2023 RLLR 92
Citation: 2023 RLLR 92
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 25, 2023
Panel: S. Williams
Counsel for the Claimant(s): James Hill Lawson
Country: Russia
RPD Number: TC1-05617
Associated RPD Number(s): TCl-05624
ATIP Number: A-2024-00593
ATIP Pages: N/A
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
[1] These are the reasons for the decision in the refugee protection claim of principal claimant, XXXXX, and her son, minor claimant, XXXXX, who claim to be citizens of Russia and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
[2] In rendering these reasons, the panel has applied the Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Gender Considerations in Proceedings Before the Immigration and Refugee Board.1
ALLEGATIONS
[3] Details of the claimants’ allegations can be found in the principal claimant’s Basis of Claim form. In summary, the principal claimant alleges that she and her son face persecution at the hands of the principal claimant’s ex-husband, Mr. XXXXX, as the principal claimant experienced domestic violence abuse at the hands of her ex-husband since the year 2011 and he has threatened her life.
DETERMINATION
[4] The panel finds the claimants to be Convention refugees as the principal claimant has established a well-founded fear of persecution based on a Convention ground, namely her membership in a particular social group, women facing gender-based violence; and the associated claimant has established a well-founded fear of persecution based on a Convention ground, namely his membership in a particular social group, as the immediate family member of a woman facing gender-based violence.
ANALYSIS
Identity
[5] The panel finds the claimants’ identities and Russian citizenship has been established, on a balance of probabilities, by the principal claimant’s testimony and the supporting documentation provided, including copies of the claimants’ Russian Federation Passports filed in exhibit 1.2
Country of Reference
[6] The principal claimant stated in her written narrative that the minor claimant’s father was born and raised in Uzbekistan and acquired Russian citizenship around XX months after marrying the principal claimant on XX XX, 2008. The panel has considered whether the minor claimant has the right to Uzbekistan citizenship on account of his status as the child of a person born in Uzbekistan.
[7] The law of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Citizenship of The Republic of Uzbekistan states “a child, one of whose parents at the moment of the child’s birth was a citizen of the Republic of Uzbekistan, and the other one was a person without citizenship, or was unknown, shall be a citizen of the Republic of Uzbekistan, regardless of the birthplace.”3
[8] Upon review of the minor claimant XXXXX’s birth certificate,4 the minor claimant’s father, Mr. XXXXX, is recognized as a Russian citizen. The principal claimant testified that Mr. XXXXX is not a citizen of Uzbekistan. She explained that Mr. XXXXX was forced to give up his Uzbekistan citizenship at the time he acquired Russian citizenship. The principal claimant testified that Mr. XXXXX did not have a permanent place of residence in the territory of the Republic of Uzbekistan at the time of their child’s birth.
[9] The objective evidence is in line with the principal claimant’s testimony. Uzbekistan citizenship is derived by birth within the country’s territory or from one’s parents.5 For a child to acquire citizenship by descent, at least one parent must be a citizen of Uzbekistan. Dual citizenship is not recognized in Uzbekistan.6 Article 10 of the Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Citizenship of the Republic of Uzbekistan addresses the non-recognition of foreign citizenship for citizens of the Republic of Uzbekistan, stating “A person, who is a citizen of the Republic of Uzbekistan cannot be recognized as a citizen of a foreign State.”7 On the subject of citizenship for children whose parents are not both citizens of the Republic of Uzbekistan, the law states, “With different citizenship of parents, if one is a citizen of the Republic of Uzbekistan when the child is born, the child shall be a citizen of the Republic of Uzbekistan: 1) if he was born in the territory of the Republic of Uzbekistan; 2) if he was born beyond the boundaries of the Republic of Uzbekistan but the parents or one of them at that time had a permanent place of residence in the territory of the Republic of Uzbekistan.”8
[10] In the case of minor claimant XXXXX, the child was born outside the territory of the Republic of Uzbekistan, at the time of his birth his father was already recognized by Russian Federation authorities as a Russian citizen, and the child’s father did not have a permanent place of residence in the territory of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Considering these factors, the panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the minor claimant’s father did not hold Republic of Uzbekistan citizenship at the time of the child’s birth and does not hold Republic of Uzbekistan citizenship at this time. Accordingly, minor claimant XXXXX does not have an automatic right to citizenship in Uzbekistan, on a balance of probabilities.
