Category: Romania

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

[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]

ALLEGATIONS

[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.

DETERMINATION

[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.

Identity

[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]

Nexus

[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.

Credibility

[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.

CONCLUSION

[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.

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

[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.

INTRODUCTION

[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.

ALLEGATIONS:

[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.

DETERMINATION

[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

ANALYSIS

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

Credibility/plausibility

[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 Minister^vii, 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 explained^viii 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 Book^ix, and by the case-law^x, 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 evidence^xi, some of which forms part of Counsel’s submissions.

[35]     In his written^xii 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 package^xiii.

[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.E^xiv, as follows.

[37]     In that document^xv, 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 2013^yvii.

[38]     I find to be relevant, also, a document^xviii 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 document^xx, 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 Protocol^xxi 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 evidence^xxii, 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.

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

DECISION

[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.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-