Category: India

2019 RLLR 73

Citation: 2019 RLLR 73
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 13, 2019
Panel: I. Colle
Counsel for the claimant(s): Peter J. Wuebbolt
Country: India
RPD Number: TB9-05340
ATIP Number: A-2020-01274
ATIP Pages: 000214-000220

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: So, I have considered your testimony and the other evidence in the case and I’m ready to render my decision, orally.

[2] I would like to add that in the event that written reasons are issued, a written form of these reasons may be edited for spelling, syntax and grammar and references to the applicable case law and documentary evidence may also be included. I also may add additional footnotes and correct any inadvertent errors.

[3] Now, the claimant is, Mr. [XXX] and he is a 40-year-old citizen of India and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to subsections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[4] I considered this claim mainly under Section 96, since the claimant claimed persecution based on political opinion or imputed political opinion.

[5] Now, for the reasons that will follow, I find that you are a Convention refugee, for the following reasons:

[6] He is a resident citizen of lndia who lives in Punjab State.

[7] He is a member of the Shiromani Akali Dal, SAD, political party.

[8] Now, there are two Akali Dal parties in Punjab. The claimant said he was associated with the [XXX] wing, which is led by [XXX].

[9] He said he was beaten and harassed by members of the Congress Party and also by their links with the police. He said he was detained and tortured and was asked to appear at the police station every month for an indefinite period.

[10] The claimant is or was a [XXX] in India.

[11] He was a member of the [XXX] wing since [XXX] 2011. He used to assist his cousin in arranging pilgrimage trips for community members in Yatra in Pakistan and he would also take part in organizing Party meetings with the help of community members.

[12] In [XXX] 2017, a Congress Party area leader noticed him and asked him to join the Party. He refused to join.

[13] In [XXX] 2017, he was beaten by three Congress Party members when he was convincing a group of people to attend his Party meetings.

[14] He went to a doctor for treatment. He went to the police to report the incident but instead of helping him, the police threatened him with detention for making false accusations against Congress Party members and ordered him to leave the station.

[15] In [XXX] 2017, he was able to convince four community members to join the Party. One of them had previously supported the Congress Party and he was also a cousin of the Congress Party leader.

[16] In [XXX] 2017, he received a threatening phone call from a Congress Party member and on [XXX], 2018, he was picked up from home by the police and detained without charges. He was interrogated and beaten by the police and told that he had links with Sikh militants.

[17] They questioned him about his involvement in the arrangement of [XXX] trips for pilgrims to Pakistan and the addresses of people that had assisted him in trips in the past and the people he knew in Pakistan. An officer warned that he could be threatened indefinitely on suspicion of espionage.

[18] His uncle came and after some negotiations, was able to get him out of detention on [XXX], 2018 after paying a bribe.

[19] However, the officer still told him he had to report every month indefinitely and he warned him not to be involved in any political activity and if he did not show up at the station, he would be tracked down and picked up from anywhere in the country and brought to the station where they would torture him to death.

[20] Upon his release, he needed medical attention.

[21] About a week later, the Congress leader, again, threatened him that it is a matter of time before he is beaten to death or permanently detained by authorities.

[22] He started to make plans, had to collect substantial funds in order to leave the country. He relocated to the state of Himachal Pradesh. It’s to the east of Punjab. So, he stayed there and still though, would come back to the state of Punjab to report monthly and when he would come back, he alleged that he would be slapped, manhandled and humiliated by the authorities.

[23] His friend was able to find an agent who asked for 20 lakh rupees to make overseas travel arrangements. He made visa applications for himself and his spouse, without their daughters and he arrived in Canada on [XXX], 2018, accompanied by his spouse, who soon returned to India.

[24] He was in status. He had status for about six months and was able to contact present Counsel and started the process of making a refugee claim before his status expired in [XXX] 2018.

[25] He approached Immigration with his Counsel in [XXX]. The forms were finally filled out in [XXX] 2019.

[26] Now, the claimant also alleged that he suffered severe mistreatment, both physically- he underwent beatings and harsh treatment in prison and has continued to do follow-up medical visits and he said that, because of the continuing stress and tension, also because of the mistreatment, eventually contributed to him suffering a [XXX] in 2019, for which he still being treated today.

[27] Now, the claimant, regarding identity, he said he had lost his passport and he provided a police, Toronto Police Service report, part of Exhibit 5, that he reported the loss of his passport but I note in his Exhibit 1, there is a certified true copy of his Indian identity card from the government, issued by the government of India, with his name, [XXX] and it has his address in Punjab, [XXX] in Punjab.

[28] The claimant spoke fluently in Punjabi. He had other identity documents. In Exhibit 5, people attesting to his identity, including a letter from a spiritual centre, from relatives. There is also copies of his work in India as a [XXX].

[29] So, on a balance of probabilities, I conclude that the claimant is who he says he is and that he is from the Punjab.

[30] I found the claimant to be a very credible witness and, therefore, believe what he has alleged in support of his claim. I agree with Counsel that he did not exaggerate or embellish his claim. He testified in a straightforward manner and there were no relevant inconsistencies in his testimony or contradictions between his testimony and the other evidence before me.

[31] During the hearing, I asked for additional details and he credibly is, I find, on a balance of probabilities, a member Shiromani Akali Dal Party, the XXXX wing. He was able to identify the leader. He was able to identify members of the provincial assembly, both from the Akali Dal Party and from the, what he called, his agents of persecution, from the BJP Party.

[32] He gave vivid details about his detention in jail at the police station in XXXX, how he was beaten, humiliated, sometimes the officers went out of their way to humiliate him and to beat him and he was kept, basically, in a state of terror for every time he would report every month and while the claimant did relocate to, as I said, the neighbouring state of, Himachal Pradesh and we’ll go into that later as we discuss internal flight alternative.

[33] So, I find that he was in effect, he was – I would not – his profile was not as a high-level Shiromani Akali Dal member, nor a low level. I think. I think he was a mid-level member who was active in his party and had good knowledge of the political situation in Punjab and credibly came to the attention of Congress Party members.

[34] Now, in this case, given that the – in this case, in that the police were agents of persecution, I find that state protection would not be reasonably forthcoming.

