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 ( September  18, 2018)  
Disponible en français   
  
RAD File / Dossier de la SAR  : VB8 -01871  
 
Private Proceeding / Huis clos  
 
Reasons and decision  Motifs et décision  
 
Person(s) who is(are) the 
subject of the appeal  XXXX XXXX XXXX  
 
 Personne(s) en cause  
   
Appeal considered / heard 
at  Vancouver,  BC  
 
 Appel instruit / entendu 
à 
   
Date of decision   February 5, 2019  
 
 
 Date de la décision   
   
Panel  XXXXXXXXXXX  
 
 
 Tribunal  
   
Counsel for the person(s) 
who is(are) the subject of 
the appeal  XXXXXXXXXXXX  
Barrister and Solicitor  
 
 
 Conseil(s) (de la/des)  
personne(s) en cause  
   
Designated representative  N/A  
 
 
 
 Représentant(e) 
XXXXXXXXXX)  
   
Counsel for the Minister  N/A  Conseil du ministre  
   
  
2019 CanLII 116766 (CA IRB)
RAD File / Dossier de la SAR  : VB8 -01871  
 
 
 
RAD.25.02 ( September 18 , 2018)  
Disponible en français  2  
 REASONS FOR DECISION  
 
 
INTRODUCTION  
 
[1] XXXX XXXX XXXX  (Principal A ppellant) citizen of  Eritrea , appeal ed a decision of the 
Refugee Protection Division (RPD), dated  March  20,  2018 , rejecting his  claim for refugee 
protection.  The RPD found that the Appellant was not credible.  
 
[2] The Appellant argues that the RPD has erred in its decision. The Appellant requests that 
the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) allow the appeal and refer the matter back to the RPD for 
re-determination.  
 
[3] The determinative issue is whether the Appellant has establi shed a profile that the 
objective evidence confirms put  the Ap pellant at risk of persecution.  I find that he has.  
 
[4] While I agree with some of the RPDs negative credibility findings, I find that there is 
sufficient credible evidence to establish the Appella nt’s profile as an Eritrean citizen subject to 
oppression by the government.  
 
[5] For the reasons that follow, the negative decision of the RPD is set aside and a positive 
decision is being made.  
  
2019 CanLII 116766 (CA IRB)
RAD File / Dossier de la SAR  : VB8 -01871  
 
 
 
RAD.25.02 ( September 18 , 2018)  
Disponible en français  3  
 DETERMINATION  
 
[6] The appeal is allowed.  Pursuant to section 111(1)( b) of the Immigration and Refugee 
Protection Act  (IRPA),1 the RAD sets aside the determination of the RPD and substitutes its own 
determination that the appellant is a Convention2 refugee.  
 
BACKGROUND  
 
[7] The Appellant’s allegations are detailed in hi s Basis of Claim  (BOC)  form and attached 
narrative.3 The Appellant was born in XXXX  XXXX , Ethiopia on XXXX  XXXX , 1980 to 
Eritrean parents.  In January 1999, several years after Eritrea gained independence, he was 
deported with his family to Eritrea. Two siblings who had married Ethiopians were able to stay 
in Ethiopia.  
 
[8] While in secondary school in Eritrea, the Ap pellant was taken for mandatory military 
training. After graduation, he completed six  more months of military training, and then in 2004 
he began university.  
 
[9] After graduating in 2009 with an XXXX XXXX degree, the Appellant was required to 
complete his national service at a military XXXX company called XXXX XXXX . He alleged 
that he was there from XXXX 2009 until XXXX 2013.  
 
[10]  Beginning in 2011, the Appellant began to speak out during monthly meetings abou t the 
very poor working conditions, about not being able to support his family and about the general 
mistreatment of citizens by the government. He was warned against speaking out against the 
government, but he continued to ask questions because he was not  given any answers.  
 
[11]  In XXXX 2013, he was  detained, beaten, and sent to a prison in XXXX where he was 
held for XXXX months. During interrogations, he was asked about what political parties he 
2019 CanLII 116766 (CA IRB)
RAD File / Dossier de la SAR  : VB8 -01871  
 
 
 
RAD.25.02 ( September 18 , 2018)  
Disponible en français  4  
 belonged and who he was working with.  In XXXX 2014, the Appella nt was able to escape. He 
stayed with his uncle for two days and then with the help of a smuggler, he went to Ethiopia. He 
stayed with his sister for one month and then went to Kenya and after a few weeks he went to 
Uganda.  His wife, who was in a dangerou s situation in Eritrea because of him, was able to join 
the Appellant in Uganda and gave birth to their daughter while living there. The Appellant also 
has four other children in Eritrea from a previous relationship.  
 
