Category: Turkey

Citation: 2021 RLLR 49
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: April 12, 2021
Panel: Tamara Thomas
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Aleksandr Radin
Country: Turkey
RPD Number: TB9-33040
Associated RPD Number(s):
ATIP Number: A-2022-01594
ATIP Pages: N/A

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]       The Claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX (“Claimant”), is a citizen of Turkey claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“IRPA”).

DETERMINATION

[2]       Having considered the totality of the evidence, I find the Claimant to be a Convention refugee under section 96 of the IRPA as he would face a serious possibility of persecution on the basis of his membership in a particular social group, specifically, due to his sexual orientation as a gay man, should he return to Turkey.

ALLEGATION

[3]       The allegations of this claim are found in the Claimant’s Basis of Claim (“BOC”) form and subsequent amendment. In essence, the Claimant is a 28-year-old man who alleges harm from Turkish society, Turkish authorities, and his family, in particular his father and his uncles, due to his sexual orientation. The Claimant identifies as gay. He also alleges a fear of harm arising from his father’s perceived and actual political opinion as a Hizmet supporter (referred to as the Fethullah Terrorist Organization, or “FETO”, by the Turkish state). The Claimant’s father is a member of the military and has already been investigated, tried and released due to his perceived membership with FETO. The Claimant alleges his house was raided in October 2019, while he was still in Turkey, and the gendarmerie detained both himself and his father. The Claimant alleges his family learned of his sexual orientation during this raid. The Claimant also alleges fear of harm due to identifying as agnostic, as well as his conscientious objection to military service. He alleges that state protection is not available to him and that he would not be able to live safely anywhere in Turkey.

ANALYSIS

[4]       In making this assessment, I have considered all the evidence, including the oral testimony and documentary evidence entered as exhibits. I have also considered the Chairperson ‘s Guideline 9: Proceedings Before the IRB Involving Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression.ⁱ

IDENTITY

[5]       I am satisfied of the Claimant’s personal and national identity as a citizen of Turkey, which has been established on a balance of probabilities by his genuine Turkish passport, a copy of which is in evidence.ⁱⁱ The original was seized upon the Claimant making his refugee claim in Canada.

NEXUS

[6]       I find the Claimant has established, on a balance of probabilities, a link between what he fears and a Convention ground; specifically, on the basis of his membership in a particular social group, due to his sexual orientation. This claim will therefore be assessed under s. 96 of the IRPA.

CREDIBILITY

[7]       When a claimant swears that certain facts are true, this creates a presumption that they are true unless there is valid reason to doubt their veracity.ⁱⁱⁱ The determination as to whether a claimant’s evidence is credible is made on a balance of probabilities.

[8]       Overall, I find the Claimant to have been a credible witness. While there were some internal inconsistences and inconsistences between the documents and the Claimant’ s testimony, discussed below, which I find are sufficient to rebut the presumption of truthfulness, I find that in considering his testimony overall in addition with the documentary evidence before me, the Claimant’s credibility as regards his sexual orientation has been made out on a balance of probabilities. The Claimant’s testimony was generally consistent with his narrative and with the documentary evidence on country conditions in Turkey. He testified generally about his experiences in Turkey, the ways in which he would try to keep his sexual orientation hidden from others and his family, provided the names of some his LGBTQ-identified friends in Turkey and, importantly, testified in detail about his previous partners. On balance, I find in this case that the level of detail the Claimant was able to provide about his previous partners was substantial and it significantly assisted in establishing his credibility as relates to his own sexual orientation.

[9]       The Claimant also provided some documentary evidence to support his claim, found at Exhibits 6 through 8, including letters of support from previous partners and LGBTQ-identified friends in Turkey. These letters are accompanied by identity documents for the writers.^iv There were some concerns about some of the ID documents provided for these individuals^v. These concerns were put to the Claimant at the hearing. I find ultimately however that these concerns are not sufficient on their own, without more, to call into question the reliability or genuine nature of the letters and I assign them full weight.

[10]     There was a significant concern arising from a discrepancy between the Claimant’s forms, narrative, and testimony regarding when he moved from Bursa to Afyon. Specifically, the Claimant’ s visa application to Canada and his Schedule A form suggest he did not move to Afyon until XXXX 2019.^vi This discrepancy is significant as the Claimant alleges to have met his partner, XXXX, in Afyon in mid-September 2018 and that XXXX returned to Istanbul in XXXX 2019, while the Claimant remained in Afyon.^vii The letter of support from XXXX also indicates that they couple met in the fall of 2018 and corroborates that XXXX moved to Istanbul in  XXXX 2019.^viii

[11]     When this discrepancy was put to him, the Claimant appeared confused. The Claimant’s Counsel revisited the issue in his questions, at which point the Claimant accepted that he must have relocated to Afyon by XXXX 2018. He testified that the company he worked for was physically located in Bursa, but given his line of work, he did not need to go into the office and could work remotely. He testified that when he first started working for the company, he initially travelled to Bursa approximately four days a week. The commute time would be just over 3 hours each way, but he needed the job. He started working remotely approximately a month after working there. He accepted the proposition that the dates listed in the “address history” of his Schedule A form was likely a mistake and that the reason Bursa was listed under the “personal history” section of that form was because his company was physically located there.

[12]     The Claimant’s testimony has not addressed my concerns. I find the Claimant’s testimony that his forms indicate he was in Bursa until 2019 because this is where is company was physically located is not borne out by evidence before me. Specifically, I find it concerning that all the Claimant’s forms requesting a history of where he was located, including those completed before the Claimant came to Canada, would provide the same timeline. I find this suggests that this was not simply a mistake. Further, the “personal history” section of his Schedule A form also indicates that he was in Bursa, unemployed, prior to starting his job in 2018, and after ending his employment in XXXX 2019. It would not make sense for the Claimant to indicate he was in Bursa prior and subsequent to being employed by this company if the only reason he wrote Bursa in the “personal history” section of the forms was because the company was located there. I find the balance of the evidence before me establishes that it is more likely than not that the Claimant did not move to Afyon with his family in XXXX 2018 as alleged in his narrative. This discrepancy results in a negative inference regarding the Claimant’s overall credibility.

