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 No.  / No de d ossier de la SAR  : MB8 -11100  
MB8 -11101  
 
Private Proceeding  /Huis clos  
 
Reasons and Decision   Motifs et décision  
 
Person(s) who is(are) the 
subject(s) of the appeal  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX 
XXXX  Personne(s) en cause  
   
Appeal considered / heard at  
 Ottawa,  Ontario  Appel instruit / entendu à  
   
Date of decision   January  23, 2019  Date de la décision  
   
Panel  XXXXXXXXXXXXX  Tribunal  
   
Counsel for the person(s) 
who is(are) the subject of the 
appeal  JXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  Conseil(s) (de la/des)  
personne(s) en cause  
   
Designated representative  N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e)  
   
Counsel for the Minister  N/A  Conseil du ministre  
   
  
2019 CanLII 107043 (CA IRB)
RAD File No.  / No de d ossier de la SAR  : MB8 -11100  
MB8 -11101  
 
 
 
 
  2  
 REASONS FOR DECISION  
OVERVIEW  
[1] The appellants, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXthe principal appellant), and her husband , XXXXXXXXXX , are a couple and citizens of Haiti. They allege that they cannot return to their country 
because they will be threatened by criminals seeking to extort a sum of US$200,000 from them . 
The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rendered a negative decision in this case because the 
panel did not find the appellants  to be  credible regarding  the attacks . In particular, the panel 
found  Mr.  XXXX ’s testimony  regarding the criminals  to be  very laboured . According to the 
appe llants, several errors were made i n the  credibility assessment in the RPD’s decision . They 
are appealing against the RPD’s negative decision dated May  2, 2018.  
DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL  
[2] Pursuant to paragraph  111(1) (a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act  (IRPA), 
I dismiss the appeal and confirm the determination of the RPD  that the appellants are neither 
Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.   
ALL EGATIONS  
[3] The refugee protection claims are based on the fact that Mr. XXXX ’s XXXX 
XXXX office  in XXXX XXXX  (Port -au-Prince ) was twice attacked by criminals who  robbed the 
business of all of its money : once  on XXXX XXXX , 2016, and the n again on  XXXX 
XXXX , 2017. The second time, the criminals demanded more money than what Mr.  XXXX  had 
on hand : US$ 200 ,000 . He escaped through  the back door and hid  in his hometown o f XXXX 
XXXX XXXX  until he left Haiti on XXXX XXXX , 2017.  He entered Canada on XXXX 
XXXX , 2017 , from the United States . His wife , XXXXXXXXXX , stayed in Haiti . After her husband 
left, Mrs.  XXXX  began receiving anonymous calls on her cell phone  demanding the $200,000 . 
On XXXXXXXXX , while she was visiting Mr.  XXXX ’s s on, she was surrounded and threatened 
2019 CanLII 107043 (CA IRB)
RAD File No.  / No de d ossier de la SAR  : MB8 -11100  
MB8 -11101  
 
 
 
 
  3  
 by a group of masked men . She escaped when an un known individual walked into the alley. 
Following that incident, she  hid  at the home of relatives in the country side  until she left for the 
United States on XXXX XXXX , 2017.  
REFUGEE PROTECTION DIVISION  DECISION  
[4] The RPD rendered a negative decision in this case because the panel did not find the 
appellants  to be  credible regarding  the attacks . In particular, the panel found  Mr.  XXXX ’s 
testimony regarding the criminals to be very laboured . 
[5] The RPD also found  that the appellants were unable to logically explain why they could 
not move to XXXX XXXX XXXX  or elsewhere in Haiti if they feared the criminals in Port -au-
Prince. The RPD also found that Mr.  XXXX  was unable to reasonably explain why he could 
only earn a living by working in his own XXXX  office . The RPD found  that there was nothing , 
in fact, forcing him to reopen another XXXX  office if he returned to Haiti . 
[6] The RPD also found  that Mrs.  XXXX  was not  at risk as a wom an. The RPD noted that 
Mrs.  XXXX  raised no issue or fear in that regard. The RPD concluded  that she was not 
vulnerable because  she benefited from a male presence, she had half -sisters, she was educated, 
she had had a job for many years and  had many friends in Haiti . It was therefore unlikely that she 
would find herself alone and homeless . 
[7] Lastly, the RPD found  that being a victim of crime is not a ground of persecution and that  
a generalized risk of criminality that is  shared by the entire population cannot be invoked in  
support of a refugee protection claim pursuant to se ction  97 of the IRPA . 
  