[35] Now, I find that the claimant has made a claim under Section 96, political opinion and before we get into that and the issue of IFA, I’m going to just note that he had many corroborating documents in his Exhibit 5 that attest to his political involvement and the history of abuse that he alleged.

[36] Now, before we get into documents, I should also mention, I did consider the issue of delay in making a claim but I note the claimant came with a visa, was never out of status and made arrangements with Counsel to make his refugee claim before that status had expired.

[37] So, in any event, the delay in making a claim cannot be a sole reason for denying a claim and in this regard, I’ve given him the benefit of the doubt.

[38] In Exhibit 5, we have, attesting to his religious background, the letter from the [XXX] in Toronto.

[39] I found a letter also from his Party in Exhibit 5 at page 2, which, on a balance of probabilities, I find genuine and it attests to his persecution he suffered in Punjab.

[40] There is supporting affidavits from family and Party members throughout. Again, I find no inconsistencies in those.

[41] There is plenty of documentation that he was a [XXX]. He did explain that there was a Canadian visitor’s visa. He didn’t know what the agent filled out, claimed he worked for the local government. But there’s documents in Exhibit 5 that attest to his work in the agricultural industry as a [XXX].

[42] There is also – and I was able to examine the originals – again, I could find no discrepancy, internal discrepancies in these documents. There is page 13 document from the [XXX] Clinic. There is another one from a hospital in – [XXX] Hospital. There is also his continuing treatment in Toronto in Etobicoke.

[43] It states on page 15 from, Dr. [XXX], that he is, he has a [XXX] history and he has attended to his office on six times.

[44] There is some more comprehensive consultation report on the [XXX] situation, starting at page 16. It’s a consultation report that was done on [XXX], 2019. It talks about his [XXX] history, the impairment he has undergone, as well.

[45] There is also many photos of his political and agricultural activities as a [XXX] in Punjab.

[46] So, on a balance of probabilities, I find that he was a [XXX] and he was involved with the Party.

[47] Now, internal flight alternative, I considered whether there was a viable internal flight alternative for you. I identified a number of areas in India, including in the neighbouring state at Himachal Pradesh.

[48] Also, I mentioned cities such as, Mumbai and Calcutta, Delhi, also as, Hyderabad. Now, I should note that in regards to Himachal Pradesh, the ruling party of the state is his alleged agent of persecution, the Indian National Congress and I considered the other – his argument that he could be traced by his residency card or that he could be traced by the police when he’d have to rent, for example, when he’d have to do some requirements and procedures for tenant registration, that he could be traced that way.

[49] However, I conclude that in regards to the first prong of the test, there is no serious possibility of persecution based on a review of the documentary evidence that, for example, in the National Documentation Package, Item 14.10, the Home Office Report on Internal Relocation, at page 6, states that:

“Tracking and surveillance systems appear to be limited and there is no centralized registration system in place to enable police to check the whereabouts of inhabitants in their own state or in other states or union territories and that each state and union territory has responsibility for its own separate police force and effectiveness and conduct varies across states.”

[50] So, I find, based on a review – especially of Exhibit 14.10, there is no serious possibility of him being traced. It says that, India, for example, at page 10:

“India does not have a centralized registration system in place to enable police to check the whereabouts of inhabitants in their own state let alone in other states or union territories and that tracking and surveillance systems appear to be limited.”

[51] However, I have to also consider the second prong of the test and that whether it be reasonable, in all the particular circumstances, for the claimant to relocate to those IFA identified areas, such as, Calcutta or Delhi. I did not consider Himachal Pradesh because it’s controlled by the Congress Party.

[52] Now, the Federal Court has mandated the Board or the Refugee Division to consider other factors under Section 96 – I’m talking about- not 97 – 96 imputed political opinion or political opinion.

[53] The Court has identified also, medical and psychological reports that provide objective evidence and that I’m mandated to consider whether it would be unduly harsh to expect a claimant to move to potential IFA areas.

[54] Now, I considered the medical evidence that was in Exhibit 5 in finding that it would not be reasonable in all his particular circumstances, the claimant’s particular circumstances, to relocate to these IFA areas. The medical evidence demonstrates, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant suffered severe beatings and that it led to a series of events and, on a balance of probabilities, that led to his current medical state.

[55] I see the claimant had to then report once to the police but at least reported five or six times. Every time he went, he underwent beatings. This had a cascading effect on his medical health.

[56] I note that the claimant subsequently, in Canada, suffered from a [XXX] that incapacitated him to the point that at times, he could not even speak Punjabi, could not even write, although that’s recovered. He was severely restricted in the use of his right hand. It severely affected his ability to work, let alone as a [XXX], but let alone work and he has now, even in the hearing, had to wear a monitor around his neck that monitor’s his medical condition to detect any possible ongoing or future [XXX].

[57] So, given the claimant’s very unique medical situation, that’s corroborated by at least three reports in Exhibit 5, I find, on a balance of probabilities, under Section 96 that the second prong of the test, that it would not be reasonable, in all his particular circumstances, to relocate to these IFA designated areas, given his medical condition as a [XXX] patient who is undergoing still, some after effects that could plausibly be linked to his mistreatment, harsh mistreatment, at the hands of Indian police in the state of Punjab, where he was detained, beaten and humiliated.

[58] So, given in regards to this medical evidence, again, I’ve afforded the claimant the benefit of the doubt. I find that it is, on the balance of probabilities, that based on <inaudible> medical evidence, he did suffer severely and harshly because of mistreatment, both physically, psychologically and it affected his physiology as well and that, given his situation as a [XXX] patient right now and his inability to work now it would not be reasonable, in all his particular circumstances, to relocate to the IFA designated areas.

[59] So, I said I examined all the originals. There was no discrepancies and I will return them now to Mr. [XXX].

[60] So, in summary then, the claimant – I considered the claimant’s personal situation in deciding and determining the reasonableness of the IFA and I considered both his medical condition and his inability to earn a livelihood.

[61] Therefore, I conclude that the claimant, Mr. [XXX], is a Convention refugee and, therefore, accept his claim.