[13]     I note, however, that the Claimant was able to provide detailed testimony about XXXX. and their time together, as well as his other same-sex partners in Turkey. As noted above, letters of support have been provided by several of these individuals. Given this, I am prepared to give the Claimant the benefit of the doubt despite my lingering concerns arising form the discrepancy detailed above. I therefore find the Claimant has established, on a balance of probabilities, it is more likely than not that he was in a romantic relationship with XXXX while in Turkey. I also find that, when weighed as a whole, there is sufficient credible evidence before me to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the Claimant has also been involved in other same-sex relationships in Turkey. This, along with his testimony regarding his own personal experiences, is sufficient to establish, on a balance of probabilities, his sexual orientation.

[14]     I find that, having established his sexual orientation, the Claimant has also established his subjective fear on a balance of probabilities.

Objective Basis

[15]     I find that this claim is objectively well-founded, as illustrated in the country conditions documents provided by the Claimant^ix and the information contained in the National Documentation Package (“NDP”) for Turkey.^x

[16]     The US Department of State’s 2019 Country Report for Turkey includes violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTQI+) persons on its list of significant human rights issues for the country.^xi Although same-sex sexual activity is legally permitted in Turkey, LGBTQI+ people continue to experience widespread discrimination, intimidation, police harassment, and violent crimes, including murder. Harassment and abuse against the LGBTQI+ community are reportedly common, with an increase in homophobic and transphobic assaults during the state of emergency.^xii These assaults have continued despite the end of the state of emergency.^xiii LGBTQI+ persons are still victims of honor killings by family members and there remains considerable social pressure for lesbian and gay individuals to enter heterosexual marriages and produce children.^xiv

[17]     The government at both at local and state-wide levels continue to espouse and support anti­ LGBTQI+ sentiment with its actions and statements. Pro-government media and high-level officials, including the president, have been noted to frequently make derogatory comments and statements about homosexuality. Recently, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the head of the Religious Affairs Directorate said in a Ramadan sermon that Islam condemned homosexuality because it brought disease and blamed it for the spread of HIV. These statements were subsequently supported publicly by the President and other cabinet ministers.^xv LGBTQI+ organizations have reported a sharp increase in campaigns of intimidation and harassment targeting individuals or planned events. Bans on LGBTQI+ events in recent years have continued, with attendees forcefully and violently dispersed by the police through the use of batons, tear gas, water cannons, and rubber bullets and detained by police for several hours. Police harassment of LGBTI+ persons remain common, and LGBTQI+ individuals have been taken into custody in Turkey due to social media posts and comments on social media sites such as Facebook.^xvi

[18]     Hate speech against LGBTQI+ persons is not effectively persecuted and is often found to fall within the boundaries of freedom of speech. Sexual orientation and gender identity are still not protected grounds in hate crime law. The lack of explicit legal protection for LGBTQI+ individuals has amounted to a tacit legal endorsement of acts of violence and discrimination. There is widespread discrimination against LGBTQI+ people in education, employment, health, housing, and access to services. References in the law relating to “offenses against public morality,” “protection of the family,” and “unnatural sexual behavior,” have been used as a basis for abuse by police and for discrimination by employers. LGBTQI+ people continue to be treated negatively in the workplace on a regular basis and often have to conceal their sexual and gender identity at work or risk facing repercussions.^xvii

[19]     This objective country condition evidence is consistent with and supports the Claimant’s allegations of persecution and harm were he to live openly as a gay man. I find that, when considered as a whole, the documentary evidence establishes that it is more likely than not that LGBTQ+ persons are persecuted and unable to live openly without fear of being harmed in Turkey and that the level of discrimination in Turkey amounts to persecution given its pervasive and widespread nature, including the inability of LGBTQI+ individuals to live openly in Turkey while simultaneously accessing services that are essential for their livelihood, such as work, housing, or health services.

[20]     I therefore find the Claimant has established a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of his sexual orientation.

[21]     The Claimant has also raised allegations of harm based on his political opinion due to his perceived membership with the Hizmet movement, as well as on the basis of his conscientious objection to military service and agnosticism. However, given I have found the Claimant has established his claim on the basis of his sexual orientation, I will not engage in an assessment of the other alleged grounds put forward.

State protection would not be available

[22]     Given the foregoing, I find there is sufficiently clear and convincing evidence to find the presumption of state protection to be rebutted. In practice, law enforcement officials and the judiciary take a lenient attitude towards crimes committed against LGBTQI+ individuals. A May 2020 Kaos GL report indicates that there was an “increase” in rights violations against LGBTI+ individuals “that originated directly from authorities and law enforcement” in 2019. Judges have routinely applied the defense of “unjustifiable provocation” under the penal code to reduce sentences of those who have killed LGBTQI+ persons, and courts of appeal have upheld the verdicts based, in part, on the “‘immoral nature’ of the victim.” Numerous cases of crimes against people of a different sexual orientation or gender identity remain unpunished. The ECRI Report on Turkey indicates that the police tend to trivialise hate crime targeted at LGBTQI+ persons and are reluctant to open investigations into such cases. Very few LGBTQI+ victims report hate crimes to the authorities, and many have suffered violence and sexual abuse from the police.^xviii I therefore find that state protection would not be reasonably available to the Claimant in Turkey.

There is no viable internal flight alternative (“IFA”)

[23]     For the same reasons, considering the objective evidence and that the agent of persecution is the state, I find the Claimant would face a serious possibility of persecution throughout the country. The objective evidence indicates that the level of persecution, lack of state protection and inability to live life openly as a gay man would remain the same across the country. I find the Claimant would face a serious possibility of persecution across the country and that there is therefore no viable internal flight alternative available him in Turkey.

