  form . 
4  Idem —question  9. 
2018 CanLII 132441 (CA IRB)
RPD File No.  / N° de dossier de la SPR  : MB7 -04907  
 
4 January  XXXX , 2006.  The panel, however, noted that the claim ant stated  that he was involved 
with the organization until July  2006 on his IMM  56695 form . 
[25]  When confronted with this contradiction, the claimant replied that it was an error.  
[26]  The panel is of t he opinion that this answer is not reasonable.  As mentioned  above , the 
claimant stated at the hearing that he had made the decision to leave the organization in 
January  2006 because he had received threats in November  2005 and been  attacked in 
January  2006.  Given  that his decision to leave his job was related to t he alleged  attack, the panel 
is of the opinion that it is not reasonable that the claimant would make a mistake by stating in his 
form that he had left the organization in July  2006 .  
[27]  Consequently , the panel draws a negative inference from this contradiction, which 
undermines the claimant ’s credibility.  
[28]  Furthermore, the panel notes  significant problems  in the confirmation of employment 
letter from the NG O that  the claimant  submitted  to support his claim for refugee protection.  
[29]  First , the panel notes a spelling error in the organization ’s name i n the letterhead:  XXXX 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX .6 When confr onted with this obvious error in  the 
organization ’s name  in the letterhead , the claimant responded that he was not the one who wrote 
the letter.  
[30]  Second , the panel notes that the letter indicates that the claimant was hired on 
June  XXXX , 2004 , as director of the organization. However, at the hearing, the claimant stated  
that he was hired for the position of  secretary of the organization in January  2004 and was 
appointed as director on January  XXXX , 2005. This contradicts the letter , which states  that he 
began working as director in June  2004.  
[31]  When confronted with this contradiction, the claimant responded that he had sworn  (at 
the hearing ) to tell the truth and that in January  200 4, he was the secretary of the organization.  
                                                 
5  Document  2—Information package provided by CBSA and/or IRCC, formerly CIC. IMM  566 9 form, 
question  9.  
6  Document  4—Exhibit  P-6: Record of employmen t. 
2018 CanLII 132441 (CA IRB)
RPD File No.  / N° de dossier de la SPR  : MB7 -04907  
 
5 [32]  The panel is of the opinion  that these  answers are not reasonable.  First, the panel finds it 
unlikely that an NGO would make  a spelling error in its own  name in the letterhead. Second , the 
claimant did not provide an explanation for the contradiction concerning  his job title in the letter.  
He simply reiterated that he had s worn to tell the truth and that he had started as secretary in 
January  2004.  In the absence of any explanation for these issues, the panel questions the 
authenticity of this letter, which the claimant submitted to support his refugee protection claim. 
This  undermines the claimant ’s credibility. Furthermore, in light of  these problems relating to the 
format and content of this letter, the panel gives it no probative  value.  
[33]  Finally, the panel notes that the claimant returned to Haiti multiple times after stay ing 
abroad for long periods of time; in particular, in 2006, he stayed in the Dominican Republic for 
four years and in 2011, he stayed in Spain for three years. The claimant also states that he 
travelled to the United States and to Canada in 2015. After hi s attack, he made multiple trips 
back and forth.   
[34]  When confronted with this behaviour, which the panel considers to be inconsistent with 
the behaviour of someone who fears for their life, the claimant answered that [translation] “he 
never wanted to leave his country.”  
[35]  The panel is of th e opinion that this answer is not reasonable . At the hearing, the claimant 
stated that he began to fear  for his life after his mother was  murder ed in March  2017. However, 
later during  the hearing, the claimant also stated th at he began to fear  for his life following the 
attack at his home on January  XXXX , 2006, when criminals  were shooting at him as he fled . The 
claimant also stated that his aunt had received a letter stating that her  house  had been  set on fire 
on September  XXXX , 2016, because she had taken him in.   
[36]  In this particular context, the panel is of the opinion  that it is not reasonable that the 
claimant decided to return to his country multiple times after he began having issues and after his 
life was threatened  directly . Furthermore, the panel is of the opinion  that it is not reasonable that 
the claimant  did n ot claim asylum when he was stay ing in Spain, or during his trips to the United 
States or Canada throughout the years. The panel considers this behaviour to be inconsistent with  
that of an individual who legitimately fears for his life. Once again, this undermines the 
claimant ’s credibil ity.   
2018 CanLII 132441 (CA IRB)
RPD File No.  / N° de dossier de la SPR  : MB7 -04907  
 
6 [37]  In sum, the panel is of the opinion  that the credibility issues noted during the hearing 
irreparably  undermine the claimant ’s credibility. As a result, the panel believes that  the claimant 
is completely lacking in credibility , and the panel does not believe any of the allegations put 
forward  in support of his refugee protection claim.   
Exhibits  
[38]  The claimant submitted into evidence a death certificate and a death record7 for his 
mother , as well as a medical certificate .8  
[39]  The panel does not question the death of the claimant ’s mother on March  XXXX , 2017.  
However,  taking into consideration all of the claimant ’s credibility problems, the panel does not 
believe that the claimant has demonstrated that she died  in the circumstances described in the 
hospita l’s death certificate or the claimant ’s narrative . As a result, the panel attaches no  probative 
value to this document.  
[40]  Moreover, the panel attaches  no probative value  to the claimant ’s medical certificate, 
which describes the medical care he received after the attack on January  XXXX , 2006 . This 
document indicate s that the claimant was attacked on January  XXXX , 2006; however, in his  
narrative , he states that he was attacked  on January  XXXX . Although  the claimant was not 
confronted with this contradiction at the hearing, the panel is of the opinion  that the claimant ’s 
credibility problems  and  the finding  that he is not credible in general are  sufficient grounds to 
conclude  that t his document has no probative  value .  
CONCLUSION  
[41]  After analy zing all  of the evidence , the panel concludes that the claimant has  not 
discharge d his burden of establishing that there is a “serious possibility” that he would be 
persecuted on one of the Convention grounds. He has also failed to establish, on a balance of 
probabilities, that if he returned to Haiti, he would be personally subjected to a danger of torture, 
to a risk to his life or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.  
                                                 
7  Document  4—Exhibit  P-4: Death certificate and death record  for the claimant’s mother . 
8  Document  4—Exhibit  P-12: Medical certificate . 
2018 CanLII 132441 (CA IRB)
RPD File No.  / N° de dossier de la SPR  : MB7 -04907  
 
7 [42]  For all these reasons, the pan el determines that the claimant , XXXX XXXX , is n ot a 
“Convention refugee” or a “person in need of protection,” and rejects his refugee protection 
claim.  
[43]  Furthermore , the panel is of the opinion that there was no credible and trustworthy 
evidence  on which a  favourable decision could have been made  and concludes that there is no 
credible basis for the refugee protection claim , pursuant to subsection  107(2) of the IRPA .   
 
 
  XXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
  XXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
 
   June  13,  2018  
  Date  
 
IRB translation  
Original language: French  
 
2018 CanLII 132441 (CA IRB)

