2022 RLLR 106
Citation: 2022 RLLR 106
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: May 30, 2022
Panel: Abbas Kwofie
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Jaswinder Kaur Bajwa
Country: India
RPD Number: TC1-10972
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2023-01023
ATIP Pages: N/A
REASONS FOR DECISION
INTRODUCTION
[1] These are the reasons for the decision in the claim of XXXX who claims to be a citizen of India and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the Act).[1]
ALLEGATIONS
[2] The allegations in support of the claim are set out in the claimant’ s Basis of Claim (BOC)form.[2] To summarize, the claimant alleges that she is at the risk of harm at the hands of her ex-husband due to his threats to kill her as he wants the claimant to hand over her parent’s property to him. On XXXX, 2018, the claimant was attacked by her husband and his associates at her residence where they beat her, and she sustained injuries. The police were called, and they took away her ex-husband but then subsequently released him. Fearful for her life, the claimant departed from India and landed in Canada on XXXX 2018.
DETERMINATION
[3] The panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the Act, for the reasons that follow.
ANALYSIS
Identity
[4] The panel finds that the claimant’ s identity as a national of India is established on a balance of probabilities by her testimony, and by the supporting documentation filed, including her Indian passport.[3]
Credibility
[5] The panel assumes without deciding that the allegations in this claim are true. Therefore, the determinative issue in this case will be the availability of an IFA in New Delhi, Bengaluru (Bengaluru (Bangalore)), or Mumbai.
Determinative Issue
[6] The determinative issue in this claim is the availability of a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in New Delhi, Bengaluru, and Mumbai.
Internal Flight Alternative (IFA)
[7] In order for a proposed IFA to be viable, the panel must be satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that (1) there is no serious possibility the claimant would be persecuted or subjected personally to a risk to life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or a danger of torture in the proposed IFA, and (2) conditions in the proposed IFA are such that it would not be unreasonable, in all of the circumstances, including those particular to the claimant, for her to seek refuge there.
[8] The claimant argued that she will not be able to relocate safely within India due to lack of employment opportunities, difficulty in renting places, and due to safety issues for her as she does not have any social support in India.
First Prong of the IFA Test
[9] Based on the totality of the evidence, the panel finds that the claimant has not established with sufficient credible evidence that she would be persecuted throughout India by her ex husband. The claimant testified in her narrative that her ex-husband has political connections with the Bhartiya Janta party. When asked by the panel as to how her husband would be able to track her if she were to relocate to New Delhi, Mumbai, and Bengaluru, and what his motivation would be, the claimant responded that she lacks the ability to be able to support herself. Counsel for the claimant also questioned the claimant about her ex-husband’s ability to track her and the claimant provided the same response about her inability to support herself.
[10] Given that the claimant was unable to adequately answer the question as putto her by the panel, the panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that her ex-husband does not have the profile that she alleges that he has and therefore, does not have the ability to find the claimant throughout India. The claimant could continue to be a targeted by her ex-husband if she returns to her village in XXXX, Rajasthan. However, she did not provide any evidence about his political connections and how this would help him in finding her throughout India.
Second Prong of the IFA Test
[11] The panel has also considered the second prong of the IFA test in light of the claimant’s personal circumstances. The panel is mindful that the Federal Court of Appeal has set a very high threshold for the unreasonableness prong of the IFA test. Indeed, “it requires nothing less than the existence of conditions which would jeopardize the life and safety of a claimant.” The question to be answered on the second prong of the test is whether expecting the claimant to relocate to the proposed IFA location would be “unduly harsh.”
[12] When asked if there were any other reasons besides her fear as to why she cannot relocate to New Delhi, Bengaluru, and Mumbai, the claimant repeated her concerns about her age and her inability to take care of herself.
[13] The claimant testified during the hearing that she was able to come to Canada with the help of her sister in Calgary who purchased her ticket and that she provides her money and looks after her. When asked by the panel as to why her family that is in Canada could not continue to provide her with support in India, the claimant responded that all her relatives are here and that there is no one to take care of her.
