All Countries Romania

2021 RLLR 88

Citation: 2021 RLLR 88
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: August 17, 2021
Panel: Andrew M Rozdilsky
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Peter G Ivanyi
Country: Romania
RPD Number: TC0-02861
Associated RPD Number(s): TC0-02862
ATIP Number: A-2022-01778
ATIP Pages: N/A



[1]       The claimant, XXXX XXXX, and the female claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX claim refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).[i]


[2]       The claimants detailed allegations are set out in their Basis of Claim forms. In summary, the claimants allege persecution by the Romania society and police because of their Roma ethnicity. The claimants have suffered numerous forms of discrimination throughout their lives up until they left Romania, including their very limited education, the claimant having Grade 3 and the female claimant Grade 2, and in employment. The claimants have three children who remain in Romania fearing that they would not to be allowed to travel and enter Canada. The claimants claim to be Corbeni Roma and that they faced not only discrimination but also abuse by racist Romanians and police, the claimant alleging that he lived in fear every day, Romanians could beat him or members of his family because of their ethnicity. The female claimant alleged that Roma women face a difficult life and do not have rights such as other Romanian citizens, that there is no protection, medical insurance, that they pay fees to be treated at clinics and bribe doctors and nurses for treatment. It is difficult to find jobs, Romanians are not hiring Roma and they are not educated. The claimants have no chance to be accepted in Romanian society and because of their ethnicity face verbal and physical abuse by racist people, and police curse and threaten them. They are thrown out of stores, restaurants and pools, face humiliation from security, and face racist slurs, beatings, abuse, harassment and are thrown from buses.

[3]       In more detailed allegations the claimant alleged that he stopped schooling after three years as his parents, fearing the assaults and humiliation he faced by schoolmates and being forced to sit at the back. The female claimant stopped after Grade 2, having been beaten at school, abused, and humiliated by classmates.

[4]       The claimant alleged that they are afforded no protection by Romanian authorities, they face verbal and physical abuse, sexual touching, security harassment and being accused of theft.

[5]       Police provide no protection and abuse or instigate violence against Roma, and there are incidents where Roma houses are burnt. There is no protection for Roma students who are abused by teachers and ignore them in class.

[6]       The claimant alleged that in 2012, the claimants were at a local bazar in Bragadiru, were stopped by police and accused of stealing chickens and cheese they bought but made no complaint out of fear.

[7]       The claimant alleged that in 2017, he and the female claimant were travelling on a bus and were harassed and humiliated by Romanians, called dirty Gypsies and that they smell, his wife being reduced to tears. They were defended by some on the bus and got off at the first opportunity and ran away.

[8]       In 2018, the claimant was at City Hall in Cornetu and asked for a small lot to build a house for his family but was rejected because he is Roma and had no money to pay as a bribe as other Roma did. No complaint was made against the mayor, fearing revenge.

[9]       In 2018, the claimant’s uncle was hit by a drunk driver and killed and was verbally abused after being struck. The driver was never arrested and bribed local police despite having threatened to kill other Roma.

[10]     In 2019, the claimant alleged that a Roma woman with two children was beaten badly in Zalau by a Romanian driver. Police were called and were rude to her because she was a ‘gypsy’.

[11]     The claimant alleged that doctors charge Roma patients, ask for extra money besides fees and demand bribes, refusing to provide care if they are not paid. They have no medical insurance as they have no permanent jobs and cannot afford fees for insurance. There is no protection against racism and discrimination and there are no jobs in Romanian companies because they are uneducated, and they can only get work street cleaning or cleaning rich people’s homes and are paid half what Romanians are paid. They do not have the same rights as Romanians. They live in squalid living conditions without water and heating, gas, garbage disposal, have no social assistance or medical insurance. They are not hired because Romanians say they stink. They left Romania out of fear for their lives, and the lives of their family and want a better life for their children who are not safe and do not have the same rights as Romanians, live in poor living conditions, no hot water, and an overcrowded small house with no heat so they use firewood. Many Romanian authorities are racist, they are not allowed to enter stores, restaurants, public places and are beaten. The claimant does not want his children to be discriminated against and face persecution as Roma. The claimants left Romania on XXXX XXXX, 2019.

[12]     The female claimant alleged that Roma in Bolintin were expelled from the village they lived in for 45 years after a Romanian was killed in a conflict with a Roma and that 26 Roma houses were burnt, for which no one was arrested or punished, and no compensation was paid until after an international court judgement after 2009. The female claimant’s house was burnt down in 1991, they were thrown out of the village and never returned under threat of being killed.

[13]     In 1994, the female claimant’s paternal aunt went to her father’s village after being on the street for three years after losing her home. Local villagers demanded that relatives of local residents leave, claiming that they were criminals from Bolintin, and threatened to burn down the female claimant’s aunt’s father’s family home.  Police told the female claimant’s family to do as they were told.

[14]     The female claimant alleged her aunt’s husband was shot in 2000 and died of his injuries three days later. In 2011, her father was called by police to the police station, beaten and questioned regarding a fictitious offence but never made a complaint as he was beaten by police.

[15]     In 2002, the female claimant’s mother and father were assaulted by Romanian peasants and beaten, being accused of wanting to steal.

[16]     In 2011, the female claimant’s father’s cousin was ran over intentionally by a Romanian who previously had threatened to kill all Roma. The family complained with the case ongoing, but the killer remains free.

[17]     In 2013, the female claimant’s grandfather died of natural causes, but the priest refused bury him in the local cemetery.

[18]     The female claimant’s brother was found to be a Convention refugee in Canada.


[19]     The panel finds that there is a serious possibility that the claimants will face persecution because of their ethnicity as Roma if they were to return to Romania and are, therefore, Convention refugees pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[20]     In making this determination, the panel has considered the counsel’s post hearing writing submissions, claimants’ testimony, and documentary evidence.


[21]     The claimants’ personal identity as a citizen of Romania has been established, on a balance of probabilities, by their testimony, the claimants’ passports, and Romania ID cards.[ii]


[22]     The panel finds that the claimants fear persecution for reasons of their Roma ethnicity and have established that their fear of persecution is for a Convention reason, namely their ethnicity as Roma and accordingly their claims were assessed under section 96.