DECISION

[24]     Given the above, I find that the Claimant has established, on a balance of probabilities, that he would face a serious possibility of persecution on the basis of his sexual orientation if he were to return to Turkey.

[25]     I therefore find the Claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to s. 96 of the IRPA and accept his claim.

(signed) Tamara L. Thomas

12 April 2021

i Chairperson‘s Guideline 9: Proceedings Before the IRB Involving Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression, Guidelines issued by the Chairperson pursuant to paragraph 159(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, Effective date: May 1, 2017.

ii Exhibit 1.

iii Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1980] 2 F.C. 302 (C.A.); 31 N.R. 34 (F.C.A.).

iv Exhibit 6, p. 45-67.

v  Exhibit 6, p. 57, 63.

vi See Exhibits 1 and 4.

vii See Basis of Claim narrative, at pars. 17-18.

viii Exhibit 6, p. 53.

ix Exhibit 8.

x Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package for Turkey (“Turkey NDP”), 18 December 2020.

xi Exhibit 3, Turkey NDP, Item 2.1: Turkey. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2019. United States. Department of State. 11 March 2020.

xii Exhibit 3, Turkey NDP, Item 1.14: Country Policy and Information Note. Turkey: Sexual orientation and gender identity. Version 2.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. June 2017; See also, Item 1 .4: Turkey: Country Report –Version 3. Asylum Research Centre. 21 November 2017.

xiii Exhibit 3, Turkey NDP, Item 6.5: Treatment of persons with diverse sexual orientation and gender identity and expression (SOGIE) by society and state authorities, including state protection and support services (2018—November 2020). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 26 November 2020. TUR200360.E.

xiv Exhibit 3, Turkey NDP, Item 1.17.

xv Exhibit 3, Turkey NDP, Item 1.17.

xvi Exhibit 3, Turkey NDP, Item 2.7: Weathering the Storm: Defending Human Rights in Turkey’s Climate of Fear. Amnesty International. 26 April 2018. See also, Item 1. I 4; See also, Item 1.4.

xvii Exhibit 3, Turkey NDP, Item 1.17; See also, Item 1.14; See also, Item 2.16: Turkey. Country report: Non­discrimination. European Commission. Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers. 20 1 9.

xviii Exhibit 3, Turkey NDP, Items 6.5, 1.14, and 1.4.

Citation: 2021 RLLR 9
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 9, 2021
Panel: Sandeep Chauhan
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Marianna Jasper
Country: Turkey
RPD Number: VC1-05783
Associated RPD Number(s):
ATIP Number: A-2022-00665
ATIP Pages: 000019-000026

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

[1]       These are the reasons for the decision in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX (the “claimant”), who is a citizen of Turkey, and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).ⁱ

[2]       In rendering my reasons, I have considered the Chairperson’s Guidelines on Proceedings Before the IRB Involving Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression.

ALLEGATIONS

[3]       The following is a brief synopsis of the allegations put forth by the claimant in her Basis of Claim (BOC) form.ⁱⁱ She fears persecution at the hands of society and authorities in Turkey due to her gender identity.

[4]       The claimant is a XXXX-year-old woman, who was born a male. Since early childhood, she would dress up and behave like girls and was bullied by other boys in school due to this. Tired of harassment, the claimant went to Germany in 2013, where she lived with her uncles and explored surgeries for transformation of her gender from male to female. In order to ease off the pressure of getting married to a female of her family’s choosing, the claimant married her female friend in Germany. After the German authorities determined that the claimant’s marriage with her friend was fake (of convenience), she was forced to return to Turkey as she could no longer stay in Germany. Her marriage to her friend was dissolved by the Turkish authorities after the claimant completed a series of gender reassignment surgeries in 2014 and got herself registered as a female. The claimant participated in rallies for the rights of LGBTQ community in Turkey and was detained by the authorities on two occasions in 2015 and 2016.

[5]       She travelled to Sweden and claimed refugee protection, which was denied by Swedish authorities as they ruled that she would be safe living in Turkey. The claimant returned to Turkey in 2017 and continued to live in Istanbul. She started getting threats from her extended family, who told her parents that she is bringing shame and dishonour to the family, and that she has to exit Turkey. Her uncle threatened to throw acid on her and make Turkey an unlivable place for the claimant. Fearing for her life, the claimant travelled to the United States (US) on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019 and crossed over to Canada, where she filed for refugee protection.

DETERMINATION

[6]       I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee as she has established a serious possibility of persecution on account of her membership in a particular social group for the following reasons.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[7]       I find that the claimant’s identity as a national of Turkey is established, on a balance of probabilities, based on a certified copy of her Turkish passport on file.ⁱⁱⁱ

Credibility

[8]       When a claimant swears to the truth of certain allegations, this creates a presumption that those allegations are true unless there be reason to doubt their truthfulness. (Maldonado [1980]

2.F.C. 302 (C.A.))

[9]       The claimant testified in a straightforward manner and there were no relevant inconsistencies in her testimony or contradictions between her testimony and the other evidence before me which have not been satisfactorily explained. Apart from her oral testimony, the claimant has provided corroborating documentary evidence^iv to support her claim. I have no reason to doubt the genuineness of these documents and accept them as genuine. Amongst others, the documents contain proof of claimant’s marriage in Germany with her friend and dissolution of the same by the Turkish authorities, proof of her gender reassignment surgery through an order of the courts in Turkey, threat note from the claimant’s uncle in Turkey, and support letter from claimant’s mother.

[10]     Based on the claimant’s straightforward testimony and the corroborating documentary evidence, I find her to be a credible witness and accept her allegations to be true on a balance of probabilities. In particular, on a balance of probabilities, I accept that the claimant was borna male and underwent gender reassignment surgery to a female, and that she has a subjective fear of returning to Turkey as alleged.

