 
RAD.25.02 (April 9, 2013)  
Disponible en français  
 
 
Immigration and  
Refugee Board of Canada  
 
Refugee Appeal Division   Commission de l’immigration  
et du statut de réfugié du Canada  
 
Section d’appel des réfugiés  
 
 
 
 
RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : MB8 -19113  
 
 
Private Proceeding / Huis clos  
 
 
Reaso ns and Decision – Motifs et décision  
 
 
Appellant(s)  XXXX XXXX  Appelant(e)(s)  
   
   
Appeal considered / heard at  Montréal, Quebec  Appel instruit à  
   
   
   
Date of Decision  July  26, 2019  Date de la décision  
   
   
   
Panel  XXXXXXXXXXXXX  Tribunal  
   
   
   
Counsel for the Appellant(s)  Me XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  Conseil(s) du (de la/des)  
Appelant(e)(s)  
   
   
   
   
Designated Representative(s)  N/A  Représentant(e)(s) 
désigné(e)(s)  
   
   
   
Counsel for the Minister  N/A  Conseil du (de la) Ministre  
 
2019 CanLII 128888 (CA IRB)
RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR  : MB8 -19113  
 
 
2 
 
 
 REASONS AND DECISION  
INTRODUCTION  
[1] XXXX XXXX , a citizen of Haiti, is appealing against the decision of the Refugee 
Protection Division (RPD) to reject his claim for refugee protection.  
[2] He is not presenting any new evidence on appeal and is not requesting  that a hearing be 
held before the Refugee Appeal Division  (RAD).  
DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL  
[3] Pursuant to paragraph  111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act  (IRPA), 
the RAD confirms the determination of the RPD, namely, that XXXX XXXX  is not a  
“Convention refugee” under section 96 of the IRPA or a “person in need of protection” within the 
meaning of s ection 97 of the IRPA.  
BACKGROUND  
[4] In his Basis of  Claim Form (BOC  Form), the appellant alleges that he fears criminals in 
Haiti who have been look ing for him since 2003 because of  his work as a  XXXX XXXX  in the 
city of Gonaïves. He alleges that , as an XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX , and that they  wanted revenge after 
the fall of the XXXXXXXX government in February  2004.  
[5] The appellant alleges having left Haiti in XXXX  2004 for the Dominican Republic . 
[6] The appellant alle ges that the criminals looking fo r him killed his  parents in XXXX  2005.  
[7] The appellant left the Dominican Republic  in 2014 for Brazil. He then went to the United 
States before presenting himself at the Canadian border in August 2017 where he claimed refugee 
protection.  
2019 CanLII 128888 (CA IRB)
RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR  : MB8 -19113  
 
 
3 
 
 
 [8] The RPD rejected his refugee protection claim on the grounds that the appellant’s 
allegations were not credible.  
[9] Before the RAD,  the appellant states  that the RPD erred in assessing his credibility, for 
reasons that will be detailed later under the Analysis  heading, if necessary.  
[10]  For these reasons, the appellant is asking the RAD to set aside the determination of the 
RPD and grant him refugee protection, or, alternatively, to refer the matter to the RPD for 
re-determination by a differently constituted panel.  
STANDARD OF REVIEW AND ROLE OF THE REFUGEE APPEAL DIVISION  
[11]  The role of the RAD is to review RPD decisions by applying a corre ctness standard of 
review after carrying out its own analysis of the record in order to determine whether the RPD 
erred, as submitted by the appellant. The exception to this rule concerns the RPD’s findings in the 
assessment of the credibility or weight to  be given to the oral evidence it hears, in cases where it 
enjoys a particular advantage , in which case the RAD must show a certain  deference to the 
RPD’s findings ( Canada v. XXXXXXXXX , F.C.A., A -470 -14). Reasons will be provided in my 
analysis if I find t hat the RPD enjoyed a particular advantage.  
ANALYSIS  
[12]  The issue in this case is whether the RPD erred in its assessment of the appellant’s 
credibility.  
[13]  In my opinion, the answer to this question is no, for the following reasons.  
[14]  First, upon listening to the  recording of the RPD hearing, I noted that the appellant 
provided difficult, imprecise and evasive testimony. Throughout the hearing, the questions asked 
by the panel had to be repeated many times  in an attempt  to get a response from the appellant. 
For ex ample, when asked to give examples of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 
2019 CanLII 128888 (CA IRB)
RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR  : MB8 -19113  
 