[23]     The panel finds the claimants to be credible witnesses. They provided credible evidence establishing their Roma ethnicity. Further, they provided evidence from the Roma community in Canada corroborating their claims to be Roma. The claimants provided supporting letters from Roma Community Centre[iii] in Canada, and photos of their family[iv] in Romania. They gave evidence in relation to them being Corbeni Roma and in addition provided reliable and trustworthy documentation establishing their Roma ethnicity. The claimants gave their evidence regarding their Roma ethnicity in a straightforward and forthright manner. Further, they described the photographs showing their living situation in Romania and their children. The panel found overall that there were no inconsistencies in the claimants’ testimony. The panel found the claimants’ testimony to be credible and the documents in support of their allegations to be reliable and trustworthy.

[24]     The claimant further gave consistent testimony with their BOC narratives regarding their personal experiences in Romania prior to their departure. The panel finds the claimants’ evidence regarding their experiences in Romanian to be credible.

Objective Basis

[25]     In the Ward judgement, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that for treatment to amount to persecution, it must be a, “sustained or systemic violation of basic human rights, demonstrative of a failure of state protection.”[v]

[26]     The panel finds the claimant’s own evidence regarding their personal experiences as Roma in Romania and the objective documentary evidence[vi] regarding the situation of Roma in Romania supports a finding that the claimants fear of persecution were they to return to Romania is well-founded and that they face a serious possibility of persecution because their ethnicity as Roma.

[27]     The NDP item 2.1 reports:

[T]here were reports from nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and media that police and gendarmes mistreated and abused Roma, primarily with excessive force, including beatings. Amnesty International, the European Roma Rights Center, the Romani Center for Social Intervention and Studies (CRISS), and the Civic Union of Young Roma from Romania reported several instances of police abuse against Roma, in the context of enforcing movement restrictions imposed during the COVID-19 crisis.

E-Romnja, an NGO that works to advance the rights of Romani women, stated police often discouraged Romani women and girls from filing complaints.[vii]

[28]     An RIR at NDP item 13.4 reports:

The US Department of State’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2014 indicates that Roma face systemic discrimination by society, which affects them in the areas of education, housing, health, and employment.

“negative attitudes and stereotypes about Roma are deep-rooted, resilient and prevalent…” The same source indicates that “pervasive racism and racist violence continue to distance many Roma families and groups from the greater society.”

Country Reports 2014 indicates that although the law forbids discrimination based on ethnicity, the government did not effectively enforce these prohibitions and Roma “often experienced discrimination and violence.”[viii]

[29]     The NDP item 13.5 reports:

In Romania, in 2014 it was argued that “Anti-Roma rhetoric emerges from politicians across all three major political parties – the left, the right and the Liberals”,160 including through statements made during TV interviews and online.[ix]

[30]     The NDP item 13.5 reports:

Negative attitudes and behaviours towards the Roma population and its labour market participation are constantly encountered in the public sphere. According to the FRA report from 2018, Roma from Romania felt more discriminated against (in 2016 than in 2011) due to being Roma when looking for a job and at work in the past five years.[x]

[31]     A careful review of objective documentary evidence corroborates the claimants’ evidence of ongoing and systemic discrimination suffered in education, access to healthcare, and threats to their life, amounting to persecution. Therefore, the claimants fear to return to Romania as an ethnic Roma is objectively well-founded.

State Protection

[32]     The police have been regularly charged for applying double standards in their investigation for crimes involving Roma individuals. Some cases of genuine contempt have been reported where police officers clearly suggested that attacks on Roma were their own fault. Roma are also discouraged by police officers from filing criminal reports.

[33]     The claimants related their own experiences in relation to the experiences of them and their families in seeking state protection credibly at the hearing and in their BOC narratives.

[34]     Taking all of these factors into account, including the objective evidence together, the panel finds that there is clear and convincing evidence on a balance of probabilities that adequate state protection is not reasonably forthcoming to the claimants in Romania.

Internal Flight Alternative (IFA)

[35]     The panel have also considered whether there is a viable internal flight alternative exists for the claimants. The documentary evidence above shows that anti-Roma sentiments are prevalent throughout Romania. The panel finds that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Romania. The panel finds that there is no viable internal flight alternative is available to them because of their Roma ethnicity and in the particular circumstances of these claimants.


[36]     For the foregoing reasons, in the particular circumstance of these claims, the panel finds that the claimants have established a serious possibility that they will face persecution because of their ethnicity as Roma if they were to return to Romania and are, therefore, Convention refugees pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[i] The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), S.C. 2001, c.27, as amended, sections 96 and 97(1).

[ii] Exhibit 1, Claim Referral Information from CBSA/IRCC.

[iii] Exhibit 7, Disclosure personal-counsel – January 21, 2021.

[iv] Exhibit 9, Disclosure personal-counsel January 26, 2021.

[v] Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, 103 D.L.R. (4th) 1, 20 Imm. L.R. (2d) 85.

[vi] Exhibit 3, Index of National Documentation Package for Romania – April 16, 2021 Version.

[vii] Ibid., item 2.1

[viii] Ibid., item 13.4.

[ix] Ibid., item 13.5.

[x] Ibid.

All Countries Moldova Romania

2021 RLLR 72

Citation: 2021 RLLR 72
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: April 30, 2021
Panel: David Jones
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Robert William W Young
Country: Moldova and Romania
RPD Number: VC1-01442
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01594
ATIP Pages: N/A


[1]       MEMBER: So, this is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada for the claim of XXXX XXXX, who is a citizen of Moldova and Romania, seeking refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[2]       I have also reviewed and applied both the Chairperson’s Guideline on Proceedings Before the IRB Involving Sexual Orientation and Gender, Identity and Expression, and the Chairperson’s Guideline on Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution.


[3]       The claimant fears persecution due to her sexual orientation as a lesbian if she was to return to Moldova or live in Romania. Details of the claimant’s allegations can be found in her Basis of Claim form and attached narrative. The following is a brief overview of her allegations and testimony.