[11] The panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that acquiring Uzbekistan citizenship is not within the control of the claimants. Therefore, the panel finds Uzbekistan is not a country of reference in this matter. The panel finds Russia is the only country of reference for principal claimant, XXXXX, and her son, minor claimant, XXXXX.
Credibility
[12] The panel finds the claimant to be a credible witness on a balance of probabilities. The claimant testified in a straightforward manner. There were no relevant inconsistencies in the claimant’s testimony, nor were there contradictions between the claimant’s testimony and the other evidence before the panel.
[13] The claimant has credibly established that she married Mr. XXXXX in XX 2008 and suffered domestic violence abuse throughout their marriage. The physical abuse intensified as years went by and the principal claimant received threats to her life by her husband. The principal claimant described incidents of physical assault that occurred after she divorced her husband, including violent physical assaults that occurred in the year 2019 at which time Mr. XXXXX threated to kill the claimant if she ever “got a new man”, and pressured the principal claimant to resume living together with him. In the principal claimant’s oral testimony, she described ways in which she observed her husband to use their son “as a leverage” in order to harm the claimant or control her. The principal claimant described her son having been affected by witnessing the abuse that she had suffered at the hands of her husband. Following these acts of violence perpetrated against the claimants, the claimants fled Russia, entered Canada in XX 2019, and applied for refugee protection.
Subjective Fear
[14] The principal claimant testified that she traveled to Canada to visit her mother for a period of approximately four months (XX 2008 to XX 2019). The claimant explained the reason she did not apply for refugee protection in Canada at that time is because she had already separated from her husband, and she hoped that the matter would have “settled down” by the time she returned to Russia. The claimant testified that when she returned to Russia the abusive behaviours continued, and her husband began to engage in stalking behaviours and became fixated on the idea of the two of them reuniting. The claimant testified that these behaviours, and threats to the claimant’ s life, continued even after their divorce was finalized.
[15] The panel finds the claimant’s explanation to be reasonable. The panel accepts, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant believed the acts of domestic violence would stop because she and her husband had separated and because some period of time had passed, as the principal claimant has alleged in her oral testimony. The panel finds, under the particular circumstances of the claimant, her decision to return to Russia after visiting her mother in Canada, and her decision not to claim asylum in Canada during that trip, does not detract from her overall credibility or undermine her subjective fear.
Documentary Evidence
[16] The principal claimant provided documentary evidence in support of her allegations, which includes her marriage certificate issued XX, 2008,9 and certificate of dissolution of marriage issued XX, 2018,10 as evidence of the history of her relationship with Mr. XXXXX. In addition, the claimant provided letters of support from members of her community which include statements of their knowledge of the agent of persecution having neglected his child, abused alcohol, and was observed to be aggressive.11 The claimant also provided medical reports which demonstrate that she was hospitalized on several occasions and was treated for various injuries including bruises and mild concussion after being “assaulted and battered”. Medical reports indicate the claimant was reportedly “assaulted and beaten up by ex-spouse”.12 A letter of support from the principal claimant’s friend XXXXX, includes statements of Ms. XXXXX’s experiences having been approached by the agent of persecution after the principal claimant fled Russia. Ms. XXXXX states that Mr. XXXXX behaved aggressively and has threatened to find principal claimant through the “agency of Interpol” and “take their son.”13 The principal claimant submitted a XXXXX report which provides details of XXXXX she is facing, including XXXXX, following her experiences of abuse and intimidation by her ex-husband.14
[17] The panel finds the documentary evidence on file to be detailed, relevant and to corroborate the central allegations of this claim. The panel finds the principal claimant’s subjective fear and credibility have been established on a balance of probabilities.
Objective Basis
[18] The panel has reviewed the country condition documentary evidence on file. The National Documentation Package (NDP) for Russia is found at Exhibit number 3.15 Sources throughout the NDP, including but not limited to, NDP item numbers 2.2, 4.12, and 5.1 provide evidence that violence against women is prevalent in the Russian Federation, there is no specific law on domestic violence in the country, and that many constituent elements of domestic violence (insults, threats, obtrusive harassment, economic and psychological violence) cannot be addressed by law and remain unpunished. There is a lack of services available to victims of domestic violence, including emergency shelters, health services and hotline for victims.16 Considering the evidence before the panel, the panel finds the claimants’ fear of persecution is objectively well founded.