2019 CanLII 107043 (CA IRB)
RAD File No.  / No de d ossier de la SAR  : MB8 -11100  
MB8 -11101  
 
 
 
 
  4  
 GROUNDS OF APPEAL  
[8] According to the appellants, the RPD’s decision contains errors : 
a. The RPD failed to take into account that the appellants  may not have re spond ed to 
questions in a credible manner because they may have been stressed. The appellants 
noted that no one can predict what the criminals will do in the future .  
b. The RPD erred when it suggested that the appellants could relocate. There  is 
generalized i nsecurity in Haiti. They cannot rely on state protection and there are 
criminals throughout the country . The criminals who are  after the appellants 
[translation] “are still active and could easily locate them if they had to return to 
Haiti .”1  
c. The appellants live d in a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  in the 
capital . 
d. Mrs.  XXXX  is at risk because she is a woma n and could be raped, forcibly confined 
or killed.  
[9] According to the appellants, the new evidence demonstrates that Mr.  XXXX  owned an 
XXXX  office . 
NEW EVIDENCE  
[10]  The appellants submitted four  new pieces of evidence with the memorandum : 
a. An article from the Le nouvelliste  newspaper dated February  26, 2014 , reporting on  
business licences  in Haiti . 
b. A tax registration card for the “ XXXX XXXX XXXX X XXX XXXX ” XXXX  office 
in the name of XXXX XXXX , issued in 2016.  
c. Three  cash receipts dated October  25, 2016 , from the  XXXX XXXX XXXX  office . 
d. Three payment orders – direct tax service , dat ed October  25, 2016 , from the XXXX 
XXXX XXXX  office .  
[11]  These four  pieces of evidence are not admissible because they could have been submitted 
before the rejection of the refugee protection claims (May  2, 2018) . No explanation was given 
for the late submission . Therefore, the new evidence cannot be admitted as  it does not meet the 
test set out in subsection  110(4) of the IRPA . I also note that, during the hearing, the member 
                                                 
1  Appellant’s memorandum.  
2019 CanLII 107043 (CA IRB)
RAD File No.  / No de d ossier de la SAR  : MB8 -11100  
MB8 -11101  
 
 
 
 
  5  
 asked Mr. XXXX  whether he had any documents showing that he was the owner, and he replied 
that he did not.  
ANALYS IS 
The claimants’ credibi lity  
[12]  The appellants’ counsel suggested that the claimants’ testimony had been  [translation] 
“strained”2 because the appellants may have been stressed . The appellants’ counsel argue d that 
the manner in which they test ified should not undermine their credibility .   
[13]  Although I acknowledge that stress can affect an individual’s behaviour, in his decision, 
the member did not criticize the appellants’ behaviour , but the very information provided by the 
appellants during their testimony .  
[14]  I also note that t he appellants provided no evidence regarding their stress level or any 
inability  to testify in a credible manner . 
[15]  Having listened to the hearing twice, I find the RPD’s findings to be correct. Mr.  XXXX  
often failed to answer the member’s questions, with his responses instead addressing  another 
element . For example, the questions concerning the number of criminals that entered his business 
had to be repeated several times before he provided an estimate .  
[16]  In addition, Mr.  XXXX ’s answers often lacked logic, such as when he argued that he 
could not do anything else but open an XXXX  office if he returned to Haiti .  
[17]  In my opinion, Mrs.  XXXX ’s testimony also lacked credibility . As noted by the RPD, 
when recounting the incident on XXXX XXXX , 2017 , she had trouble explaining how the attack 
was carried out  after she got off the bus . The member had to remind her that the two  men  who  
got off the bus were not wearing masks, but that the others were .  
                                                 
2  Refugee Protection Division  decision, May  2, 2018, p.  3. 
2019 CanLII 107043 (CA IRB)
RAD File No.  / No de d ossier de la SAR  : MB8 -11100  
MB8 -11101  
 
 
 