[4]       The claimant is a citizen of both Moldova and Romania. The claimant lived in Moldova and has only visited Romania a few times. Around 2012, while in high school, the claimant started to identify to herself as a lesbian. In 2014, the claimant moved to the capital of Moldova. In 2015, the claimant started dating her girlfriend, XXXX. The claimant described, in her allegations, numerous accounts when she was harassed and physically assaulted due to her sexual orientation, including two (2) incidents when she was assaulted by strangers that required her to receive medical treatment.

[5]       In the summer of 2018, the claimant went to visit her family when her parents discovered a message from her girlfriend. The claimant’s parents were furious because of her sexual orientation and the claimant left and returned to the capital. The claimant has not spoken with her father since then. Towards the end of 2018, the claimant’s mother warned her that her father wanted to organize a corrective rape. Around April 2019, the claimant’s mother warned the claimant that her dad was looking for her in the capital. The claimant went into hiding by staying with friends. On XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, the claimant arrived in Canada. In August 2019, the claimant applied for refugee protection.


[6]       I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee.



[7]       The claimant’s identity as a citizen of both Romania and Moldova has been established on a balance of probabilities by her testimony, as well as her Romanian passport and Moldovan identify card located at Exhibit 1. Given the claimant has two (2) countries of reference, she needs to establish a claim against both countries.


[8]       The allegations establish a nexus to a Convention ground for the claimant based on particular social group, both based on the claimant’s sexual orientation as a lesbian and as a woman facing gender-based violence.


[9]       I find that the claimant was a credible witness. In making that finding, I am relying on the principle that a claimant who affirms to tell the truth creates a presumption of truthfulness, unless there are reasons to doubt their truthfulness. In this regard, the claimant testified in a consistent and straightforward manner that was consistent with her Basis of Claim form, narrative, supporting documents and the witness.

[10]     The claimant was also able to speak clearly about her relationship with XXXX, of first when she started identifying as a lesbian, the conditions for sexual minorities in both Moldova and Romania. She was able to answer questions about the physical attacks she received, and she was able to explain the risks to living openly as a sexual minority in either country. Including the risks of physical violence and discrimination with respect to housing and employment. The claimant was also able to answer specific questions when asked. The claimant provided her partner XXXX as a witness. The witness was also able to testify clearly about her relationship with the claimant, the conditions in Moldova, why she believes the conditions are the same in Romania, and I found that the witness was credible as well.

[11]     The claimant provided documents to support her claim. For example, documents found at Exhibit 4, include, medical reports describing injuries received by the claimant; a statement from her partner, XXXX, supporting the claimant’s allegations; photographs of injuries the claimant and her partner received. In addition, Exhibits 5 and 6 contain additional medical reports, copy of the claimant’s lease agreement. I have no reasons to doubt the genuineness of these documents. And since they relate to significant aspects of the claimant’s allegations, including her sexual orientation and the physical assaults that occurred because of her sexual orientation, I place significant weight on these documents to support the claimant’s allegations and overall claim.

[12]     I find that given the claimant’s credibility and supporting documents, the claimant has established, on a balance of probabilities, the facts alleged in her claim. Including her sexual orientation as a lesbian and her subjective fear of being persecuted if she were to return to either Moldova or Romania.

Objective Basis—Moldova

[13]     The objective evidence supports the claimant’s fears of returning to Moldova. The country condition documents found in both the National Documentation Package, which is located at Exhibit 3.1 and those provided by the claimant at Exhibit 4, indicate that societal attitudes against sexual minorities is widespread and pervasive in the country.

[14]     For example, a 2019 US Department of State report found at Item 2.1 in the National Documentation Package States that,

[As Read] The law prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, but societal discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity continued. The LGBTI community reported verbal and physical abuse. In most cases, police were reluctant to open cases against perpetrators. According to a survey conducted by the Anti-Discrimination Council in 2018, the LGBTI community had the lowest societal acceptance rate of any minority group.

[15]     The 2017 report on the Human Right Situation of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex People found at Item 6.1 indicates that derogatory public statements and violence directed towards LGBTI people continued. The report describes an incident where a lesbian woman reported to the police that her mother verbally and physically attacked because of her sexual orientation. The police registered the report as the victim being the instigator and police also contacted child protection services about the victim’s child and disclosing the victim’s sexual orientation and stating that she was mentally unstable.

[16]     The victim provided country condition documents related to Moldova to support her claim that are found at Exhibit 4. These documents include a 2020 version of the US Department of State report for Moldova that indicates that conditions have not improved since the 2029 (sic) report and states that,

[As Read] The LGBTI community remained among the groups that were most vulnerable to hate speech and were subjected to the most aggressive and violent speech registered by authorities.

[17]     Exhibit 4 also has a 2017 news article that describes how the situation of LGBT rights in Moldova, and notes that while there are pride marches that are protected by police and laws protecting LGBT people from discrimination, LGBT people are subject to bias-motivated violence. The article notes that Moldova is one (1) of the most homophobic countries in Europe, where two (2) thirds of Moldovan society believes that LGBT people should be kicked out of the country and only one (1) percent would be ready to accept an LGBT person as a family member. The article also quotes the president of Moldova who stated, “I never promised to be the president of the gays.” In relation to his open opposition to a proposed pride parade.

[18]     I note that numerous reports from both the NDP and the claimant’s documents indicate that sexual minorities face discrimination with respect to housing, employment and obtaining medical treatment in Moldova. The claimant’s own experience with being a victim of physical attacks and having to change her residence, both of those on more than one (1) occasion, unfortunately demonstrate examples of the societal attitudes in country conditions in Moldova noted above.

Objective Basis—Romania

[19]     The objective evidence also supports the claimant’s fears of resettling in Romania. As with Moldova, societal attitudes towards sexual minorities indicate widespread intolerance and hate. See for example a 2019 European Commission report found at Item 2.7 in the National Documentation Package for Romania, which is found at Exhibit 3.2 and the 2018 UN Report at Item 2.9.