Nexus

[11]     For a claimant to be considered a Convention refugee, the well-founded fear of persecution must be by reason of one or more of the five grounds: race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion. The persecution that the claimant faces in this case is due to her gender identity after the gender reassignment surgery she went through from male to female. I find that she has established nexus to a Convention ground – membership in a particular social group; namely a claimant fearing persecution due to her decision to convert from male to female. As such, her claim is being assessed under section 96 of IRPA and not under section 97.

Well-Founded Fear of Persecution and Risk of Harm

[12]     To establish her status as a Convention refugee, the claimant had to show that there was a serious possibility that she would be persecuted if removed to Turkey.

[13]     I find that the objective evidence supports her subjective fears and establishes a serious possibility of persecution for the claimant if she is forced to return to her country. My reasons are as follows.

[14]     The US State Department 2016 Human Rights Practices Report noted that:

‘Minority groups, including …lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex (LGBTJ) individuals, continued to face threats, discrimination, and violence and reported that the government took insufficient steps to protect them. Progovernment media used anti-LGBTI …rhetoric.^v

[15]     The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), Australia reports that:

Human rights observers report LGBTI individuals often feel the need to hide their sexual orientation or gender identity at work, and those ·who do nor (or cannot may face negative repercussions. High unemployment rates in the economy as a whole make LGBTI individuals reluctant to complain about discrimination, for fear of losing their livelihoods. Turkish employment law allows the dismissal of a government employee who is found ‘to act in a shameful and embarrassing way unfit for the position of a civil servant’, while other statutes criminalise the undefined practice of ‘unchastity’. Human rights observers report employers have used these provisions to discriminate against LGBTI individuals. Social stigma against HIV/AIDS leads many LGBTI individuals to avoid testing for fear the results may be used against them.^vi

[16]     The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association, in its report on the treatment of sexual minorities notes that this group faced bias-motivated violence through political rhetoric.^vii

[17]     The objective evidence discussed above establishes that sexual minorities, including transgender individuals face continuous threats and violence in Turkey. This is based on societal perceptions and political rhetoric against this particular social group. Therefore, based on all the evidence before me, I find that the claimant will face a serious possibility of persecution if she is forced to go back to Turkey. Her fears are indeed well-founded.

State Protection

[18]     I find that adequate state protection has not been forthcoming to the claimant in this case.

[19]     According to the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary detentions:

‘The challenges relating to the protection of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons are exacerbated by the attitude of some family members of such individuals, as well as the trend observed by the Special Rapporteur during his visit, whereby law enforcement officials and the judiciary seem to take a lenient attitude towards crime committed against such individuals.^viii

[20]     DFAT reports that:

Transgender individuals can legally change gender, although a court must grant permission based on a medical report. Legal gender reassignment is conditional upon the individual remaining unmarried and undergoing surgery and sterilisation. Legislation does not explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in social institutions, government offices or corporations. 171e law does not guarantee LGBTI individuals certain rights enjoyed by others, including but not limited to marriage and associated partnership benefits such as retirement, inheritance. insurance. social security and access to the corpse in case of death.^ix

[21]     A Response to Information Request (RIR) on the treatment of LGBTQ community in Turkey states that:

The Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs report notes that the ban on public LGBTI activities in Ankara “remains in force [as of 2019]” (Netherlands Oct. 2019, 43). The Australian DFAT reports that “in practice the ban in Ankara and many other provinces persists as officials refuse permission on a case-by-case basis, citing security concerns” (Australia Sept. 2020, para. 3.89). The same source notes that in the months after the ban was reversed, police used water cannons, rubber bullets, and tear gas to disperse Pride Month gatherings (Australia 10 Sept. 2020, para. 3.89).^x

[22]     The objective evidence shows that LGBTQ community in Turkey suffers from lack of favourable treatment from the authorities in that country. The government not only fails to protect such individuals from violence at the hands of non-state actors but also indulges in curbing their rights. Therefore, I am satisfied that the claimant will be unable to access adequate state protection in Turkey and that the presumption of state protection has been rebutted in this case.

Internal Flight Alternative

[23]     I have also considered whether the claimant will be able to live safely anywhere else in Turkey as a transgender person. On the evidence before me, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that she does not have a viable internal flight alternative in her country. The societal attitudes against sexual minorities are prevalent throughout the country, which results in violence, threats, and discrimination against them. Objective evidence^xi shows that transgender persons have a lot of difficulty securing rental premises, have extremely limited job prospects, and do not have access to adequate housing. Therefore, for these reasons and for the ones similar to those of state protection, I find that the claimant will not be able to live safely anywhere in Turkey and that she does not have a viable internal flight alternative in her country.

CONCLUSION

[24]     Based on the analysis above, I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 of IRPA. Accordingly, I accept her claim.

(signed) Sandeep Chauhan

December 10, 2021

i Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.

ii Exhibit 2.

iii Exhibit 1.

iv Exhibits 6, 7.

v Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Turkey, 16 April 2021, tab 1.14: Country Policy and Information Note. Turkey: Sexual orientation and gender identity. Version 2.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. June 2017.

vi Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Turkey, 16 April 2021, tab 1.17: DFAT Country Information Report:

Turkey. Australia. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 10 September 2020.

vii Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Turkey, 16 April 2021, tab 6.1: Turkey. Annual Review of the Human Rights Situation of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex People in Europe and Central Asia. International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association. ILGA-Europe. February 2020.

viii Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Turkey, 16 April 2021, tab 1. 14: Country Policy and Information Note. Turkey: Sexual orientation and gender identity. Version 2.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. June 2017.

ix Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Turkey, 16 April 2021, tab 1.17: DFAT Country Information Report: Turkey. Australia. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 10 September 2020.

x Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Turkey, 16 April 2021, tab 6.5: Treatment of persons with diverse sexual orientation and gender identity and expression (SOGIE) by society and state authorities, including state protection and support services (2018-November 2020). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 26 November 2020. TUR200360.E.

xi Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Turkey, 16 April 2021, tab 6.1: Turkey. Annual Review of the Human Rights Situation of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex People in Europe and Central Asia. International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association. ILGA-Europe. February 2020.