State Protection
[19] The principal claimant testified that she reported the domestic violence abuse to police on numerous occasions, however police were dispassionate and stated this was a family matter. The principal claimant stated that her husband was never charged, nor was a restraining order ever issued.
[20] The panel finds claimant’s testimony is in line with the country documentation regarding gender-based violence and treatment of women facing domestic violence in Russia. The panel finds there is clear and convincing evidence before the panel to demonstrate that the state is unable or unwilling to provide the clamant with adequate protection. Sources state:
i. “According to the NGO Stop Violence against Women, Russian police do not receive training in handling cases of domestic violence (723). They are hesitant to respond to and register violent crimes of domestic nature. Instead, officers tend to treat domestic violence as a private matter or a personal problem for the affected woman. The work of the police in cases connected to domestic violence is also hampered by a lack of legal options for police to remove or detain a suspected perpetrator unless the officer personally has witnessed the violence. In cases when formal charges are pressed the victim of domestic violence may qualify for state protection (724).”17
[21] In August, a study by the Women’s NGOs’ Consortium found that significant efforts to address the issue of domestic violence against women were absent, with the draft law on domestic violence, stalled from previous years, still failing to make the parliamentary agenda.18 United State Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices in Russia highlights significant human rights issues, including lack of investigation of and accountability for gender-based violence and violence against women. The same source states the government failed to take adequate steps to identify, investigate, prosecute, or punish most officials who committed abuses and engaged in corruption, resulting in a climate of impunity.19 In light of this evidence, the panel finds the presumption of state protection has been rebutted.
Internal flight Alternative
[22] The panel has considered whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for the claimants in Saint Petersburg. The claimant testified that the agent of persecution would be able to locate her in the IFA location as he could obtain information about her whereabouts when she registers her son in school and notifies government authorities of her new address. Furthermore, the claimant testified that her ex-husband has connections with police; and that he could obtain the help of police officers to locate the claimants in the IFA location. The principal claimant provided consistent and straightforward testimony of her personal experiences having witnessed the agent of persecution associating with police officers and having police “cover” for him at times when he has engaged in illegal activities in the past. The panel accepts, on a balance of probabilities, that the agent of persecution associates with police officers.
[23] With respect to the claimants’ requirement to register their personal information with Russian authorities upon return to the country, the objective evidence demonstrates that, “According to the Law on the right of citizens of the Russian Federation to the freedom of movement, the choice of a place of stay and residence within the Russian Federation, citizens of the Russian Federation are obliged to register their place of permanent or temporary residence with the authorities.”20
[24] Corruption and abuse of power by Russian officials is well documented in the objective evidence before the panel.21 Corruption in the law enforcement in Russia remains a serious problem,22 including endemic bribery and corruption among the police services.23
[25] The panel finds the principal claimant’s testimony is in line with the objective evidence regarding the requirement to register personal information, including address, with government authorities; and is also in line with the objective evidence regarding the issue of government officials engaging in acts of corruption and abuse of power. Accordingly, the panel finds the agent of persecution has the means of locating the claimant by use of personal identifying information about the claimants which he could obtain on account of his family status as the principal claimant’s ex-husband, and father of the associated claimant. The panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that this information may be used by the agent of persecution to obtain information from authorities, including police services, in order to locate the claimants in the IFA location.
[26] The panel finds the agent of persecution has demonstrated his motivation to pursue the principal claimant through a number of abusive actions and ongoing harassment. The panel finds the agent of persecution’ s actions of physically abusing the claimant for many years, threatening the claimant’ s life, and harassing the claimants’ relatives, even after the claimant separated from him, demonstrates the agent of persecution’ s firm intent to maintain control of the principal claimant. The principal claimant has provided evidence of the agent of persecution’s history of making threats to harm their son and use of their son as a means for him to exert control over the principal claimant. Accordingly, the panel finds the agent of persecution would also be motivated to harm the minor claimant, on a balance of probabilities.