[12]  When the Appellant contacted his famil y in Eritrea, he learned that the police had gone to 
his family home demanding information about his whereabouts and had arrested his father.  
 
[13]  The Appellant described the difficulties living without status in Uganda. With the help of 
an uncle in Uganda an d sister in Holland he was able to pay a smuggler who made arrangements 
for the appellant to travel to Brazil and then through several South and Central American 
countries, eventually making it to Mexico and then to the US border. He was detained upon entr y 
to the United States on XXXX  XXXX , 2016, and held for two months.  The Appellant made a 
refugee claim in the US, but found the system to be complicated and confusing and he had not 
been given permission to work.  
 
[14]  After hearing from many within the Eritr ean community that the US refugee system was 
not welcoming and very stringent, he made the decision to come to Canada and seek refugee 
protection.  The Appellant crossed into Canada between ports of entry near XXXX , Manitoba on 
XXXX  XXXX , 2017.   
 
[15]  A representative of the Minister of Public safety filed a notice of intent to intervene in the 
claim before the RPD by filing documents.   
 
[16]  The RPD hearing took place on March 13, 2018. The negative decision and reasons are 
dated March 20, 2018.  
  
2019 CanLII 116766 (CA IRB)
RAD File / Dossier de la SAR  : VB8 -01871  
 
 
 
RAD.25.02 ( September 18 , 2018)  
Disponible en français  5  
 ADMISSIB ILITY OF EVIDENCE PRESENTED ON APPEAL  
 
[17]  The Appellant submitted new evidence with his Appeal Record received by the RAD on 
June 25, 2018.  
 Letter and supporting documents from Appellant’s wife, XXXX  XXXX  XXXX , dated 
June 11, 2018.  
 
 Letter from Appellant’s cousin, XXXX  XXXX , dated May 2, 2018, and a copy of his US 
Permanent Resident  Card.  
 
 Letter with translation from XXXXXXXXX’s co -worker at XXXX  XXXX  XXXX , XXXX  
XXXX  XXXX , dated June 18, 2018, and a copy of his Canadian Permanent Res ident  
Card.  
 
 Support letter from 'XXXX ' - Eritrean - XXXX  XXXX  XXXX  XXXX  XXXX  XXXX , 
dated June 18, 2018.  
 
[18]  Accord ing to section 110(4) of IRPA,  the Appellant must establish that the evidence 
arose after the rejection of his claim or that it  was not reasonably available. Alternatively, the 
Appellant must establish that he could not have reasonably been expected to have presented the 
evidence at the time of the rejection. In terms of evidence that arose after the rejection of the 
claim, it is the content of the evidence and not the date of the document that is determinative.  
RAD Rule 34 states that there should be submissions on this as well as the relevance of the  
evidence.   
 
[19]  I have also considered the “XXXX principles” as modified by Federal  Court of appeal 
(FCA) in Singh.5  It directs the Tribunal to consider the credibility, relevance and the newness of 
the evidence.  In terms of credibility, RAD should consider credibility on in terms of its source 
and the circumstances that it came into e xistence.  This is different than a credibility assessment 
for the purpose of adjudicating the appeal, which looks at the credibility of the content of the 
document.  
 
2019 CanLII 116766 (CA IRB)
RAD File / Dossier de la SAR  : VB8 -01871  
 
 
 
RAD.25.02 ( September 18 , 2018)  
Disponible en français  6  
 [20]  While the dates of all four letters post -date the rejection of claim, I do not find that 
content of these letters is new and I therefore find that this is not evidence that arose after the 
rejection of the claim as is required.  
 