[62] Thank you very much.

[63] The hearing is concluded.

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

All Countries India

2019 RLLR 53

Citation: 2019 RLLR 53
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: August 21, 2019
Panel: S. Seevaratnam
Counsel for the claimant(s): Ian D. Hamilton
Country: India
RPD Number: TB7-25565
Associated RPD Number(s): TB7-25583
ATIP Number: A-2020-01274
ATIP Pages: 000089-000099

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] The claimants [XXX] and her minor son, [XXX], claim to be citizens of India, and they are claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.¹

[2] The adult claimant, [XXX], alleges that she fears returning to India due to membership in a particular social group, as a lesbian. The minor claimant, [XXX] fears returning to Indian, as a member of a particular social group – family.

[3] The mother, [XXX], consented to being the designated representative for her minor son, [XXX], for the purposes of the hearing.

[4] The panel has carefully considered the Chairperson’s Guideline 9: Proceedings Before the Immigration and Refugee Board Involving Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression (SOGIE),² prior to assessing the merits of this claim.

[5] The panel has also carefully considered the Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution prior to assessing the merits of this claim.³

ALLEGATIONS

[6] The principal claimant testified that her mother deceased when she was a year old and her father was busy working in the fields, so she was raised by her father’s brother and his wife. The claimant testified that she was born with a [XXX], a [XXX]. She explained that she was constantly compared by her aunt to her aunt’s own children, whom she considered to be beautiful, whereas she would call the claimant “ugly.” Furthermore, the aunt would treat her as a servant and keep her busy by making her perform manual labour. This lifelong mistreatment and humiliation led the claimant to attempt suicide at the age of 14 by jumping into a well. She felt isolated and ridiculed. The neighbouring farmers discovered the claimant and saved her.

[7] The claimant stated that her aunt and uncle sent their children to private schools and she was forced to attend a public school. She befriended a girl named [XXX] ([XXX])⁴ at school. She stated that [XXX] was in a similar predicament as her and she had a darker complexion. Both the claimant and [XXX] were of the opinion that no man would ever marry them because of their appearances.⁵ Over time, they formed a good friendship, which led to physical intimacy.

[8] In grade 11, her relationship with [XXX] was discovered and the claimant was beaten by her father and aunt and her education was prematurely terminated. They arranged a marriage for her which she adamantly opposed. The claimant stated that she was forcibly married at the age of 19 to [XXX],⁶ who was nine years older than her. She testified that he was a drug addict and alcoholic, and that he was physically and sexually abusive to her. On one occasion, he was so sexually aggressive with the claimant that she started bleeding. She reported the incident as rape to the police and the Inspector of Police asked her to return to her husband and indicated sex was part of marriage.⁷

[9] The claimant further explained that she did not enjoy any intimacy with her husband, but he tied her to the bed and frequently forced himself upon her. This led to her unwanted pregnancies. She wanted to terminate her second pregnancy, but the medical staff refused to abort the fetus unless her husband accompanied her to the hospital and consented to the procedure.⁸ He did not consent and so, she gave birth.

[10] In [XXX] 2011, her married life of physical and sexual abuse continued and when she continuously attempted to flee her estranged husband’s grip, he forcibly tied her to the bed with a rope and burnt her with a hot rod on five areas of her body.⁹ The claimant provided photographs of the injuries she sustained and she still bears the physical and psychological scars to this day.¹⁰

DETERMINATION

[11] The panel finds the claimants to be Convention refugees. The panel’s reasons are as follows.

IDENTITY

[12] In Exhibit 1, the claimants have provided copies of their genuine passports issued by the Republic of India which were initially suspected to be fraudulent but later certified to be true copies by an immigration officer on December 24, 2017.¹¹

[13] In Exhibit 9, the claimant has provided a copy of the minor claimant’s birth certificate¹² her 519 orientation training record,¹³ and her school transfer certificate issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu.¹⁴

[14] In Exhibit 7,¹⁵ the principal claimant has provided copies of her membership documents with the 519 Community Centre, a 519 reference letter, photographs of herself with fellow members of the LGBT community, family photos, photos of her scars, and a letter from her brother, [XXX].

[15] The panel finds the principal claimant to be a lesbian. The panel further finds both claimants to be nationals of the Republic of India.

CREDIBILITY

[16] The panel is guided by the leading jurisprudence on the issue of credibility. Maldonado¹⁶ stands for the principle that when a claimant swears to the truth of certain allegations, this creates a presumption that those allegations are true unless there is reason to doubt their truthfulness.

[17] The principal claimant was straightforward when responding to all questions. Her responses were consistent with the notes from the refugee examinations conducted on December 24, 2017, and December 27, 2017.¹⁷ Her sworn viva voce testimony was consistent with her Basis of Claim form (BOC)¹⁸ and narrative, her personal documents,¹⁹ and country condition documents.²⁰

[18] Having considered the totality of the evidence, the panel finds the principal claimant to be a credible and trustworthy witness. Accordingly, both claimants have established their subjective fear.

WELL-FOUNDED FEAR OF PERSECUTION

[19] The panel has sought guidance from reliable and reputable documentary evidence regarding the current plight of homosexual men in India.

[20] According to the current United States Department of State’s (DOS) “2018 India Human Rights Report” in the National Documentation Package (NDP):²¹

On September 6, the Supreme Court decriminalized same-sex relations in a unanimous verdict. Activists welcomed the verdict but stated it was too early to determine how the verdict would translate into social acceptance, including safe and equal opportunities at workspaces and educational institutions.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) persons faced physical attacks, rape, and blackmail. LGBTI groups reported they faced widespread societal discrimination and violence, particularly in rural areas…

[21] In paving the way for the future of the LGBT community, the landmark decision of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India suggests the following:²²

It is this immense task of combatting the prejudicial attitudes which were encoded in Section 377 which has to continue. Nariman J. was cognisant of this challenge and mandated the Union of lndia to give ‘wide publicity to the judgment’ and conduct ‘sensitisation and awareness training for government officials and in particular police officials in the light of observations contained in the judgement’.