[20]     A US Department of State report from 2020 at Item 2.1 states that significant human rights issues include a lack of investigation and accountability for violence against women. The report also indicates that while discrimination based on sexual orientation is prohibited by law, societal discrimination against LGBTI persons was common. Further, the report indicates that police not only do not adequately respond to violence against LGBTI person, on some occasions, police approve the violence. Finally, the report states that,

[As Read] A survey carried out by the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency reported and revealed that 15 percent of respondents experienced physical or sexual attacks motivated by the victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity during the past five (5) years. Out of respondents who described the most recent physical or sexual attack, only four (4) percent reported the incident to authorities because they are LGBTI. As many as 28 percent of respondents indicated fear of homophobic reaction, transphobic reaction, or both from police as a reason for not report physical or sexual attack.

[21]     The claimant provided country condition documents related to Romania to support her claim that are also found at Exhibit 4. These documents include a 2017 news article highlighting that only 36 percent of Romanians believe that LGBT should have the same rights as heterosexuals. The article also describes incidents of the police failing to intervene or receiving complaints from LGBT individuals who experience violence and abuse (inaudible).

[22]     Exhibit 4 also contains a 2019 European Commission report that states that, “There is a hostile atmosphere towards LGBT persons in Romania, which renders them targets of violence.” That report also indicates that discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is very widespread. Further, the report quotes a survey indicating that only seven (7) percent of respondents would accept a homosexual as a relative, only 12 percent as a colleague and states that, “These extremely low levels of societal acceptance contribute to significant discrimination and stigmatization against LGBT persons in key areas of life.”

[23]     Further, Exhibit 4 contains a 2020 news article that similarly states that,

[As Read] Violence against women in the LGBTQ community is still heavily overlooked and dismissed by authorities. That is when they do not inflict it themselves as it regularly happens.

[24]     Based on the totality of the evidence before, I find that the claimant has established a well-founded fear of persecution for her. In her particular circumstances and in light of the cumulative risks of discrimination and harassment that the claimant would face if she were to return to Moldova or resettle in Romania based on her membership in a particular social group as a lesbian. I also find that the claimant’s risks are heightened because of the risks she faces from her father.

State Protection

[25]     Based on the evidence noted in the country conditions above, indicating that authorities both in Moldova and Romania are often indifferent and sometimes hostile towards sexual minorities, I find that there is no operationally effective state protection available to the claimant in these circumstances. For example, the report at Item 2.6 in the National Documentation Package for Moldova states that,

[As Read] LGBT person s in Moldova face difficulty getting access to justice, with police officers appearing to be primarily concerned with the victim’s sexuality, rather than any crime committed against them. In the same report Amnesty found that gay men may be the subject to blackmail and extortion by corrupt police officers at known gay meeting points who exploit for fear of exposure.

[26]     And with respect to Romania, the report at Item 2.7 states that,

[As Read] Although the LGBTI minority is explicitly protected by Anti-Discrimination Law, it remains the group most under attack, being subject of legislative proposals aiming to restrict LGBTI rights and the target of acts of aggression during NGO organized events. These attacks remain uninvestigated and have attacked no sanctions, suggesting that authorities are liable for reluctant indifference (which) would be tantamount to official acquiescence to, or even connivance with, hate crimes.

[27]     As such, the claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection.

Internal Flight Alternative

[28]     For the reasons below, I find that the claimant does not have an internal flight alternative. When determining whether an internal flight alternative exist in Moldova or Romania, I must find both that a claimant would not face a serious possibility of persecution in a proposed internal flight alternative and that conditions in that part of the country are such that it would be objectively reasonable in all the circumstances. Including those particular for the claimant to seek refuge there. The objective evidence noted above previously supports the finding that there is a serious possibility of persecution that would exist for this claimant throughout either country.

[29]     As noted above, the objective evidence indicates that there is deep-rooted prejudice against the LGBTQ community in both Moldova and Romania. That the intolerance exists throughout both countries. There is no evidence in either the country condition documents, the claimant’s testimony or the witness testimony to indicate that there is a place in either country where the conditions for sexual minorities are significantly better.

[30]     Based on the totality of the evidence, I find that the claimant has established that there is no viable internal flight alternative available to her as I find that the claimant would face a serious possibility of persecution throughout Moldova or Romania due to the prevalence of violence against the LGBTQ community.


[31]     For the reasons above, I determine that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to Section 96 of the Act, and the Board, therefore, accept her claim. Given that I am granting protection under Section 96 of the Act, I find it unnecessary to consider the claim under Section 97.


All Countries Romania

2019 RLLR 149

Citation: 2019 RLLR 149
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 2, 2019
Panel: Shamshuddin Alidina
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Pawandeep Johal
Country: Romania
RPD Number: TB9-10780
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-00210
ATIP Pages: 000127-000132


MEMBER:       You asked me to address you as, Sir.

I have all the evidence that I need to make a decision and I have a decision for you and if you need the decision in writing, you can ask the Refugee Board to give it to you.

If you elect to do that, I reserve the rights to make grammar error corrections, syntax error corrections and to incorporate documentary evidence and case laws where deemed necessary.

So, I’m going to address the name that is given in the file. Okay?

CLAIMANT: Of course. I understand. For legal purposes. Yes.

MEMBER:       Yeah.

[1]       XXXX XXXX, a citizen of Romania, claims for refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96, 97(1)(a) and 97(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, IRPA.

[2]       The claimant alleges that, at the time he left Romania, he was not sure of his sexual orientation. He knew that he was not a female.

[3]       After he came to Canada for education, he married a female called, XXXX XXXX. Both of them travelled as a couple to Romania and while in Romania for one week, they had difficulties. They were discriminated against and ill-treated, particularly when the claimant went to use washrooms and other

public places.

[4]       His family also looked at him differently and he had difficulties with his family too, that being the fact that he was not being accepted as what he was.

[5]       The claimant alleges that should he return today to Romania and be what he is, he would be persecuted. He would be discriminated in every walk of life. His identity would not be accepted. He would not be accepted in the employment fields, housing, healthcare and even the Counsel says he could not work with the kids because his identity is different.