[21]  The Appellant argues that he could not reasonably have anticipated that the evidence 
presented to the RPD would be d isbelieved or that he would need to provide corroborating 
evidence from his wife.  I do not agree. The onus is on the Appellant to establish his claim before 
the RPD, and the Rules provide that documents establishing identity and other elements of the 
clai m must be provided.6   
 
[22]  I find that given the content of the letters, the Appellant could have obtained and 
submitted them as evidence before the RPD, and as a result, I find that they are not admissible as 
new evidence on appeal.  The Appellant is expecte d to put his best case forward at the RPD. The 
role of the RAD is not to provide the opportunity to complete a deficient record.7  
 
ROLE OF THE RAD  
 
[23]  When reviewing the RPD decision I am required to independently determine whether the 
RPD was correct in rel ation to each alleged error. If I determine that a particular RPD finding is 
correct, after having conducted my independent assessment, I may concur with and adopt the 
RPD reasons. Where an issue of credibility of oral evidence arises and I find that the R PD had a 
meaningful advantage, I may defer to the RPD's assessment of that evidence. Any deference 
given to the RPD will be clearly acknowledged in my reasons for decision.8 
 
RPD’S REASONS  
 
[24]  In its reasons for decision, the RPD outlined a number of credibility concerns, including 
inconsistencies and contradictions between testimony and evidence. The RPD raised concerns 
with respect to the Appellant’s alleged performance of national service, hi s arrest, detention and 
2019 CanLII 116766 (CA IRB)
RAD File / Dossier de la SAR  : VB8 -01871  
 
 
 
RAD.25.02 ( September 18 , 2018)  
Disponible en français  7  
 whereabouts.  In addition, the RPD described the Appellant’s testimony as often vague, indirect 
and repetitive. The RPD concluded that there was insufficient reliable and trustworthy evidence 
to demonstrate that the Appellant would face a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention 
ground, or a likely risk of personalized harm not faced by others in Eritrea.  
 
XXXXXXXXX’S ARGUMENT  
 
[25]  The Appellant argues that the RPD made a number of erroneous credibility findings 
including engaging in an overzealous and unreasonable approach to the evidence.  
 
ANALYSIS  
 
[26]  I have conducted an independent assessment of the evidence and arguments .9  This 
review includes a review of the RPD hearing transcript in evidence.   
 
[27]  The majority of the RPDs credibility concerns result from the Appellant’s explanations 
and responses to questions about Facebook evidence submitted by the Minister’s 
representative.10 The Appellant admitted to the disclosed evidence being his personal Facebook 
account.  This i s significant as his postings date to the time the Appellant alleged to be in prison 
in Eritrea according to the allegations in his BOC form.  
 
[28]  Following the disclosure of this information, the Appellant submitted an amendment to 
his BOC form, changing the  dates and chr onology of significant events. He also changed dates 
on his immigration forms.11  The following significant changes were noted:  
 The dates of national service: 2009 -2013 (BOC) changed to 2009 -2010 (amendment).  
 
 The date arrested and detained: XXXX 2013 – XXXX 2014 (BOC) changed to XXXX 
2010 – XXXX 2011 (amendment).  
 
 Date fled of fleeing to Ethiopia: XXXX  XXXX , 2014 (BOC) changed to XXXX  XXXX , 
2011 (amendment) . 
 
2019 CanLII 116766 (CA IRB)
RAD File / Dossier de la SAR  : VB8 -01871  
 
 
 
RAD.25.02 ( September 18 , 2018)  
Disponible en français  8  
 [29]  The Appellant explained that the reason for these amendments was because an error had 
been made by officials in the United States when he made his claim, and he had been told that he 
could correct it at a hearing. He was concerned that he would have proble ms if his Canadian 
refugee claim differed from hi s US asylum claim, so he maintai ned the erroneous timeline of 
events wh en making his claim in Canada. This fear of information sharing between countries 
was found by the RPD not to be a reasonable justificat ion for maintaining a falsehood. The 
Appellant has argued that this ignores the reality of his situation.  
 
[30]  In its decision, the R PD did not accept the XXXXXXXXX’s e xplanations as credible. The 
revised chronology reduces the years of alleged national servi ce to only one year, makes his 
alleged arrest, detention and escape over three years earlier, and extends the time period in 
Ethiopia.   
 
[31]  I find that given the significant amendment to the BOC made by the XXXXXXXXX following 
the Minister’s  disclosure and t he rejection of the XXXXXXXX’s explanation, it is not surprising that 
the RPD came to the conclusion that the Appellant was not reliable about his allegations 
including when he was forced into national service and for how long.  
 