Citation: 2021 RLLR 9
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 9, 2021
Panel: Sandeep Chauhan
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Marianna Jasper
Country: Turkey
RPD Number: VC1-05783
Associated RPD Number(s):
ATIP Number: A-2022-00665
ATIP Pages: 000019-000026

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

[1]     These are the reasons for the decision in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX (the “claimant”), who is a citizen of Turkey, and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).ⁱ

[2]     In rendering my reasons, I have considered the Chairperson’s Guidelines on Proceedings Before the IRB Involving Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression.

ALLEGATIONS

[3]     The following is a brief synopsis of the allegations put forth by the claimant in her Basis of Claim (BOC) form.ⁱⁱ She fears persecution at the hands of society and authorities in Turkey due to her gender identity.

[4]     The claimant is a XXXX-year-old woman, who was born a male. Since early childhood, she would dress up and behave like girls and was bullied by other boys in school due to this. Tired of harassment, the claimant went to Germany in 2013, where she lived with her uncles and explored surgeries for transformation of her gender from male to female. In order to ease off the pressure of getting married to a female of her family’s choosing, the claimant married her female friend in Germany. After the German authorities determined that the claimant’s marriage with her friend was fake (of convenience), she was forced to return to Turkey as she could no longer stay in Germany. Her marriage to her friend was dissolved by the Turkish authorities after the claimant completed a series of gender reassignment surgeries in 2014 and got herself registered as a female. The claimant participated in rallies for the rights of LGBTQ community in Turkey and was detained by the authorities on two occasions in 2015 and 2016.

[5]     She travelled to Sweden and claimed refugee protection, which was denied by Swedish authorities as they ruled that she would be safe living in Turkey. The claimant returned to Turkey in 2017 and continued to live in Istanbul. She started getting threats from her extended family, who told her parents that she is bringing shame and dishonour to the family, and that she has to exit Turkey. Her uncle threatened to throw acid on her and make Turkey an unlivable place for the claimant. Fearing for her life, the claimant travelled to the United States (US) on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019 and crossed over to Canada, where she filed for refugee protection.

DETERMINATION

[6]     I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee as she has established a serious possibility of persecution on account of her membership in a particular social group for the following reasons.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[7]     I find that the claimant’s identity as a national of Turkey is established, on a balance of probabilities, based on a certified copy of her Turkish passport on file.ⁱⁱⁱ

Credibility

[8]     When a claimant swears to the truth of certain allegations, this creates a presumption that those allegations are true unless there be reason to doubt their truthfulness. (Maldonado [1980]

2.F.C. 302 (C.A.))

[9]     The claimant testified in a straightforward manner and there were no relevant inconsistencies in her testimony or contradictions between her testimony and the other evidence before me which have not been satisfactorily explained. Apart from her oral testimony, the claimant has provided corroborating documentary evidence^iv to support her claim. I have no reason to doubt the genuineness of these documents and accept them as genuine. Amongst others, the documents contain proof of claimant’s marriage in Germany with her friend and dissolution of the same by the Turkish authorities, proof of her gender reassignment surgery through an order of the courts in Turkey, threat note from the claimant’s uncle in Turkey, and support letter from claimant’s mother.

[10]   Based on the claimant’s straightforward testimony and the corroborating documentary evidence, I find her to be a credible witness and accept her allegations to be true on a balance of probabilities. In particular, on a balance of probabilities, I accept that the claimant was borna male and underwent gender reassignment surgery to a female, and that she has a subjective fear of returning to Turkey as alleged.

Nexus

[11]   For a claimant to be considered a Convention refugee, the well-founded fear of persecution must be by reason of one or more of the five grounds: race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion. The persecution that the claimant faces in this case is due to her gender identity after the gender reassignment surgery she went through from male to female. I find that she has established nexus to a Convention ground – membership in a particular social group; namely a claimant fearing persecution due to her decision to convert from male to female. As such, her claim is being assessed under section 96 of IRPA and not under section 97.

Well-Founded Fear of Persecution and Risk of Harm

[12]   To establish her status as a Convention refugee, the claimant had to show that there was a serious possibility that she would be persecuted if removed to Turkey.

[13]   I find that the objective evidence supports her subjective fears and establishes a serious possibility of persecution for the claimant if she is forced to return to her country. My reasons are as follows.

[14]   The US State Department 2016 Human Rights Practices Report noted that:

‘Minority groups, including …lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex (LGBTJ) individuals, continued to face threats, discrimination, and violence and reported that the government took insufficient steps to protect them. Progovernment media used anti-LGBTI …rhetoric.^v

[15]   The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), Australia reports that:

Human rights observers report LGBTI individuals often feel the need to hide their sexual orientation or gender identity at work, and those ·who do nor (or cannot may face negative repercussions. High unemployment rates in the economy as a whole make LGBTI individuals reluctant to complain about discrimination, for fear of losing their livelihoods. Turkish employment law allows the dismissal of a government employee who is found ‘to act in a shameful and embarrassing way unfit for the position of a civil servant’, while other statutes criminalise the undefined practice of ‘unchastity’. Human rights observers report employers have used these provisions to discriminate against LGBTI individuals. Social stigma against HIV/AIDS leads many LGBTI individuals to avoid testing for fear the results may be used against them.^vi

[16]   The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association, in its report on the treatment of sexual minorities notes that this group faced bias-motivated violence through political rhetoric.^vii

[17]   The objective evidence discussed above establishes that sexual minorities, including transgender individuals face continuous threats and violence in Turkey. This is based on societal perceptions and political rhetoric against this particular social group. Therefore, based on all the evidence before me, I find that the claimant will face a serious possibility of persecution if she is forced to go back to Turkey. Her fears are indeed well-founded.

State Protection

[18]   I find that adequate state protection has not been forthcoming to the claimant in this case.