[6]       Should he seek help from the police, they would not take him seriously.

[7]       He decided to seek for refugee protection because he felt that, should he return to Romania, he would be persecuted.

[8]       Basically, this is a sur place claim which is the realization of the danger of being what he is, after leaving Romania.

[9]       At the outset of the hearing, the claimant indicated that his identity is not being a female. He would love to change his name to XXXX as a first name and XXXX to be the second name and the last name to remain, XXXX XXXX because XXXX is neither a male name nor a female name. It can be used both, both ways.

[10]     The claimant indicated that should he do that, he would not recognized in Romania. He would not be able to change that name with the Romanian authorities.

[11]     He also testified that, should he do that, he would not be able to even change his documents.

[12]     His same-sex marriage with XXXX would not be recognized. Although, today he is separated from her but he is in a relationship with another female.

[13]     The claimant provided documentary evidence in Exhibit 6 which gives his true identity in so far as his sexuality is concerned. The claimant, for the sake of the testimony today in the hearing, said that he could be addressed as a “he” and a transgender. He says, in reality, he was a non-binary. In that, he says, he is neither a female nor a male.

[14]     He testified that should he return – should he stay in Canada and be allowed to stay in Canada, he would have his breasts removed while he would remain the other female parts and that would be his identity.

[15]     He testified that he would not be able to do that in Romania. They would remove all the parts of the female and make him a male or leave all the parts of the female and let him be a female. He is not comfortable with that identity of being a total male or a total female.

[16]     Therefore, in Exhibit 6, the Counsel has provided us documentary evidence of the definitions of a non-binary person.

[17]     The claimant testified that he had no reason to seek any protection in Canada when he arrived, since he came, simply for education. Education took a little bit longer but then his sexuality was still not known to him. He was in a state of confusion and he got married to a female.

[18]     He then decided to go to Romania because his father was not well and while he was in Romania, he testified that his family began not accepting him as a binary. The society in general was not accepting him. He went to use a male washroom and he had difficulties.

[19]     He returned to Canada and applied for refugee protection knowing that he could not live in Romania.

[20]     Therefore, based on the evidence that is adduced, the panel finds that the claimant is neither a female nor a male. The claimant is a non-binary and the question remains what would happen to people like him who would perhaps be called a transgender if he returned to Romania. That’s the closest thing that they would do.

[21]     The objective evidence is very important in this case because it’s a sur place claim so the panel examined the documentary evidence.

[22]     In so far as the claimant’s testimony is concerned, the claimant indicated that should he return to Romania, his gender identity would not be accepted. That’s the first thing. His name changed to XXXX and XXXX, as a second name, would not be acceptable to the authorities.

[23]     He testified that he would have serious problems looking for a job because his identity would not be accepted. He would have problems seeking healthcare in Romania. He would have difficulties obtaining housing for rent.

[24]     His family has stopped accepting him as what he is.

[25]     The panel in determining objective evidence went through a number of documentations that are very clear. The DOS Report indicates that the law in Romania prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. In this case, the claimant has a sexual orientation which is not mentioned anywhere.

[26]     The NGOs reported that societal discrimination against LGBT persons was common and there were some reports of violence against them. The claimant did face violence while he was there.

[27]     Discrimination in employment occurred against the LGBT people.

[28]     Although this year, the Pride parade with some 5,000 participants was without an incident in Bucharest, there were a hundred people who took part in a counter-protest.

[29]     The law governing legal gender recognition for transgender persons was vague and incomplete. In some cases, authorities refused legal gender recognition unless an individual had first undergone sex re-assignment surgery.

[30]     Access to adequate XXXX services was also limited because some XXXX refuse to accept transgender patients. In this case, the claimant is neither a male nor a female nor a transgender. He is a non-binary and there is absolutely no mention about the term non-binary in any of the documentary evidence that we have before us, either from the NDP or from the claimant’ s counsel.

[31]     However, the panel will cite some documents because Counsel has provided a number of documents which indicates what happens to people like the claimant in Romania. This is the news, the latest one, page 109 of Exhibit 4 and that indicates the Romania has passed no legislation recognizing or promoting gay rights since the Balkan country joined the EU 12 years ago and since it decriminalized same-sex relationships 18 years ago. As a result, gay couples and transgender people still face huge problems as they try to go about with their lives.

[32]     Documentary evidence indicates in regards to Romanian LGBT millennials on page 112, in Romania – sorry, in a new report on Romania, the Counsel for Europe’s Commission Against Racism, Intolerance, expressed concern about a number of issues, notably the widespread problem of racist and intolerant hate speeches and inadequate responses of the criminal justice to hate crimes and discriminations against Roma and LGBT persons, although it notes that some progress has been made.

[33]     Documentary evidence on page 115 indicates that, temporary passports were issued to Adrian Common(sp)[1] , after he was denied new passports. He was issued a temporary passport instead.

[34]     Documentary evidence of April 2017 indicates, for many transgender people in Europe something as simple as changing their names or gender on a driver’s licence requires an invasive and offensive medical procedure. Of the 47 countries currently signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights, 22 countries require transgender people to undergo sterilization before allowing them to change their names or gender on a legal document.

[35]     The claimant indicated he would have to do that because he is not who everybody thinks he is.

[36]     Page 19 of Counsel’s objective document says, that 6 in 1 0 Romanians would not want to have a gay family member and 29% would not want a Roma relative. This is according to the survey.

[37]     As such 74% of those surveyed said, they don’t trust homosexuals and 72% said they don’t trust Roma immigrants.

[38]     The survey revealed a high intolerance towards homosexuals.

[39]     The next page, 21, indicates that more than 2/3 of the respondents don’t agree with gay marriages and 60% disagree with the idea of civil partnerships.

[40]     The present cases, this is page 41, the present cases concern two trans men who claim that their right to privacy and right to found a family have been violated. The legal framework on legal gender recognition in Romania remains uncertain subjecting trans people to [2:11:56] judicial procedures and pathologizing and invasive medical requirements when they request for recognition of their gender identity. The claimant indicate that he would have to change either totally to male or totally to female.