While Nariman J. emphasises the role of the Union government in combating prejudice and stereotypes in accordance with the principles of the judgment, Chandrachud J. issues an important plea to civil society to continue to work to combat prejudices and realise full equality for LGBT persons in line with the mandate of a transformative Constitution.

[22] A World Bank report “estimates homophobia costs India $31 billion (R455bn) a year due to lower educational achievements, loss of labour productivity and the added costs of providing healthcare to LGBT people who are poor, stressed, suicidal or HIV positive.”²³

[23] The Guardian published an article in March 2019 titled, “‘There are few gay people in India’: stigma lingers despite legal victory,”²⁴ which states the following:²⁵

The stigma still lingers. “In India, it is a case of ethics,” says Sanjay Paswan, a member of the Bihar state council and former Indian federal minister who opposed the decision to lift the gay ban. “[Gay] people are suffering from some psychological weakness or problem or trauma. There are very [few] of them in India… “

The article further states that “[s]ocial acceptance is lagging far behind legal sanctions.”²⁶

[24] Counsel for the claimant acknowledged that decriminalizing and eradicating section 377 was a milestone for the LGBT community, but he pointed out that section 377 was specifically targeted at gay men. Counsel further explained that the police have numerous other laws which they utilize to charge members of the LGBT such as Anti-beggary laws,²⁷ Nuisance laws,²⁸ and the Immoral Trafficking Prevention Act.²⁹

[25] A report by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) titled “Unnatural Offences: Obstacles to Justice in India Based on Sexual orientation and Gender”, cites the 2015 Report of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, which has noted:³⁰

“Human rights mechanisms continues to emphasize links between criminalization and homophobic and transphobic hate crimes, police abuse, torture, family and community violence and stigmatization, as well as the constraints and criminalization puts on the work of human rights defenders”…

[26] The documentary evidence highlights the reluctance from many segments of society, including politicians and the police within India, to accept same-sex relationships.

[27] Accordingly, the panel finds that the claimants are at risk of persecution due to the principal claimant’s membership in a particular social group, as a lesbian, and the minor claimant’s membership in a particular social group, as a family member and the son of a lesbian.

STATE PROTECTION

[28] There is a presumption that except in situations where the state is in complete breakdown, the state is capable of protecting its citizens. To rebut the presumption of state protection, a claimant must provide clear and convincing evidence of the state’s inability to protect its citizens.³¹

[29] According to the United Kingdom (UK) Home Office report at item 6.6 of the NDP: “If the person’s fear is of ill treatment/persecution at the hands of the state, they will not be able to avail themselves to the protection of the authorities.”³²

[30] The principal claimant testified that she sought police protection when she was raped by her estranged husband and the Inspector of Police asked her to return to him.³³ Furthermore, the claimant testified that the police are intolerant towards members of the LGBT community and they have the same biases as the Indian general community. She believes that police protection will not be forthcoming to her as a lesbian and to her minor son, as the child of a lesbian. She further stated that the members of the police force are one of the agents of persecution and they commit violence towards members of the LGBT community. She fears their wrath.

[31] According an objective and recent Response to Information Request (RIR) conducted by the Immigration and Refugee Board:³⁴

In a February 2017 report on obstacles to justice for sexual minorities in India, the ICJ states the following:

The attitude and behaviour of the police is one of the biggest barriers to queer persons’ access to the justice system in India. Several people spoke to the ICJ bout the violence, abuse and harassment they suffered at the hands of the police. Furthermore, in several cases, the police have refused to file complaints submitted by queer persons owing to bias or stereotypes.

The same source adds that

[q]ueer people’s trust in the police is further eroded by the frequency of their negative interactions with police, for instance, when attempting to register complaints regarding violence and other crimes against them at the hands of private individuals. The police’s refusal to file such complaints has seriously detrimental impact on queer persons’ access to justice and redress.

US Country Reports 2018 states that “[s]ome police committed crimes against LGBTI persons and used the threat of arrest to coerce victims not to report the incidents.” [footnotes omitted]

[32] In light of the above, “the ICJ is concerned that the police’s negative attitude towards queer people in India puts them at an increased risk of violence from non-State actors as well.”³⁵

[33] Furthermore, the ICJ finds that “[d]emands for justice and accountability for police abuses have led to direct forms of reprisal by the police against those denouncing their abuses.”³⁶

[34] In addition, “[s]everal people also told the ICJ that they believed that a lack of willing and experienced lawyers who were sensitive to issues of gender, sexuality, and queer rights in India hindered the possibility of obtaining justice in courts.”³⁷

[35] Finally, the ICJ report notes that, “there are few legal remedies in the law for the violence and discrimination faced by queer persons. This also makes it difficult to approach the court with cases.”³⁸

[36] The NDP³⁹ and the documents submitted by the claimants⁴⁰ make clear that the state is the agent of persecution and, in these particular circumstances, is clear and convincing evidence that the state is unable or unwilling to protect the claimant.

[37] Accordingly, the panel finds that the claimants have met the burden of proof, on a balance of probabilities, and the presumption of state protection has been rebutted.

[38] For the above-mentioned reasons, it is evident that state protection would not be forthcoming for the principal claimant due to her sexual orientation and her minor son.

INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE (IFA)

[39] The Federal Court of Appeal established a two-part test for assessing an IFA in Rasaratnam and Thirunavukkarasu:

(1) As per Rasaratnam, “the Board must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that there is no serious possibility of the claimant being persecuted in the part of the country to which it finds an IFA exists”⁴¹ and/or the claimant would not be personally subject to a risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of torture in the IFA.

(2) Moreover, the conditions in the part of the country considered to be an IFA must be such that it would not be unreasonable in all the circumstances including those particular to the claim, for him to seek refuge there.⁴²

[40] The claimants bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that they would be persecuted on a Convention ground, or subject personally, on a balance of probabilities, to a risk to life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in all of India.

