CAT/C/56/D/604/2014 on substantial grounds to exist, of torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention Against Torture”.2 4.8 The Refugee Protection Division determined that the complainant was not credible, since there were a number of inconsistencies, omissions and contradictions in his evidence regarding key elements of his claim, including: inconsistencies and omissions in relation to the complainant’s past addresses, in particular in relation to where the complainant was living in January 2010, the date of his alleged attack and the dates when he was living in his village, as well as in relation to the complainant’s movements within Pakistan closely following the alleged attack; inconsistencies and omissions in relation to the identity of the groups the complainant allegedly feared in Pakistan and the organizations that allegedly attacked him in January 2010; and inconsistencies and omissions in relation to the complainant’s allegations about threats specifically directed against him in his village after his final departure from Pakistan. The complainant was not able to explain these inconsistencies and omissions to the Division’s satisfaction, and the Division found that his attempted explanations sometimes resulted in additional contradictions. 4.9 The Refugee Protection Division also found that the complainant’s past behaviour was not consistent with that of someone who feared persecution in his country. In particular: the complainant spent approximately three years in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, between May 2010 and March 2013, without claiming asylum there; he travelled to Spain in February 2013 without claiming asylum; the complainant delayed leaving Pakistan even though he had possessed a passport since March 2007 and had allegedly already received death threats before the alleged attack in January 2010; he did not leave Pakistan for the first time until May 2010, when he travelled to the United Kingdom; he returned to Pakistan from the United Kingdom in July 2012, despite stating that he had left Pakistan to save his life; he delayed leaving the United Kingdom for Canada to seek refugee protection until March 2013, even though according to his testimony he had believed since late 2010 or early 2011 that he could not claim asylum in the United Kingdom; he initially sought admission to Canada for vacation purposes and only claimed refugee protection after being questioned by an immigration officer; and he initially stated that he had problems with his family in his country and only later stated that he had been threatened in Pakistan by reason of his religion. In the light of the contradictions, omissions and inconsistencies it found, the Division granted only limited probative value to the evidence submitted by the complainant, including medical and death certificates allegedly relating to his cousin’s death in January 2010 and a medical certificate allegedly concerning injuries sustained by the complainant during the same attack. 4.10 The complainant appealed the Refugee Protection Division’s decision before the Refugee Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board, which became operational on 15 December 2012. The Refugee Appeal Division is a specialized tribunal with expertise in refugee issues. It may decide on appeals of decisions by the Refugee Protection Division to allow or reject a person’s claim for refugee protection.3 Subject to certain exceptions, the Refugee Appeal Division only considers evidence that was in front of the Refugee Protection Division. A claimant may provide the Refugee Appeal Division with evidence that was not provided to the Refugee Protection Division when the evidence arose after the claim was rejected, the evidence was not reasonably available or the evidence could not reasonably have been presented to the Refugee Protection Division at the time of the hearing before that Division.4 An appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division is 2 3 4 6 See Canada, Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, section 97. Ibid., section 110 (2). No appeal is available for decisions by the Refugee Protection Division in a number of prescribed instances. Ibid., section 110 (4).