[41]     Documentary evidence on page 46 clearly indicates that the article which argues that Christians are suffering religious discrimination at the hands of the pro-LGBT campaigners comes as the country prepares for a referendum next month which could prevent same-sex marriage by changing the Constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. That’s exactly what the claimant indicated.

[42]     On page 69 the documentary evidence gives the clear picture of Romania is today. Romania is regarded as one of Europe’s most homophobic countries. Same-sex sexual activity is legal but there is no legal recognition of same-sex couples. The church holds a huge influence over the population. Approximately 85% of the 19 million population belong to Romanian Orthodox Church.

[43]     Anti-gay campaigns led by Coalition for Family gained 3 million signatures in the country in 2016 urging for the government to act to amend the Constitution.

[44]     On page 74, the 19th March 2019 article indicates that the Senate rejected by a majority on March 8th two bills that would have allowed same-sex individuals to close a civil partnership and enjoy rights similar to those of married couples.

[45]     That is, in a nutshell, the objective evidence of what the society in Romania is.

[46]     Based on the documentary evidence, the panel finds that the claimant would not be able to change his name. The claimant would not be able to have his parts like, the breasts removed and the rest of the female parts kept and should he return and continue, which he says he would, to be a non-binary, he would be targeted. He would be discriminated in employment, in housing, by his family and he would not have protection, as well as, he would not be able to change his name to XXXX XXXX.

[47]     All that cumulatively amounts to persecution.

[48]     The panel finds that the claimant – the panel finds that there is serious possibility that the claimant would be persecuted as a non-binary, should he return to Romania.

[49]     For all above reasons, XXXX XXXX, is a Convention refugee.

(Signed by) Shams Alidina

I wish to thank you, Sir, for coming.

I wish to thank the two Counsels.

The hearing is over.


All Countries Romania

2020 RLLR 41

Citation: 2020 RLLR 41
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: July 7, 2020
Panel: G. Griffith
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Peter G Ivanyi
Country: Romania
RPD Number: TB9-02978
Associated RPD Number: TB9-03059, TB9-03070
ATIP Number: A-2021-00655
ATIP Pages: 000076-000084


[1]       [XXX], the principal claimant, his common-law spouse, [XXX], the female claimant, and their son, [XXX], the minor, claim refugee protection in Canada, pursuant to s. 96 and s.97 (1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)i.

[2]       The minor son was born in the USA and is a citizen of the USA.

[3]       [XXX] was appointed Designated Representative for the minor son.


[4]       The claimants claim to be ethnic “Roma”, and the adult claimants, who were born in Romania, testify that, in Romania, they have been victims of extreme discrimination, because of their ethnicity. They allege that, in a number of cases of discrimination and confrontation by Romanians, the police in Romania have not assisted, or have been complicit.

[5]       The adult claimants left Romania in [XXX] and, after a stay in the USA, where an asylum claim was made, they travelled to Canada on [XXX] 2018.

[6]       The principal claimant lived for brief periods in Sweden and Belgium in the years 2003 and 2006, respectively.

[7]       The Minister’s Representative provided submissions (written only) on the issue of the credibility of the overall testimony, as well as with specific concerns and request for clarification on the nature of criminal charges issued to the principal claimant in the USA, and clarification on the claimants’ method of entering Canada.

[8]       No evidence was adduced in the claim of the US-born minor claimant.

[9]       The principal claimant is also the father of three children who, at the time of the hearing, were listed as being resident in Romania.


[10]     A summary of the key elements of the testimony is, as follows.

[11]     The principal claimant gave oral testimony in which he states the following, as in the written narrative of the claimants’ Basis of Claim (BOC)ii Form.

[12]     He states that in Romania, starting at an early age, as an ethnic Roma, he, personally, experienced extreme discrimination and persecution.

[13]     He testifies that he and his spouse are identified as “Roma” in Romania, as that, generally, a Roma is identified by a combination of skin color, facial hair, manner of dress, customs, language, and places of residence, and that they endure certain impositions such as that a “Roma” must register with the police if there is any attempt at residential relocation.

[14]     The principal claimant testifies that he experienced those conditions, starting as a young child, and that, at school, he experienced hard times, being called names such as “dirty gypsy” or “crow”. He testifies that the teachers at school had no sympathy for him, or for other Roma students from his community.

[15]     The principal claimant testifies that, as a result of the regular harassment at school, he sought employment at an early age, but that in searching for employment, also, he experienced difficulties and discrimination. He testifies that he was regularly refused employment, with only the explanation that he was Roma.

[16]     The principal claimant testifies further, that, as an adult, also, he experienced direct physical and verbal abuse by Romanian persons, and even by the police in Romania. He testifies that on three occasions when he sought help of the police in Romania, he was rebuffed and insulted.

[17]     The principal claimant testifies to the following specific incidents that he faced as an adult., such as happened in Romania at a market, in the year 2008. On that occasion, he states, he became involved in a physical and verbal altercation at a grocery store with employees who perceived that his cousin, his wife and himself were there to steal.

[18]     The principal claimant testifies that they were followed around, and, at the cashier, an employee pulled the hair of his cousin. He testifies that he intervened, to also protect his wife, and he was punched in the face, and they were called “crows”. As well, when they managed to exit the store, they noticed on that there were other persons on the outside who were gathering to physically abuse them.

[19]     The principal claimant testifies that, in that same year, 2008, while on his way to work in one of the villages, he was beaten by racist Romanians. Also, in that same year, he and his wife were kicked out of a restaurant because Romanians in the building felt uncomfortable. And, when he attempted to make a report to the police, it was not accepted.

[20]     The principal claimant states, further, that in the year 2010, while driving with a friend, they were pulled over by the police, and that even after offering a bribe, they were beaten by the police.

[21]     The principal claimant testifies further, as contained in his narrativeiii, to incidents that occurred in the years 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015, where the underlying facts are alleged to be incidents of discrimination, and physical altercations with Romanians, in which, also, he states, the police in Romania did not offer any assistance, following complaints, and that the police, themselves, assisted in the discrimination.