[41] Regarding internal relocation, the UK Home Office report states that “[w]here the person’s fear is of persecution and /or serious harm by the state, they will not be able to relocate to escape that risk.”⁴³

[42] The UK Office further finds that “India is a vast, diverse, multicultural country, Communities vary considerable not only in size, but also in their religious, ethnic, economic and political composition – and in the extent of their adherence to traditional social and family values.”⁴⁴

[43] According to a recent Response to Information Request (RIR) conducted by the Immigration and Refugee Board reports the following:⁴⁵

India Spend reports that single women have to “depend [on] somebody’s goodwill – in-laws, parents brothers and sisters-in-law” in order to provide for them and their children … [Furthermore,] single women encounter “serious struggles with basic life issues such as getting a flat on rent or being taken seriously as a start-up entrepreneur or getting a business loan or even getting an abortion.” [footnotes omitted]

[44] The claimant testified that was used as a servant by her aunt and uncle and she was forced to perform menial tasks at home. She further explained that this was an obstacle to completing her homework and she was often punished by her teachers at school. In addition, when her father and aunt discovered her relationship with [XXX], a female school mate, they terminated her education and forced her into a marriage that she vehemently opposed. Thus, given her limited education, her estranged abusive husband, the lack of family support and as a single lesbian mother, the claimant would face a reasonable possibility of persecution from the Indian community and the Indian police, irrespective of where she lived within India. He minor son would also be subjected to ridicule and mistreatment due his relationship to his mother, a lesbian.

[45] A recent article in the New Yorker titled, “India’s Historic Gay- Rights Ruling and the Slow March of Progress”46 concludes the following:⁴⁷

A country decolonizes itself slowly. The Supreme Court’s decision on Section 377 snips away one more tether binding India to its colonial past. But the verdict resembles a strong beam of light only because it pierces through the stormy, illiberal weather around it. The other problems besetting India- a hideous right wing Hindu nationalism; unpunished violence against minorities and lower castes; political corruption; arrests of civic activists under trumped-up accusations; yawning disparities of wealth; the spoiling, perishing environment – are all homemade. They cannot be blamed on anyone else; that heaviness of responsibility is part of the compact of growing up. For allowing these dysfunctions to flare, and for failing to stamp them out, India will be able to blame no one but herself.

[46] Having carefully considered the totality of the evidence, the panel finds that there is a serious risk of persecution throughout the Republic of India. Thus, in the particular circumstances of the claimant, who is a lesbian single mother with a minor son, an internal flight alternative is unavailable.

CONCLUSION

[47] The panel finds [XXX] and [XXX] to be Convention refugees. They have established that there is a reasonable chance of persecution if they were to return to their country of nationality, India, today.

(signed) S. Seevaratnam

August 21, 2019

¹ The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), S.C. 2001, c.27, sections 96 and 97(1).
² Chairperson’s Guideline 9: Proceedings Before the IRB Involving Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression, Guidelines issued by the Chairperson pursuant to paragraph 159(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, Effective date: May 1, 2017.
³ Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution: Update, Guideline Issued by the Chairperson Pursuant to section 65(3) of the Immigration Act, IRB, Ottawa, November 25, 1996, as continued in effect by the Chairperson on June 28, 2002, under the authority found in section 159(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
⁴ Exhibit 1, Package of information from the referring CBSA/CIC, Refugee Examination conducted on December 27, 2017, p.5, received January 4, 2018.
⁵ Exhibit 2, Basis of Claim from (BOC), Narrative, para 5, received January 15, 2018.
⁶ Ibid., response to q.5.
⁷ Ibid., Narrative, para 9.
⁸ Ibid., para 11.
⁹ Ibid., para 13.
¹⁰ Exhibit 7, Personal Documents, pp.22-26, received August 9, 2019.
¹¹ Exhibit 1, Package of information from the referring CBSA/CIC, received January 4, 2018.
¹² Exhibit 9, Claimants’ Documents, pp.9-10, received August 13, 2019.
¹³ Ibid., p.1.
¹⁴ Ibid., pp.2-4.
¹⁵ Exhibit 7, Personal Documents, received August 9, 2019.
¹⁶ Maldonado, Pedro Enrique Juarez v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-450-79), Heald, Ryan, MacKay, November 19, 1979. Reported: Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1980] 2 F.C. 302 (C.A.); 31 N.R. 34 (F.C.A.).
¹⁷ Exhibit 1, Package of information from the referring CBSA/CIC, received January 4, 2018.
¹⁸ Exhibit 2, BOC, Narrative, received January 15, 2018.
¹⁹ Exhibit 7, Personal Documents, received August 9, 2019; Exhibit 9, Claimants’ Documents, received August 13, 2019.
²⁰ Exhibit 4, National Documentation Package (NDP) for India (May 31, 2019); and Exhibit 8, Human Rights Documentary Evidence, received August 9, 2019.
²¹ Exhibit 4, NDP for India (May 31, 2019), item 2.1, s.6 – Acts of Violence, Discrimination, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.
²² Ibid., item 6.2, Idea of transformative constitutionalism and the way ahead.
²³ Exhibit 8, Human Rights Documentary Evidence, p. 10, received August 9, 2019.
²⁴ Ibid., pp.43-46.
²⁵ Ibid., p.44.
²⁶ Ibid., p.46.
²⁷ Exhibit 4, National Documentation Package (NDP) for India (May 31, 2019), item 6.3, s.II(A)(ii) -Anti-Beggary laws.
²⁸ Ibid., Nuisance laws.
²⁹ Ibid., Immoral Trafficking Prevention Act.
³⁰ Ibid., Laws regulating the police.
³¹ Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, 103 D.L.R. (4th) 1, 20 Imm. L.R. (2d) 85.
³² Exhibit 4, NDP for India (May 31, 2019), item 6.6, p.10, s.2.5.1.
³³ Exhibit 2, BOC, Narrative, para 9, received January 15, 2018.
³⁴ Exhibit 4, NDP for India (May 31, 2019), item 6.1, s.3.2.
³⁵ Ibid., item 6.3, s.III.
³⁶ Ibid., s.III(B – ii.).
³⁷ Ibid., s.IV(A).
³⁸ Ibid., s.IV(D).
³⁹ Exhibit 4, NDP for India (May 31, 2019).
⁴⁰ Exhibit 8, Human Rights Documentary Evidence, received August 9, 2019.
⁴¹ Rasaratnam, Sivaganthan v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-232-91), Mahoney, Stone, Linden, December 5, 1991. Reported: Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (C.A.), at para 9.
⁴² Thirunavukkarasu, Sathiyanathan v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-81-92), Heald, Linden, Holland, November 10, 1993. Reported: Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (C.A.); (1993), 22 Imm. L.R. (2d) 241 (F.C.A.).
⁴³ Exhibit 4, NDP for India (May 31, 2019), item 6.6, p. l 0, s.2.6.1.
⁴⁴ Ibid., p.22, s.5.1.1.
⁴⁵ Ibid., item 5.11, s.l.
⁴⁶ Exhibit 8, Human Rights Documentary Evidence, pp.12-16, received August 9, 2019.
⁴⁷ Ibid., pp.15-16.