[19]   According to the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary detentions:

‘The challenges relating to the protection of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons are exacerbated by the attitude of some family members of such individuals, as well as the trend observed by the Special Rapporteur during his visit, whereby law enforcement officials and the judiciary seem to take a lenient attitude towards crime committed against such individuals.^viii

[20]   DFAT reports that:

Transgender individuals can legally change gender, although a court must grant permission based on a medical report. Legal gender reassignment is conditional upon the individual remaining unmarried and undergoing surgery and sterilisation. Legislation does not explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in social institutions, government offices or corporations. 171e law does not guarantee LGBTI individuals certain rights enjoyed by others, including but not limited to marriage and associated partnership benefits such as retirement, inheritance. insurance. social security and access to the corpse in case of death.^ix

[21]   A Response to Information Request (RIR) on the treatment of LGBTQ community in Turkey states that:

The Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs report notes that the ban on public LGBTI activities in Ankara “remains in force [as of 2019]” (Netherlands Oct. 2019, 43). The Australian DFAT reports that “in practice the ban in Ankara and many other provinces persists as officials refuse permission on a case-by-case basis, citing security concerns” (Australia Sept. 2020, para. 3.89). The same source notes that in the months after the ban was reversed, police used water cannons, rubber bullets, and tear gas to disperse Pride Month gatherings (Australia 10 Sept. 2020, para. 3.89).^x

[22]   The objective evidence shows that LGBTQ community in Turkey suffers from lack of favourable treatment from the authorities in that country. The government not only fails to protect such individuals from violence at the hands of non-state actors but also indulges in curbing their rights. Therefore, I am satisfied that the claimant will be unable to access adequate state protection in Turkey and that the presumption of state protection has been rebutted in this case.

Internal Flight Alternative

[23]   I have also considered whether the claimant will be able to live safely anywhere else in Turkey as a transgender person. On the evidence before me, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that she does not have a viable internal flight alternative in her country. The societal attitudes against sexual minorities are prevalent throughout the country, which results in violence, threats, and discrimination against them. Objective evidence^xi shows that transgender persons have a lot of difficulty securing rental premises, have extremely limited job prospects, and do not have access to adequate housing. Therefore, for these reasons and for the ones similar to those of state protection, I find that the claimant will not be able to live safely anywhere in Turkey and that she does not have a viable internal flight alternative in her country.

CONCLUSION

[24]   Based on the analysis above, I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 of IRPA. Accordingly, I accept her claim.

(signed) Sandeep Chauhan

December 10, 2021

i Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.

ii Exhibit 2.

iii Exhibit 1.

iv Exhibits 6, 7.

v Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Turkey, 16 April 2021, tab 1.14: Country Policy and Information Note. Turkey: Sexual orientation and gender identity. Version 2.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. June 2017.

vi Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Turkey, 16 April 2021, tab 1.17: DFAT Country Information Report:

Turkey. Australia. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 10 September 2020.

vii Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Turkey, 16 April 2021, tab 6.1: Turkey. Annual Review of the Human Rights Situation of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex People in Europe and Central Asia. International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association. ILGA-Europe. February 2020.

viii Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Turkey, 16 April 2021, tab 1. 14: Country Policy and Information Note. Turkey: Sexual orientation and gender identity. Version 2.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. June 2017.

ix Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Turkey, 16 April 2021, tab 1.17: DFAT Country Information Report: Turkey. Australia. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 10 September 2020.

x Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Turkey, 16 April 2021, tab 6.5: Treatment of persons with diverse sexual orientation and gender identity and expression (SOGIE) by society and state authorities, including state protection and support services (2018-November 2020). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 26 November 2020. TUR200360.E.

xi Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Turkey, 16 April 2021, tab 6.1: Turkey. Annual Review of the Human Rights Situation of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex People in Europe and Central Asia. International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association. ILGA-Europe. February 2020.

Citation: 2020 RLLR 114
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: October 19, 2020
Panel: Christine Medycky
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Aleksandar Jeremic
Country: Turkey
RPD Number: TB9-35318
Associated RPD Number(s):
ATIP Number: A-2021-00945
ATIP Pages: 000192-000202

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

[1]       [XXX], a citizen of Turkey, is claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96(1) and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Action.^[1]

[2]       As this claim is based on sexual orientation, I have taken into consideration at the hearing and in rendering my decision, the Chairperson’s Guideline 9: Proceedings Before the IRB Involving Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression.^[2]

[3]       The purpose of the Guideline is to help decision-makers better understand cases involving sexual orientation, gender identity and expression (SOGIE) and the harm individuals may face due to their non-conformity with socially accepted SOGIE norms. It addresses a number of issues, including the unique challenges individuals with diverse SOGIE face in establishing their SOGIE, and in presenting their refugee claims, the danger of stereotyping and inappropriate assumptions, as well as, what to consider when assessing credibility and evidence.

DETERMINATION

[4]       Having considered the totality of the evidence, I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee for the following reasons.

ALLEGATIONS

[5]       The details of the allegations are fully set out in the claimant’s Basis of Claim Form (BOC).^[3] To summarize, the claimant alleges a fear of persecution at the hands of his family, society at large and the state authorities in Turkey, due to his sexual orientation as a gay person.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[6]       The claimant’s personal and national identities were established, on a balance of probabilities, by his Turkish passport, certified true copy of which was provided by the Minister.^[4]

Nexus

[7]       I find that there is a connection between the persecution that the claimant fears and the Convention ground of membership in a particular social group, namely that of gay men in Turkey.

[8]       I find the claimant to be a credible witness. His testimony was straight-forward, detailed and frank. The claimant did not embellish. There were no discrepancies, contradictions, or omissions in the claimant’s oral and documentary evidence, that went to the core of the claim. Therefore, on a balance of probabilities, I accept that the claimant has established he is a gay man.