[22]     The principal claimant testifies that he left Romania in [XXX] 2016, and, after travelling with his brother [XXX] through [XXX] he arrived in the USA, where he asked for asylum.

[23]     The principal claimant testifies that he was arrested for being illegally in the USA, and, later, he was released, with an ankle monitor device.

[24]     The principal claimant testifies that, on [XXX] 2018, he and the spouse travelled to Canada in order to make a refugee claim, and they did so, travelling by boat.


[25]     For reasons below, I find that the claimants are Convention refugees, as, in my opinion, their expressed subjective fear has an objective basis.iv


[26]     The claimants’ national identity is established on the basis of a certified true copy of documentsv submitted by Immigration Canada, and, as well, as established in their package of personal documentsvi which include a copy of the national Identity card of Romania, in the name of the adult claimants.


[27]     I agree with counsel’s submissions, namely that, overall, the evidence is credible, and that it presents information of a serious violation of the claimants’ human rights in Romania.

[28]     I am satisfied that the principal claimant presented his testimony in a straightforward and consistent manner, and I find that he clarified, satisfactorily, the concerns raised by the Ministervii, in the written document.

[29]     I find that the principal claimant has adequately clarified that a charge against him in the USA was the result of an accusation of a [XXX] and that, in the end, it was [XXX] by a US Judge.

[30]     I note that, also, as clarification, the principal claimant has explainedviii that, in [XXX] by the police on a [XXX] on the street. Similarly, he explained, in [XXX], the principal claimant was [XXX] for the same offence of [XXX] on the street. He returned to Romania in 2007, following which he travelled around Europe job hunting, but eventually resorting to [XXX].

[31]     I find that the principal claimant was straightforward in his testimony in this area, and, with particular respect to the Minister’s concern on the charge against the principal claimant in the USA, the testimony is accepted, and not fatal to the claims.

[32]     As well, I find that the details of the manner in which the adult claimants entered Canada [XXX] in a process that, seemingly was contrary to CBSA requirements, is not a bar to the making of a refugee claim, and given the clarification provided.

Objective Basis

[33]     I find that the claims, as presented by the adult claimants, are supported by the guidelines in the Hand Bookix, and by the case-lawx, where it is held that a number of discriminatory and harassing acts may cumulatively amount to persecution.

[34]     I find that, in addition to the claimants’ undisputed testimony, I can rely on the documentary evidencexi, some of which forms part of Counsel’s submissions.

[35]     In his writtenxii and oral submissions, Counsel has provided a helpful review of the country condition documents and case law that relate to Romania, and as found in his documentary packagexiii.

[36]     In my own review, also, I find that a relevant guide to my conclusions is found in excerpts of the Response to Information Request, ROU105285.Exiv, as follows.

[37]     In that documentxv, the following is said, in part.

” … The World Bank report indicates that Roma in Romania are “poor, vulnerable and socially excluded” (28 Feb. 2014, 5). A report produced by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) that” draws on the results of the UNDP/World Bank /European Commission regional Roma 2011 survey [3]”, reports that approximately 81 percent of Roma are at risk of poverty compared to approximately 41 percent of non-Roma (EU and UN 2012, 24.xvi

Under the heading Treatment of Roma (Treatment by Society), it is stated that, “the US Department of State’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2014 indicates that roma face systemic discrimination by society, which affects them in areas of education, housing, health and employment (US 25 June 2015)… Country Reports 2014 notes that stereotypes and discriminatory language regarding Roma was widespread (US 25 June 2015,33)… According to a report the Open Society Foundation (OSF)… indicates that “pervasive racism and racist violence continue to distance many Roma families and groups from the greater society (OSF 10 Sept 2013yvii.

[38]     I find to be relevant, also, a documentxviii found in Counsel’s package where the opening sentence reads, ” … In a ruling dealing with what it called “institutionalized racism” directed against Roma in Romania, the European Court of Human Rights has for the first time explicitly made use of the term “ethnic profiling” with regard to police action it found to be discriminatory”xix.

Failure to claim elsewhere- [XXX]

[39]     I have accepted as reasonable, the claimant’s testimony and counsel’s submissions on the issue that the claimant failed to seek asylum in [XXX], which he visited in the year 2003 and 2006, respectively. Counsel points out that, and as found in his documentary package, an IRB documentxx, notwithstanding that there is not likely a bar against claiming refugee protection in these countries by citizens of these countries, the provisions of the Asnar Protocolxxi virtually prevents the filing of refugee claims from citizen of European States, as there is an almost zero recognition of claims among the European States.

[40]     Counsel points out that, according to some documentary evidencexxii, procedurally, the governments of these countries behave differently in the matter of asylum claims, and that some countries reject applications from countries considered to be safe countries.

[41]     I have determined, also, that the claimants’ decision to leave the USA to seek protection in Canada is not unreasonable, The principal claimant testifies that he was informed that Canada could provide them with protection, while, at the same time, during his wait in the USA he faced the difficulty of surviving on little money [XXX] while his spouse, the female claimant, [XXX] for money and food.

[42]     For these reasons and after careful consideration of the evidence and submissions, I find that the adult claimants [XXX], the principal claimant, and his common-law spouse, [XXX], the female claimant have established valid claims and are Convention refugees.

[43]     I accept the claims of [XXX].

[44]     I reject the claim of the son, [XXX], the minor claimant, a citizen of the USA. In his claim, no evidence has been adduced in support, pursuant to s.96 or s. 97 of IRPA.