All Countries India

2019 RLLR 51

Citation: 2019 RLLR 51
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: September 11, 2019
Panel: Milton Israel
Counsel for the claimant(s): Ronald Yacoub
Country: India
RPD Number: TB7-23722
ATIP Number: A-2020-01274
ATIP Pages: 000074-000079

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] [XXX], the principal claimant, and [XXX], his wife and the associate claimant, citizens of India, seek refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).¹

ALLEGATIONS

[2] The Basis of Claim Form (BOC) of the principal claimant (hereafter the claimant) represented both claimants.²

[3] The claimant alleges in his narrative that he and his wife were threatened and attacked by members of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a Hindu nationalist organization that supports the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the ruling party in India.

[4] The claimant further alleges that RSS members attempted to kill him on [XXX], 2017, as well as a few times earlier. The reason for these attempts was a statement that the claimant made at his Gurdwara, indicating that people should be able to eat any meat they desired, including beef. This was considered to be an insult to Hindus who considered the cow to be holy.

[5] The claimant received threats from the RSS and went to the police, but received no help. The threats also made an impact on his health, causing [XXX], [XXX], [XXX], and [XXX]. As a result, he and his wife moved to Amritsar, and stayed with his nephew. However, extremists followed him there, and he received a death threat. He went to the police again, but received no help.

[6] On [XXX], 2017, the claimant and his wife returned to their home in [XXX]. The next day, members of the RSS attacked his home, and the claimant was beaten. On [XXX], the claimant and his wife went to New Delhi, where he received first aid, and on [XXX], they left India and came to Canada.

[7] On [XXX], 2017, their house was attacked again. The claimant alleges that they assumed he was there, and would have killed him if he had not left India.

THE ISSUE

[8] The determinative issue in this claim is credibility.

[9] The panel questioned the claimant concerning his allegations. He was asked how Hindu nationalists heard about his statement as he made it in a Gurdwara. The claimant explained that there was a nearby Hindu temple, and Hindus often came to the Gurdwara.

[10] The panel noted that the three affidavits he disclosed concerning the incident in the Gurdwara were word for word exactly the same,³ and the claimant was asked how that was possible if they were prepared independently. The claimant explained they were given in Punjabi, and then translated into English. The panel noted the Punjabi originals were not disclosed, and the claimant explained they were prepared for Canada. The panel is not persuaded that the three affidavits were prepared independently, and finds that the word for word replication reduces their evidentiary weight as to the claimant’s allegations.

[11] The claimant was questioned as to the alleged attempt of the RSS to kill him on [XXX], 2017. He described being dragged out of his house and beaten. The claimant was asked if there was an attempt to kill him, and he testified that they had no knife or gun. He further testified that his wife screamed, and neighbors came and the perpetrators ran away.

[12] The panel noted that the claimant indicated in his narrative that there were other attempts to kill him, and the claimant was asked to describe those incidents. The claimant testified as to the threats, and his trouble recalling these incidents. The panel notes that no substantive evidence was provided, either in the claimant’s narrative or in testimony, which concerned such alleged incidents. Subsequently, the claimant testified that between 2014, when the Gurdwara incident occurred, and 2017, when his house was attacked, there were only threats.

[13] The panel noted that the claimant disclosed four affidavits concerning the alleged attack on [XXX], 2017.⁴ The panel further noted that the four affidavits are exactly the same. The claimant provided the same explanation as in the case of the affidavits concerning the Gurdwara incident. The panel finds, again, that there is a significant doubt that these affidavits were prepared independently, and gives them reduced evidentiary weight.

[14] The claimant’s son, [XXX], a resident of Canada, appeared as a witness in the hearing. He testified that he visited India, and talked to his parents’ neighbors and officials in the Gurdwara. They confirmed the claimant’s allegations regarding his speech in the Gurdwara, and the attack on his home. He further testified that he visited his parents’ home, and was attempting to repair some broken windows and a door, when he was attacked by two men. He ran to another house, and subsequently received medication and therapy for an injury to his shoulder.

[15] The witness also testified that his father, who is 70 years old, was being medicated for his diminishing mental abilities, which resulted from the trauma he experienced in India. The panel notes a medical document was disclosed in this regard.⁵ Moreover, the witness stated that the claimant dictated his narrative to his daughter-in-law, but his mental state was not normal at the time.

[16] The panel finds that the claimant testified in a straightforward manner. The panel further finds that it has credibility concerns about the affidavits disclosed by the claimant, and the claimant’s allegations about multiple efforts to kill him without evidentiary support. The panel notes that the claimant changed his testimony in this regard in the hearing.

[17] The panel further finds that while the affidavits have been found to be of reduced evidentiary weight because of the content duplication, their corroboration of the claimant’s allegations is not totally undermined.

[18] In regard to the panel’s concern about the credibility of some of the claimant’s testimony, it notes that the evidence provided by the claimant’s son and in medical documentation, provides a credible explanation concerning the claimant’s diminished mental condition.

[19] The panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant has been a credible witness as to his allegations concerning his Gurwara remarks, and the resulting attacks by members of the RSS.

[20] The panel notes that it indicated at the beginning of the hearing that even if the claimant’s allegations concerning his RSS risk are found to be credible, he has an internal flight alternative (IFA) available to him in Mumbai.