 
4 
 
 
 XXXX , the appellant responded [transl ation] “all the XXXX ” each time the question was 
repe ated; he was unable to provide an example of a crime reported.  
[15]  In my opinion, this way of tes tifying already undermines the appellant’s overall  
credibility.  
[16]  Next, the RPD decision i s based on a certain number of factors  that, in my opinion, taken 
as a whole , can only  undermine  the appellant’s credibility  even further . The factors are as 
follows:  
i. The appellant failed to indicate in his BOC  Form that two of his colleagues had been 
murdered  by the criminals looking fo r him, as he testified at the hearing . 
[17]  When a sked to explain his omission, the appellant responded  that this incident 
[translation] “is  not [his] problem .” 
[18]  I believe, as the RPD co ncluded, that this explanation is not reasonable  in the case at 
hand. The murder  of his colleagues by the criminals  who were looking for him is , in my opinion , 
an important factor in the appellant’s claim, close ly linked to his alleged fear, as evidenced  by his 
own testimony  intending to demonstrate the ferocity and insistence  of the criminals  who m he 
alleges are looking for him.  
ii. There is a contradiction between the appellant’s testimony  that his spouse has live d in the 
city of Ouanaminthe near the Dominican Republic border since 2005  and his response to 
question 5  of his BOC Form indicating that she lives in Gonaïves.  
[19]  When asked  to explain this contradiction, the appellant replied  that [translation]  “he was 
the one  who lived in Gonaïves before.”  
[20]  In my opinion , this response in no way explains the contra diction . Question 5 of the form 
is clear and does not ask  [translation]  “where the people lived before ,” but rather where they are 
living  at the time the form is b eing filled out.  
2019 CanLII 128888 (CA IRB)
RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR  : MB8 -19113  
 
 
5 
 
 
 [21]   The appellant testified that his spouse has not lived in Gonaïves since 2005 because of 
the alleged problems in t his city, which is therefore an important factor in the refugee protection 
claim. The fact that he wrote in the BOC Form tha t she lives in Gonaïves can only undermine his 
credibility . 
iii. The appellant testifies that he left Haiti for the Dominican Republic in 2004 whereas he 
indicated in response to question 8 on his IMM5669 form that he was  [translation] 
“unemployed” from August 2007 to May 2014 in Haiti, and in response to question 12 of 
the same form that he lived in Gonaïves between these same dates.  
[22]  When a sked about these contradictions , the appellant responded that he [translation] 
“indicated all the places where he lived whe n he arrived at the border” and that, since he did not 
have a visa for the Dominican Republic, [translation] “they think you are in the country .” 
[23]  Once again, I find that these responses do not reasonably explain these con tradictions and 
that they undermine  the appellant’s credibility  
[24]  The location where the appellant has lived since  2004 is an important factor in the refugee 
protection claim, and questions 8 and 12 of the IMM5669 form are clear and precise . In addition , 
the appellant goes to  the trouble of s tating  in response to these questions that he was in Brazil 
from 2014 to 2016 and in the United States from 2016 to 2017 while he was also [translation] 
“without a visa” or without legal status . 
[25]  Lastly, as  the RPD found, I believe that , given the appellant ’s lack of credibility, there are 
no grounds for giving  credibility to the  document Certificat de constat du CASEC  [certificate of 
acknowledgement from CASEC]  submitted by the appellant to  corroborate certain elements o f 
his claim, or to the document signe d by one XXXXXXXXX , a person who is unknown to the 
panel and who is not mentioned by the appellant in his BOC  Form.  
[26]  Consequently, in light of the foregoing , I find that the appellant has not demonstrated that 
the RPD committed errors that would justify th e intervention of the RAD.  
 
2019 CanLII 128888 (CA IRB)
RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR  : MB8 -19113  
 
 
6 
 
 
 REMEDY  
[27]   For these reasons, I confirm the determination of the RPD, namely, that XXXX XXXX  is 
not a “Convention refugee” under section 96 of the IRPA or a “person in need of protection” 
within the meaning of section 97 of the IRP A. 
[28]  The appeal is dismissed.  
 
 
 Normand Leduc  
 XXXXXXXXXXXXX  
 July  26, 2019  
 Date  
IRB translation  
Original language: French  
2019 CanLII 128888 (CA IRB)