[27] The panel finds the agent of persecution has the means and motivation to locate the claimants in the IFA location. Therefore, the panel finds a viable internal flight alternative does not exist for the claimants.
CONCLUSION
[28] Having considered all the evidence in this case, and based on the foregoing analysis, the panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that there is a serious possibility that the claimants would be persecuted if the claimants were to return to Russia. Therefore, the claim is accepted, and the panel concludes that the claimants are Convention refugees according to section 96 of Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).
——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———
1 Chairperson ‘s Guideline 4: Gender Considerations in Proceedings be/ore the Immigration and Refugee Board, Guidelines Issued by the Chairperson pursuant to section l 59(l)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, effective July 18, 2022
2 Exhibit 1, Claim referral information from CBSA/IRCC
3 National Documentation Package, Uzbekistan, 31 May 2022, tab 3.1: Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Citizenship of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Uzbekistan. 1992.
4 Exhibit 5, Personal Disclosure Documents dated August 6, 2021 (Certificate of Readiness with attached personal documents), page 7
5 National Documentation Package, Uzbekistan, 31 May 2022, tab 2.1: Uzbekistan. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2021. United States. Department of State. 12 April 2022.
6 National Documentation Package, Uzbekistan, 31 May 2022, tab 1.3: Uzbekistan. The World Factbook. United States. Central Intelligence Agency.
7 National Documentation Package, Uzbekistan, 31 May 2022, tab 3.1: Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Citizenship of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Uzbekistan. 1992.
8 National Documentation Package, Uzbekistan, 31 May 2022, tab 3.1: Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Citizenship of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Uzbekistan. 1992.
9 Exhibit 5, Personal Disclosure Documents dated August 6, 2021 (Certificate of Readiness with attached personal documents), page 17
10 Exhibit 5, Personal Disclosure Documents dated August 6, 2021 (Certificate of Readiness with attached personal documents), page 22
11 Exhibit 5, Personal Disclosure Documents dated August 6, 2021 (Certificate of Readiness with attached personal documents), page 70-104
12 Exhibit 5, Personal Disclosure Documents dated August 6, 2021 (Certificate of Readiness with attached personal documents), page 111-123
13 Exhibit 6, Personal Disclosure Documents dated December 8, 2022, Letter of Support from XXXXX dated XX, 2022
14 Exhibit 8, Personal Disclosure Documents dated August 3, 2022 XXXXX Report
15 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package for Russia – May 31, 2022 Version
16 National Documentation Package, Russia, 31 May 2022, tab 5.1: Russian Federation. Social Institutions and Gender Index 2019. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 7 December 2018.
17 National Documentation Package, Russia, 31 May 2022, tab 1.4: EASO Country of Origin Information Report. Russian Federation: State Actors of Protection. European Union. European Asylum Support Office. March 2017.
18 National Documentation Package, Russia, 31 May 2022, tab 2.2: Russia. Amnesty International Report 2021/22: The State of the World’s Human Rights. Amnesty International. 29 March 2022. POL 10/4870/2022.
19 National Documentation Package, Russia, 31 May 2022, tab 2.1: Russia. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2021. United States. Department of State. 12 April 2022.
20 National Documentation Package, Russia, 31 May 2022, tab 3.4: Availability of fraudulent documents. Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 15 November 2013. RUS104603.E.
21 National Documentation Package, Russia, 31 May 2022, tab 5.6: Killed by Gossip: “Honor killings” of women in the North Caucasus. Report on the results of a qualitative study in the republics of Dagestan, Ingushetia and Chechnya (Russian Federation). Stichting Justice Initiative. Yu. A. Antonova; S.V. Siradzhudinova. 18 December 2018.
22 National Documentation Package, Russia, 31 May 2022, tab 6.6: Russian Federation’s Compliance with International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Treaty: Suggested List of Issues Relating to Discrimination Based on Sexual orientation, Gender Identity, and Gender Expression. The Advocates for Human Rights; Moscow Community Center for LGBT+ Initiatives. 1 June 2020.
23 National Documentation Package, Russia, 31 May 2022, tab 7.3: OSAC Country Security Report. Russia. United States. Overseas Security Advisory Council. 2 August 2021.