Background and self-identification

[9]       The claimant recounted that he comes from a family that is middle class and religious. His father is the head of the family, his mother is a housewife. The claimant has two older sisters whose marriages were arranged. The claimant self-identifies as a gay man. When asked what this term means to him, he stated that the meaning is different in Canada than in Turkey. In Turkey, he said it is synonymous to being “in prison” because there you cannot express your homosexuality openly, you must hide it and live your life “behind the scene” because it is unsafe to do so in public.

[10]     He testified that he started to feel different around the age of 9 or 10 but did not understand why at the time. When he asked his mother what the homosexual meant, a word he had heard on the television, she replied that he did not need to know and not to ask her such things. In his community, people were warned to keep their children away from homosexuals because they have no morals, are ill, and spread disease.

First experiences

[11]     The claimant was able to describe his first romantic encounters with the same sex. He was particularly affected by his experience with a high school student from another city. He provided details on how they met, what attracted him to the student, and where their ‘encounter’ took place. He was also able to express his emotions when the student’s cousin walked in on them, and describe the injuries he suffered as a result of the ensuing scuffle and how it explained them to his parents when he arrived back home. The claimant stated that after this incident he closed his Facebook account and changed his SIM card for his mobile to prevent from his friend’s cousin from finding him.

[12]     I asked the claimant if he had ever disclosed to anyone in Turkey that he was gay, and he replied that he confided his secret to a close high school friend, but only after she had divulged to him that she was a lesbian. This was confirmed in a letter from the said friend. Otherwise, he concealed his sexual orientation. I questioned him why he had not opened up to his more liberal aunt who lived in a different city than his parents, and he replied that although she was more liberal, she was still homophobic. He did not trust her to keep his secret and feared the potential repercussions he would suffer at the hands of his family, especially his father, if she told them he was gay.

[13]     The claimant testified that he some sexual relations with men during his university days, however he said they were not serious or long-term relationships.

Incident of abuse

[14]     The claimant stated that on two occasions he was verbally and/or physically assaulted due to his sexual orientation. The first occurred at an eatery in Istanbul where he and his lesbian friend were accosted by men shouting, “People should be burned alive. Your women look like men and your men look like women. Because of you people the world is going to end soon.” Other patrons joined in. The owner sensing trouble asked them to leave. Angered by what happened, his friend called the police. The police came, but did nothing, they just told them to go to another café. A few months later his lesbian friend was violently attacked in Istanbul and required hospitalization. The friend confirmed what happened at the eatery and the attack on her in a letter submitted into evidence.^[5]

Long-term relationship

[15]     The claimant engaged in a long-term relationship with a man in Istanbul. The claimant moved to Canada with this man to pursue English language studies. After the relationship broke down, the man threatened to reveal the claimant’s sexual orientation to his family.

Confrontation with father

[16]     The claimant testified that his father called him on [XXX] 2019. He wanted to know where his son was. When the claimant told him he was in Canada, the father became angry and said, “you go to Canada and sleep with men?” He had heard about his sones “bad habits” from his friend and had seen photos. The claimant’s father told him the that he would purchase a ticket for him to return to Turkey and that once he was back in the village “we will solve your problems there”.

[17]     The claimant testified that his father said he would bury him alive and once he knew his son had disappeared, he would kill himself because his son had dishonoured him, and he could not face people. The claimant said that his father was screaming and swearing at him on the telephone and that he hung up on him and has not spoken to him since. He changed his telephone number so his father could not reach him. He does however communicate with his eldest sister, with whom he is the closest, once a month to get updates on the situation at home, but that she deletes his number after each call. The claimant filed a claim in Canada for refugee protection on [XXX] 2019.^[6]

[18]     As to his involvement in the LGBT community in Canada, the claimant said he had registered with an LGBT NGO for a training but did completed it due to the COVID pandemic.

[19]     I accept on a balance of probabilities that the claimant has a subjective fear of persecution.

Objective Basis

[20]     Furthermore, I find on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant’s subjective fear has an objective basis.

Worsening situation

[21]     According to the National Documentation Package and country conditions documentation submitted by counsel, homosexuality has been decriminalized in Turkey since 1858 and for many years the LGBTI community enjoyed much freedom. However, the situation has worsened since the 70s when a succession of conservative governments came into power and systemically targeted the LGBTI community with repressive measures.^[7]

[22]     Today, the situation of sexual minorities lags behind the standards of the European Union and the United Nations. Consequently, LGBT people in Turkey face discrimination, violence – both physical and emotional, stigmatization and marginalization.^[8]

Freedom of assembly

[23]     Following an attempted coup on 15 July 2016, the Turkish Government declared a state of emergency. During this period, human rights and fundamental freedoms were severely restricted or suspended. A ban was imposed on public assemblies and activities of various civil society organizations.

[24]     In November 2017, Ankara’s governor imposed an indefinite ban on events organized by LGBTI associations because they risked “inciting hatred and enmity” and therefore the ban was needed to “prevent crimes being committed”, “protect public health and morality” and “protect other people’s rights and freedoms.” Pride events are also banned in Istanbul, Izmir, Antalya and Mersin. The NGOs Kos GL and Pink Life unsuccessfully challenged the ban in local administrative courts. Appeals to regional administrative court and to the Constitutional Court are pending. The ban violates Turkey’s national and International obligations to respect and protect rights to equality before the law and freedom of peaceful expression and association.

[25]     The impact of the ban is that it stigmatizes and marginalizes LGBTI people and makes them very vulnerable to attacks. LGBTI people are cast as immoral and criminals. As a result of this, many experienced LGBTI activists have sought asylum abroad.^[9]

Perception and Attitude of Turkish Society

[26]     Although founded as a secular state, traditional Islamic values are deep-rooted in Turkey’s government and society. Turkish society is patriarchal and gender roles are clearly defined. While homosexuality is not banned in Turkey, it is largely viewed as immoral and unnatural behaviour. A global study conducted by Pew Research Center in 2013 reports that acceptance of homosexuality in Turkey remains at a mere 9 percent.