(signed)           G. Griffith

July 7, 2020

i Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c.27.
ii Exhibit 2.
iii Ibid.
iv Rajudeen v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1984), 55 N.R. 129 (F.C.A.).
v Exhibit 1.
vi Exhibit 6
vii Exhibit
viii Exbibit 6
ix Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, under the I 951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, Geneva, January 1988, paras 54-55.
x Madelat v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1991] No. 49 (F.C.A.)
xi Exhibit 3, Index to National Documentary Package for Romania
xii Exhibit 10
xiii Exhibit 3
xiv Exhibit 3, Index to NDP for Romania, Response to Information Request (RIR), ROUI05285.E: Romania: Situation of Roma, including treatment by society and government authorities; state protection and support services available to Roma (2011-2015), Research Directorate, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Ottawa, 9 October 2015.
xv Ibid.
xvi Ibid.
xvii Ibid.
xviii Exhibit 10: Case Watch: European Court Finds Ethnic Profiling by the Police Discriminatory, Zsolt Bobis, Open Society Justice Initiative, April 23, 2019
xix Ibid.
xx Exhibit 12, European Union: Application of the Protocol on Asylum for Nationals of Member States of the European Union (2013- June 2015). Refworld (UNHCR), Canada: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, 9 July 2015
xxi ibid
xxii Ibid.

All Countries Romania

2020 RLLR 11

Citation: 2020 RLLR 11
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: September 9, 2020
Panel: Marlene Hogarth
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Peter Ivanyi
Country: Romania
RPD Number: TB9-11480
Associated RPD Number(s): TB9-11534, TB9-11543, TB9-11544, TB9-11545, TB9-11546
ATIP Number: A-2021-00540
ATIP Pages: 000072-000075


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

[2]       [XXX], [XXX], [XXX], [XXX], [XXX], and [XXX]; are citizens of Romania and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[3]       These claims were joined and the claimants’ mother [XXX] was the designated representative.

[4]       I find that you are Convention refugees according to Section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act because of your ethnicity, that being Roma, living in Romania.

[5]       You have alleged the following: you have experienced discrimination throughout your lives. The adult claimants have little schooling; all of the children have been harassed by their teachers and bullied by fellow students. You had difficulty finding work. When employment opportunities arose you were not hired when the employer recognized you as Roma; or if you were hired, you were shortly fired for some unknown excuse.

[6]       Sir, you joined a political party that wanted equality for the Roma people. You visited their homes to see how everyone was doing and organized rallies trying to get equal rights. The Romanian citizens became violent and threatened to kill you if you did not stop the demonstrations and leave Romania. Several Roma were injured, including you. The incidents were reported to the authorities; however the police did not investigate.

[7]       You operated a [XXX] to keep yourself and your family fed. Ma’am, you also worked there. You had to close the [XXX] after you were harassed on several occasions by Roman (sic) citizens and the police. They destroyed your [XXX] and stole your money. On one occasion your finger was badly ripped after an officer seized a vase. You reported these various incidents to the authorities; however you never received any help.

[8]       You decided the discrimination you endured was too much to take. You travelled to Germany and found work there. However you were verbally abused there and the minor, the younger children had difficulties with teachers and fellow classmates in school.

[9]     You decided to come to Canada to claim refugee protection. You arrived on [XXX], 2019 and made a claim on April 25th, 2019.

[10]     Your identities as Roma (sic) citizens has been established by your testimony and the certified copies of your passports held by Immigration Canada, found in Exhibit 1.

[11]     Credibility is always an issue in a refugee protection hearing. I found you were credible witnesses. Your answers were consistent with the documents and your narratives and evidence submitted in Exhibits 5 and 8. We also have country documents that support your allegations pertaining to the treatment that you received. These are all found in the Board’s documentation package found in Exhibit 3. Therefore I believe the allegations that you have written in support of your claim.

[12]     You have suffered discrimination throughout your lives. Documentary evidence found in Exhibit 3, 2.1, states that Romania is a constitutional republic with a democratic multi party parliamentary system. However significant human rights issues included police violence against Roma, endemic official corruption, law enforcement and authorities condoning violence against women and girls. The judiciary did take steps to prosecute and punish officials who committed abuses but the authorities did not have effective mechanisms to do so and delayed proceedings involving alleged police abuse and corruption resulted in many of the cases ending in acquittals.

[13]     The same document continues; police officers were frequently exonerated in cases of alleged beatings or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Discrimination against Roma continued to be a major problem. Romany groups complained that police harassment and brutality including beatings were routine.

[14]     Both domestic and international media observers reported societal discrimination against Roma. They were denied access to or refused service in many public places. Roma also experienced poor access to government services, a shortage of employment opportunities, high rates of school attrition, and inadequate health care. Roma have a higher unemployment rate and a lower life expectancy.

[15]     Now these things are all, all types of occurrences that you had to endure throughout your lives; difficulties finding employment, not continuing your schooling, and having difficulties with the health care, where you had to pay your own. As a matter of fact when you were having your children you had to pay the nurses to come into the room to help you. Even though there is an order by the Ministry of Education forbidding segregation of Romany students, Romany students were placed in segregated classrooms located in separate buildings.

[16]     And I just want to read just a couple of lines from Exhibit 3, 13.4. It states, “The World Bank report indicates that Roma in Romania are poor, vulnerable and socially excluded. They face systematic discrimination by society which affects them in the areas of education, housing, health and employment. It has been learned that government officials make discriminatory statements against Roma. The housing situation is grim; twice as many Roma live in houses made with poor quality material and they have less access to gas, running water, sewage and electricity.”

[17]     As you mentioned in your testimony today, you lived in a two room house and a kitchen that had no running water and no electricity.

[18]     Now we know that there is a law that prohibits discrimination in Romania; however the government does not effectively enforce these prohibitions and Roma often experience discrimination and violence.

[19]     So taking into consideration ail of the evidence that I have in front of me and there are several documents in Exhibit 3 that agree with your testimony and allegations, so taking into account all of the evidence and the documents that show the various forms of discrimination, although the government is attempting to improve the situation with the Roma population discrimination in all forms continues to exist.

[20]     I find that this continued discrimination you have faced amounts to persecution. Therefore considering all of the evidence and your testimony I find that if you returned to Romania there is a serious possibility that you would continue to face persecution. And in your particular situation there is no state protection available for you; you have gone to the police with no results. And there is no Internal Flight Alternative.

[21]     Therefore I accept your claim. You are Convention refugees, according to Section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Congratulations to you all. You can go home and tell your children and I wish you the best of luck. Thank you for coming and telling me your story. I know it’s not an easy thing to do.

[22]     So thank you very much, Counsel, and everybody have a good day.