XXXXXXXX’S PROFILE AND UNC ONTESTED EVIDENCE  
 
[32]  In my analysis of the evidence, the evidence establishes that the XXXXXXXXX is a citizen of 
Eritrea, that he was deported from Ethiopia to Eritrea, that he attended secondary school in 
Eritrea, that he was or would be subject to national  service, and that he left Eritrea without 
permission.   
 Identity was established by his testimony before the RPD and by a copy of his Eritrean 
National Identity Card.12 
 
 His deportation in 1999 from Ethiopia to Eritrea is established by a copy of his certificate 
of deportation, which indiates that the XXXXXXXXX was born “in exile” in XXXX  XXXX .13  
 
 A copy of his Eritrean Secondary Education Certificate has been provided.14 
 
2019 CanLII 116766 (CA IRB)
RAD File / Dossier de la SAR  : VB8 -01871  
 
 
 
RAD.25.02 ( September 18 , 2018)  
Disponible en français  9  
  The Appellant’s parents’ Eritrean National Identity Cards are in evidence.15 
 
 A copy of the Appellant’s daughter’s Ugandan Birth Certificate listing the Appellant as her 
father and his nationality as Eritrean is also in evidence.16 
 
 
[33]  With respect  to how long  he performed military service,when he left Eritrea, or the length 
of time spent in other countries, I will accept the amended timeline of events and testimony at the 
hearing. I acknowedge that the Appellant made his refugee claim upon arrival in Canada an d was 
not represented by counsel at the time he submitted his BOC form. He was  however, represented 
when the Minister’s disclosure was received and when the amendments to the BOC form and 
Immigration forms were made.  
 
[34]  In the context of the Appellant’s sta ted fear of being deported if he provided different 
information from his US Asylum claim, I accept the explanation for his regretable decision to 
advance incorrect information in his Canadian refugee claim forms.  
 
COUNTRY CONDITIONS  
 
[35]  The country conditions documentaion describe significant human rights abuses in Eritrea 
at the hands of the authoritarian regime in power.   
 
Human Rights  
 
[36]  The Country Report on Human Rights Practices describes the three most important 
human rights abuses:  
…the inability of citizens to choose their government in free and fair elections; 
detention without charge under harsh conditions that reportedly sometime s 
resulted in death; and forced participation in the country’s national service 
program, routinely for periods of indefinite duration beyond the 18 -month legal 
obligation.17 
 
  
2019 CanLII 116766 (CA IRB)
RAD File / Dossier de la SAR  : VB8 -01871  
 
 
 
RAD.25.02 ( September 18 , 2018)  
Disponible en français  10  
 [37]  This report goes on to state:  
An unknown number of persons disappeared during the year and were believed to 
be in government detention or to have died while in detention. The government 
did not regularly notify family members or respond to requests for information 
regarding the status of detainees, including locally employed staff o f foreign 
embassies or foreign nationals. Disappeared persons included those detained for 
political and religious beliefs, journalists, individuals suspected of evading 
national service and militia duties, and persons not known to have committed any 
offens e.18  
 
 
Indefinite National Service  
 
[38]  Amnesty International describes Eritrea as one of the biggest refugee producting 
countries in the world, and a predominant factor is indefinte conscription into National service:  
This system, established by law in 1995, requires every adult Eritrean to 
undertake an 18 month period of National Service. However, in practice, 
conscription has been extended indefinitely  for a significant proportion of 
conscripts .19  
 
People fleeing Eritrea object not only to the prolonged and indefinite nature of 
service, but also to the impact this has on their ability to survive economically, 
enjoy their right to a family life and due to the other violations they experience 
within National Service. There has been no change in the pay of consc ripts. Every 
former conscript interviewed by Amnesty International said it was not possible to 
meet a family’s basic needs on the National Service salary of 450 Nakfa.20 
 
 
Travel, Exit and Returns  
 
[39]  With respect to leaving the country and foreign travel, the  obj ective evidence within the 
National Documentation Package (NDP) describes foreign travel as restricted by the 
government, and that exit visas must be obtained to leave the country. The Country Report on 
Human Rights Practices describes how men  under th e age of 54 are commonly denied exit visas 
regardless of completion of national service, and Amnesty International reports that the majority 
of people leaving the country do so without authorisation because few people, particularly those 
of National Servic e age, receive permission.21  
2019 CanLII 116766 (CA IRB)
RAD File / Dossier de la SAR  : VB8 -01871  
 
 
 