 
  6  
 [18]   To conclude, on a balance of probabilities, I am of  the opinion that the appellants’ 
testimony on about  the attacks lacked credibility and that the RPD did not err . 
The criminals’ ability to locate the appellants anywhere in Haiti  
[19]  The appellants argue that they cannot move to Belle -Anse, Cap -Haitien  or Jérémie 
because Haiti is a small country and the criminals would find them and continue to try to extort 
$200,000 from them. In his memorandum, counsel states that the criminals [translation] “are still 
active and could easily locate them if they had to r eturn to Haiti.”3 However, this is but a bald 
assertion. No evidence was submitted in support of that argument.   
[20]  The panel concluded that the criminals are not looking for the appellants. In my opinion, 
the RPD’s findings are correct . The appellants were u nable to logically explain how or why the 
criminals would look for them if they returned to Haiti . As noted by the panel, according to the 
appellants, the criminals never attempted to look for them at their home or at the home of 
relatives  in Haiti, be in it Port -au-Prince o r XXXX XXXX , after the attacks . The appellants 
failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that if they returned to Haiti at this time, the 
same criminals  would look for them, some two  years later . It is unlikely  that the criminals would 
have an interest in finding them, especially if they decided to move to another city and did not 
open a new XXXX  office .  
  
                                                 
3  Appellants’ memorandum.  
2019 CanLII 107043 (CA IRB)
RAD File No.  / No de d ossier de la SAR  : MB8 -11100  
MB8 -11101  
 
 
 
 
  7  
 Generalized risks  
[21]  In their memorandum, the appellants’ counsel refers to a travel advisory for Haiti 
published by the Government of Canada .  
[22]  I acknowledge that the crime rate and gang activity in Haiti are of great concern.4 
However, as explained above, the appellants failed to demonstrate that they would face a 
personalized risk of harm that differs from  the one  faced by the re st of the Haitian population 
upon their return .  
[23]  The RPD was therefore correct in finding that the risk of criminality that the appellants 
would face is a generalized risk shared by the country’s entire population and cannot be invo ked in 
support of a refugee protection claim pursuant to section  97 of the IRPA . 
Ris ks faced by  Mrs.  XXXX  as a woman  
[24]  I find that the RPD’s findings on this matter are sound . The evidence before it was 
insufficient for it to find that Mrs.  XXXX  had a reasonable fear of persecution for the simple fact 
that she is a  woman . 
[25]  The RPD noted that the evidence did not demonstrate that Mrs.  XXXX  was vulnerable as 
a woman. The RPD indicated having taken into account Guideline  4: Women Refugee Claimants 
Fearing Gender -Related Persecution , as well as the documentary evidence concerning Haitian 
women . In my opinion, the Guideline was correctly applied by the RPD . The RPD concluded 
that the female appellant was not vulnerable, noting that she benefited from a male presence, she 
was educated, she had family and friends, and had been employed for many years . 
[26]  I note that, during the hearing, the member  specifically asked Mrs.  XXXX  whether she 
had any other reasons to fear returning to Haiti  (other than the story  about the criminals ) and she 
                                                 
4  National Documentation Package on Haiti . OFPRA  report on the security situation . August  2016. Tab  7: 
Criminality and Corruption , Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada , October  20, 2017.    
https://www.ofpra.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/atoms/files/1608_hti_situationsecuritaire.pdf   
2019 CanLII 107043 (CA IRB)
RAD File No.  / No de d ossier de la SAR  : MB8 -11100  
MB8 -11101  
 
 
 
 
  8  
 replied that she had no other reasons, that the criminals would find her anywhere in Haiti and 
that there was insecurity in Haiti . She never mentioned fearing being mistreated simply because 
she is a woman . 
[27]  Consequently, the RPD correctly analyzed that argument and did not err . 
CONCLUSION  
[28]  For these reasons, pursuant to paragraph  111(1) (a) of the IRPA, I dismiss the appeal and 
confirm the determination of the RPD that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor 
persons i n need of protection . 
 
 
 
(signed ) XXXXXXXXXXXXX  
 XXXXXXXXXXXXX  
 January  23, 2019  
 Date  
IRB translation  
Original language: French  
 
2019 CanLII 107043 (CA IRB)