[21] The panel questioned the claimant as to his possible resettlement in Mumbai if he believed he and his wife were unsafe in Punjab. The claimant responded that Sikhs were a minority community, and the RSS was everywhere in India. The panel noted that Sikhs lived in all parts of India, and that there was no constraint on their doing so. The claimant responded that Mumbai was costly, and the panel noted that, like all major cities, there were less expensive communities on the periphery of the expensive center. The claimant further testified that there was a bias in favor of Maharashtrians, but the panel noted that Mumbai remained a cosmopolitan metropolis. The claimant responded that he had lived his life in a small community, and he did not have many more years to live.

[22] The panel has considered the two prongs of the IFA test, and acknowledges that both prongs must be satisfied for finding that the claimants have an IFA.⁶ While the panel is satisfied with the requirement of the first prong, that there is no serious possibility of the claimants being persecuted in the part of the country to which it finds an IFA exits, the requirement of the second prong, that the conditions in the part of the country considered to be an IFA must be such that it would not be unreasonable in all the circumstances, including those particular to the claimant, for him to seek refuge there, has not been met.

CONCLUSION

[23] The panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, and in the context of the evidence concerning the claimant’s age and mental health, that an IFA in India is not available to him. The panel further finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the principal claimant and the associate claimant cannot return to India without the risks pursuant to section 97(1) of the IRPA. Therefore, their claims are accepted.

(signed) Milton Israel

December 11, 2019

¹ The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c.27, as amended, sections 96 and 97(1).
² Exhibit 2, Basis of Claim Form (BOC) – TB7-23722.
³ Exhibit 5, Claimant’s Disclosure, at pp. 23, and 28-29.
⁴ Exhibit 5, Claimant’s Disclosure, at pp. 24-25, 27, and 30.
⁵ Ibid., at p. 74.
⁶ Rasaratnam, Sivaganthan v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-232-91), Mahoney, Stone, Linden, December 5, 1991. Reported: Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (C.A.).

All Countries India

2019 RLLR 44

Citation: 2019 RLLR 44
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 10, 2019
Panel: Paul Fitzgerald
Counsel for the claimant(s): Miguel Mendez
Country: India
RPD Number: MB8-21731
Associated RPD Numbers: MB8-21773
ATIP Number: A-2020-01124
ATIP Pages: 000022-000029

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

[1] This is the decision of the refugee protection division in the claim for refugee protection of [XXX], the claimant, and [XXX], the co-claimant, citizens of India. They claim refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the Act).¹

DETERMINATION

[2] Having considered all of the evidence, including the claimants’ testimony, the panel finds that the claimants face a risk to their lives or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment at the hands of highly-politically connected gangsters. The panel therefore finds that they are “persons in need of protection” pursuant to section 97 of the Act and accepts their claims.

ALLEGATIONS

[3] The claimant’s detailed allegations are contained in his Basis of Claim Form (BOC)². In summary, the claimant fear serious harm or death at the hands of [XXX] and [XXX], well-known local gangsters that have the political backing of powerful politician Bibi Jagir Kaur and the tacit support of the Punjab police.

[4] The claimant was working on his farm when he heard shouting and discovered a man being savagely beaten by the local gangsters. He called police who later invited him to make a statement. Two days later, the claimants and their minor son were accosted and beaten by [XXX], who told them to withdraw the complaint.

[5] The claimants described a cycle of altercations with [XXX] and/or the police, where an incident would happen, they would report it to the police, and physical violence would occur, sometimes at the hands of the gangsters and sometimes as the hands of the police.

[6] The claimants described their frustration at realizing that at least in parts of the Punjab, the gangsters have support in certain political quarters and the tacit, if not active, support of the police.

[7] On two occasions, the claimants fled their village to other parts of India, notably [XXX] in Haryana and [XXX] in the Punjab. They were finally told by a lawyer that they could not prevail against politically-connected gangsters with tacit backing of the police.

[8] However, the event that provoked their departure from India was the kidnapping of their then 9-year old son and the realization that their enemies would stop at nothing and the police would not protect them.

Identity

[9] The claimants’ personal and national identities as citizens of India are established on a balance of probabilities by their testimony and by the documentary evidence on file, including a copy of their Indian passports.³

ANALYSIS.

Credibility and State Protection

[10] Testimony provided under oath is presumed to be truthful unless there is a reason to doubt its truthfulness. In this case, the Panel has no reason to doubt the claimants’ credibility. Their testimony was spontaneous and sincere, and was consistent with the allegations in the claimant’s BOC. Therefore, the Panel finds the claimants to be credible witnesses and believes, on a balance of probabilities, the allegations contained in their claim.

[11] The claimant told the panel on various occasions that he regretted ever taking an interest in the incident that caused the death of the man on his farm. He had just returned from working 7 years in Saudi Arabia and regretted making that first phone call to the police.

[12] During their testimony it became obvious that their various attempts to solicit police involvement was nothing less than a sincere, repeated call for State Protection, which fell on deaf ears and in many cases provoked reprisals and/or torture from the gangsters or the police.

[13] In their BOC⁴ the claimants alleged that the Punjab police, now convinced that the claimant was not a criminal, had identified him as a witness who testimony was necessary to secure the conviction of the people who have savagely beat and ultimately killed the man on the claimant’s farm.

[14] The claimants described how they left Punjab and relocated in the co-claimant’s home town of [XXX], some [XXX] km away, in the neighbouring state of Haryana. At the hearing, the claimant explained how the Haryana police, with the participation and at the request of the Punjab police, had gone to the house in [XXX], detained the claimant and returned him to the Punjabi police in his home town, where he was beaten and reminded of this obligation to cooperate with the Punjabi police.

[15] The claimant described his complete frustration in realizing that while the police said they wanted to arrest the people responsible for the death of the man on his farm, the police were willing to consider any persons except the two guilty persons, namely, [XXX] and [XXX]. He stated that he was unwilling to falsely accuse an innocent person and stated he desperately wanted to avoid further negative interactions with the police.

[16] Unwilling to falsely accuse an innocent person, and wanting to avoid further negative interactions with the police, the claimants stated stayed briefly with friends in [XXX], another town in Punjab, returning home after the friend’s wife expressed concerns about possible increased danger to the friend’s family.