[27]     The conservative AKP government considers the family to be the primary social institution and sees its values and traditions as essential to nation building and maintaining peace. Modem values are thus perceived as a threat to the disintegration of traditional social values. A majority of politicians do not support the LGBTI cause because this does not align with the values and morals of Turkish society. The Minister for Women and Family Affairs has publicly referred to homosexuality as “a biological disturbance” or ”disease and biological disorder in need of treatment”.^[10]

[28]     Furthermore, articles submitted by the claimant report that President Erdogan is tapping into strong nationalist and religious groups to bolster the sagging popularity of the AKP. In June 2019, Ali Erbas, who leads the Religious Affairs Directorate in Turkey, preached in a televised sermon on the coronavirus outbreak condemning homosexuality because it brings illness and decay. The head of the Turkish Red Crescent made a homophobic tweet in July of this year, which was sharply rebuked by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.^[11]

Honour Killings

[29]     So adverse is Turkish society to sexual minorities that many LGBTI individuals are killed by members of their own family for having ‘brought shame ‘to the family. Two well publicized cases of “honour killing” are that of 18-year old Ahmet Yildiz killed by his father in 2008, and 17-year old Rosen Cicek murdered in 2012 by his father and two uncles. LGBT advocacy groups closely followed the two trials and sought to become intervening parties in the proceedings. The courts rejected their requests. Honour killings are hard to document in Turkey because they are often covered up by families and police avoid investigating them.^[12]

Discrimination

[30]     Turkey does not have an anti-discrimination law perse, but anti-discrimination clauses are found in the Turkish constitution as well as various criminal, administrative and civil laws. The protected grounds explicitly enumerated differ from each other and are non-exhaustive.

[31]     Sexual orientation and gender identity are not listed among the protected grounds in the Turkish Constitution or other laws for example (the Penal Code, Labour Law, Basic Law on National Education, Law on Civil Servants, Civil Code, Law on Social Services, Regulation on Minimum Wages). Therefore, LGBTI persons’ rights are neither guaranteed, nor specifically protected under Turkish law. This critical gap in the law, which allows the courts to make rulings to the disadvantage of LGBTI persons.

[32]     The Human Rights and Equality Institution of Turkey (HREIT) is mandated to investigate, ex-officio or upon applications made, all allegations of discrimination and to render decisions on such cases. Both the European Commission and the UN Human Rights Committee have expressed concerns about the independence of the HREIT.

[33]     In 2019, the HREIT rejected complaints by trans persons of discrimination in accessing accommodations and services. A study by Mustafa Ozturk found that most LGBTI hide their sexual orientation in the workplace for fear of discrimination and those who do ‘come out’ experience severe discrimination or are terminated.

[34]     The European Commission has reported cases where police officers, teachers, bank personnel, and city workers that have lost their jobs due to their sexual orientation.^[13]

Hate Crimes

[35]     Hates crimes target people for who they are or are perceived to be. Although Turkey does have a law against hate crimes (Article 22 of the Turkish Penal Code), it does not include sexual orientation and gender identity as one of the protected grounds.

[36]     The OSCE Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) reported that Turkey’s law enforcement agencies do not record the bias motivations of hate crimes and that violations of human rights of LGBTI persons, gender-based violence, hate speech and crimes remain a matter of serious concern. Furthermore, the mainstream media under reports such crimes.

[37]     The lack of explicit legal protection for LGBTI persons and persistent discrimination against them amounts to a tacit endorsement of discrimination and violence against LGBTI persons. The documentary evidence shows that between 2010 and 2014, 41 murders of LGBTI personas were motivated by hate. Hate-crimes are not thoroughly and promptly investigated and often under punished in Turkey.^[14]

[38]     Courts frequently reduce sentences for hate crimes against LGBTI persons by applying Article 29 of the Turkish Penal Code (“Any person who commits an offence in a state of anger or severe distress caused by an unjust act shall be sentenced to a penalty of imprisonment for a term of eighteen to twenty four years where the offence committed requires a penalty of aggravated life imprisonment and to a penalty of imprisonment for a term of twelve to eighteen years where the offence committed requires a penalty of life imprisonment.) The Penal Code does not define what an unjust act is.^[15]

[39]     Having considered all of the evidence, I find on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant’s fear of persecution is well-founded. He would not be able to live openly as a homosexual in Turkey where he faces a serious possibility of persecution, and it is unreasonable to expect him to conceal his sexual identity or expression, in order to live free of persecution.

State Protection

[40]     As one of the agents of persecution is the Turkish state, adequate state protection is not available to the claimant.

Internal Flight Alternative

[41]     Neither does the claimant have a viable internal flight alternative. Turkey is in control of all of its territories and consequently there is no place he can go in the country that is safe.

[42]     Considering the totality of the evidence before me, I find that the claimant, [XXX], faces a serious possibility of persecution at the hands of his family, society at large and the state authorities, due to his sexual orientation as a gay person, if he returned to Turkey.

CONCLUSION

[43]     To conclude, I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee and therefore his claim for asylum is accepted.

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

^[2] Chairperson’s Guideline 9 of the Refugee Protection Division: Guideline issued by the Chairperson pursuant to paragraph 159(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act: Involving Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression. Effective date: May 1, 2017

^[3] Exhibit 2

^[4] Exhibit 1

^[5] Exhibit 4

^[6] Exhibit 2

^[7] Exhibit 3, s.6.2; Exhibit 5

^[8] Exhibit 3, s..6.1; Exhibit 5

^[9] Exhibit 3, s..6.1-4; Exhibit 5 

^[10] Exhibit 3, s..6.3; Exhibit 5

^[11] Exhibit 5

^[12] Exhibit 3, s.6.3

^[13] Exhibit 3, s.6.3; Exhibit 5

^[14] Exhibit 3, s.1.14, 2.1, 6.2

^[15] Ibid