RAD.25.02 ( September 18 , 2018)  
Disponible en français  11  
 [40]  With respect to illegally exiting the country to Ethiopia:  
According to the UNHCR between 800 and 1000 Eritreans arrive in Ethiopia 
every month (UNHCR 2014). There is a well organised network of human 
traffickers in Eritrea, wh ich transports refugees from urban areas to the borders. 
These smugglers have good knowledge of routines at the guard posts along the 
road towards the Ethiopian border, and the deployment of troops along the 
border.22 
 
 
[41]  The country conditions documents desc ribe the scrutiny and difficulites that returnees 
might face, which could lead to up to five years’ imprisonment and/or a fine, or both 
imprisonment a nd fine.23 
Depending on age, activities before and post existing Eritrea, affiliation or 
association…, retu rnees could be facing challenges, such as interrogations, arrest 
and harsh punishments upon return to their home country if they left Eritrea 
illegally, political activities outside of Eritrea, and even for making refugee claims 
against the state. Also, yo unger returnees risk the possibility of being recruited to 
indefinite military services.24 
 
According to almost all sources, individuals who leave Eritrea illegally are also 
subjected to extrajudicial punishment. It is unclear who is in charge of imposing 
penalties. No judgments are made public and there is no possibility of appeal. 
However, the policy currently applied by the authorities appears to allow for 
shorter prison sentences than those enshrined in the law. According to most 
reports, detention time s now commonly are a few months up to two years, 
depending on the circumstances. After being released, deserters have to resume 
their National Service, while draft evaders are conscripted for military training. 
The alleged “shoot -to-kill order” at the orde r apparently is not followed strictly. 
However, shootings may occur.25 
 
 
CONCLUSION  
 
[42]  I have reviewed the arguments, the Appellant’s testimony, the evidence before the RPD 
including the documentary evidence, and have undertaken my own analysis.   
 
[43]  For the reasons stated above, I find that the Appellant has established a profile as a 
National Service Age man from Eritrea who has left his country without permission.  The 
2019 CanLII 116766 (CA IRB)
RAD File / Dossier de la SAR  : VB8 -01871  
 
 
 
RAD.25.02 ( September 18 , 2018)  
Disponible en français  12  
 objective documentary evidence confirms that there is a serious possiblity that t his profile puts 
the Appellant at risk of persectution if he is to return to Eritrea.  
 
[44]  The appeal is allowed. Pursuant to section 111(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee 
Protection Act  (IRPA), the RAD sets aside the determination of the RPD and substitut es its own 
determination that the appellant is a Convention refugee.  
 
 
 
(signed ) “XXXXXXXXXXX”  
 XXXXXXXXXXX  
 February 5 , 201 9 
 Date  
 
 
1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , S.C. 2001, c. 27.  
2 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees : Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for 
Refugees, “Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status”, under the 1951 Convention.   
3 RPD Record  (RPDR) , pp. 13-26.  
4 Refugee Appeal Division Rules  (SOR/2012 -257).  
5 Canada (MEI) v. XXXXX , 2016 FCA 96.   
6 Rule 11 - Documents - The claimant must provide acceptable documents establishing their identity and other 
elements of the claim. A claimant who does not provide acceptable documents must explain why they did not 
provide the documents and what steps they took to obtain them.  
7 XXXXX v Canada , 2016 FCA 96.  
8 MCI v. Huruglica , 2016 FCA 93.  
9 XXXXX v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)  2017 FC 1040.   
10 RPDR, pp. 102 -121.   
11 RPDR, pp. 132 -139.   
12 RPDR, pp.  90-91. 
13 RPDR, pp. 125 -127.  
14 RPDR, p. 130.  
15 RPDR, pp. 94-100.  
16 RPDR, p. 131.   
17 RPDR , Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Eritrea, 30 June 2017, item 2.1, p. 1.  
18 Ibid, p. 2.    
2019 CanLII 116766 (CA IRB)
RAD File / Dossier de la SAR  : VB8 -01871  
 
 
 
RAD.25.02 ( September 18 , 2018)  
Disponible en français  13  
  
19 NDP, item 8.2, p. 6.  
20 NDP, item 8.2, p. 7.   
21 NDP 1.4.  
22 NDP for Eritrea, 31 March 2017, item 14.4, p. 9.  
23 NDP, 31 March 2017, item 14.4, p. 6.   
24 NDP,  30 June 2017, item 14.2, p. 7.  
25 NDP, item 1.4, p. 86.   
2019 CanLII 116766 (CA IRB)