[14] The question the panel must answer in this regard is whether the claimant, who is 75 years old, with no male support, will be able to relocate within India. The factors to assess this possibility are her status as a single woman, her ability to renta place, find employment, and be able to live safely on her own without social support. The panel finds that it will be unduly harsh and unreasonable for the claimant to relocate anywhere within India.
[15] Objective evidence shows that single women depend on someone’ s goodwill to be provided for.
IndiaSpend reports that single women have to “depend [on] somebody’s goodwill
– in-laws, parents, brothers and sisters-in-law” in order to provide for them and their children. In an article in the Hindu, an Indian daily newspaper, Sreemoyee Piu Kundu, [a columnist on sexuality and gender] who interviewed 3,000 single urban women in India, states that single women encounter “serious struggles with basic life issues such as getting a flat on rent or being taken seriously as a start-up entrepreneur or getting a business loan or even getting an abortion”.[4] [footnotes omitted]
On the issue of access to housing, objective evidence states that:
IndiaSpend indicates that “[n]obody wants to rent to single women” and that, according to Shikha Makan, an Indian filmmaker who directed a documentary, Bachelor Girls, on the difficulties that single women face when looking for housing in Mumbai, a woman is expected to live with her father or with her spouse. According to The News Minute, “a digital news platform reporting and writing on issues in India,” particularly on southern India, the same documentary, which tells the stories of “mobile, urban and educated” single women, describes how women may need to visit numerous apartments before securing one and that they may face additional and “often invasive” questioning during the rental process. Without providing further details, an article by Deutsche Presse-Agentur (DPA) notes that “[r]ecent studies” have shown that single women face difficulties in renting housing in Kolkata, Chennai and Mumbai. The Economic Times states that single women face prejudice when searching for a house and reports the example of a professional single woman in Jaipur who was told “unofficially” that her loan application “would be processed faster if it was taken in her brother’s name”.[5] [footnotes omitted]
[16] The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), on the issue of securing access to formal financial services for women in India states that:
India’s Mission for Financial Inclusion or Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana, initiated by Prime Minister Modi in 2014, has significantly boosted the percentage of women with a bank account, with the number of female account holders now higher than ever before. In practice, several banks continue to require either the husband’ s or the father’ s signature to approve loan applications for women, which continues to pose issues for women’s access to financial services.[6] [footnotes omitted]
[17] On the issue of participation of women in the labour force, OECD states that:
Despite these legal provisions, the rate of female labour force participation remains very low in India, and women are more likely than men to be employed in the informal economy, for instance in agriculture, domestic and home-based work, where they are not covered by labour laws or social protection measures. India ranks among the bottom of countries when it cornes to having women in senior management roles. Reconciling work with the responsibilities of caring for family is perceived as the biggest challenge for working women in India, by both men and women alike, as women are often expected by default to assume the role of caretaker.[7] [footnotes omitted]
[18] The UN Special Rapporteur, in her report on safety of women in India, stated that:
Sexual violence, including rape and sexual harassment, is widespread across the country and perpetrated in public and private spaces … Many interlocutors stated that there was a general sense of insecurity for women in public spaces, especially in urban settings. Women are easy targets of attacks, including sexual violence, whether while using public transportation or sanitation facilities or on the way to collect wood and water. Many victims of sexual violence carry a deep sense of shame, which is further exacerbated by the stigma and exclusion they experience, especially from family members and the community, and which may result in suicide.[8]
[19] The objective evidence discussed above establishes that women, especially single women, depend on male patronage in order to access rental accommodation and even former financial services. Banks are unwilling to provide any loans to single women without a male family member as co-signee. The claimant in this case is a single woman with no education and no work history who previously resided in her home village in her parental home. Her family situation has rendered her without family or male social support to relocate within India. Therefore, the panel finds on a balance of probabilities, that conditions across India are such that it would be unreasonable, in all the circumstances, including those particular to the claimant, for her to return to her country and seek refuge there.
CONCLUSION
[20] Based on the analysis above, the panel find that the claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 of IRPA. Therefore, the panel accepts her claim.
(signed) Abbas Kwofie
May 30, 2022
[1] The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, as amended, sections 96 and 97(1).
[2] Exhibit 2, BOC form TC1-10972.
[3] Exhibit 1.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, India, 30 June 2021, item 5.6.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid., Item 5.9.