[17] The single most important allegation was that the gangsters, [XXX] and [XXX], had kidnapped or arranged for the kidnapping of their minor son [XXX], then aged 9, on [XXX], 2018, as he played in front of the family home.

[18] The co-claimant described an initial frantic, desperate search for her son, fainting due to low blood pressure, the network of friends that searched for him and the posters they distributed with his picture.⁵ The claimants were dismayed at realizing that the police would offer no assistance whatsoever, and told the Panel that they feared that their son had joined the ranks of Indian children, whose organs are harvested.

[19] They stated that they continued searching for their son, contracted an agent, and came to Canada on [XXX], 2018, by which time the co-claimant was three months pregnant.

[20] They testified that by chance, on [XXX], 2019, their son was found begging by relatives at a celebration of Sikh culture in [XXX] in Punjab.⁶ He is now living with the co-claimant’s mother and brother in [XXX], in the neighbouring state of Haryana.

[21] When asked how the child had fared during the nearly 11 months during which he had been kidnapped, the co-claimant said the child had initially been uncommunicative and a doctor had told them that the child was very scared and should not be left alone.

[22] The co-claimant testified that the day her mother gave her the news that [XXX] was free she was the happiest person in the world and also the saddest person in the world because she could not be with him.

[23] The co-claimant testified how she had felt anguish, when her mother had not let her see her son’s face for fear of provoking a reaction that would harm her unborn grandchild. She described her heart retching agony and not being able to answer her son’s repeated question, “Momma bring me closer to you!” Due to the child’s fear, [XXX] has not left his grandmother’s house since arriving there.

[24] The infant, [XXX], was born in Montreal on [XXX], 2019 and had [XXX], which the mother blames on the stress she was under in her final trimester of pregnancy. Fortunately, surgery on [XXX], 2019 has since cured the infant’s defect.

[25] The claimants submitted a letter from Sophie [XXX], a Quebec social worker⁷ who has dealt extensively with the family. It describes the tremendous stress the family is under. To show her support, Ms. [XXX] came to the hearing.

[26] The Panel finds the claimants’ behavior to be generally consistent with that of persons who cannot return to their country.

[27] Having found that the claimants are being pursued by highly-politically connected gangsters, with tacit police support, the Panel finds that they face a genuine risk to their lives or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment and that they have rebutted the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence.

Internal Flight Alternative

[28] The Panel proposed Delhi and Yamuna Nagar as Internal Flight Alternative locations.

[29] The IFA analysis is a two-prong test:⁸ (1) the claimants bear the burden of proof to demonstrate, in the proposed IFAs, that they would face a genuine risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or that, on a balance of probabilities, they would be personally subjected to a risk; (2) the claimants bear the burden of proof to demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that it would be objectively unreasonable or unduly harsh to relocate to the proposed IFAs: “it requires nothing less than the existence of conditions which would jeopardize the life and safety of a claimant”.⁹

[30] Prior to considering seeking refuge in Canada, the claimants had sought refuge in [XXX] in Punjab and as well in the co-claimant’s home town of [XXX] in the neighbouring state of Haryana. They testified that they had been surprised by the level of cooperation between Punjab and Haryana police in finding the mail claimant and returning him to Punjab.

[31] They testified while they were seeking refuge in [XXX], the Haryana police had escorted the Punjab police to the home in which the claimants were staying and the Punjab police had arrested the claimant and brought him back to Punjab, where he was beaten.

[32] In order to meet both criteria of the IFA two-prong test in the current context, there cannot, on a balance of probabilities be any information sharing between the police in Punjab and those in other states.

[33] The objective country documents before the panel establish that the Indian police at a national level are rolling a police database called Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems (CCTNS)¹⁰ and that “94 percent of police stations across India have CCTNS hardware deployed”¹¹ but that the degree to which the database is used and whether it is being used efficiently is hard to confirm.¹²

[34] The objective country documents before the panel also confirm that the CCTNS is also being connected to tenant registration systems in order to give the police the power to “verify tenant information.¹³ As with CCTNS itself, this capability has not yet been fully deployed.¹⁴

[35] Although the degree of implementation of CCTNS and its link to tenant information varies by State, the more recent documents confirm progress is being made.¹⁵

[36] Thus, the Panel concludes, on a balance of probabilities that the Punjab police would be able to locate the claimants anywhere in India, and that the claimants face a genuine risk to their lives or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

[37] Having found that the claimants face a genuine risk to their lives or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment at the hands of highly-politically connected gangsters, with tacit police support, the panel finds that they have a genuine fear of harm in India, that they have rebutted the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence, and that there is no viable internal flight alternative for them anywhere in India.

CONCLUSION

[38] Having considered all of the evidence, the panel finds that the claimants face a genuine risk to their lives or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment at the hands of highly politically connected gangsters, with tacit police support. The panel therefore finds that they are “persons in need of protection” pursuant to section 97 of the Act and accepts their claim.

(signed) Paul Fitzgerald

December 10, 2019

¹Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c, 27, as amended.
²Document 2.1 – Basis of Claim Form MB8-21731
³Document 1 – Package of information from the referring Canada Border Services Agency./ Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. Passport.
⁴Document 2.1 – Basis of Claim Form MB8-21731.
⁵Document P-1 – Picture of missing children, picture of their son of [XXX] that was missing.
⁶Document P-13 – Letter from [XXX], [XXX]’s mother.
⁷Document P-5 – Lettre de la Travailleuse sociale, [XXX], le 7 octobre 2019.
⁸See for example Iyere v. Canada (MCI), 2018 FC 67, paras. 30-35.
⁹Ranganathan v Canada (MCI), [2001] FCR 164,266 NR 380 (FCA), para. 15.
¹⁰Document National 3 – Documentation Package, India, 31 May 2019, tab 10.6: Response to an information request IND106120.E, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, 25 June 2018.
¹¹Ibid.
¹²Ibid.
¹³Document National 3 – NDP, tab 14.8: Response to an information request IND106289.E, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, 14 May 2019.
¹⁴Ibid.
¹⁵Ibid.