2024 RLLR 10

Citation: 2024 RLLR 10
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: May 2, 2024
Panel: Christine Medycky
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Felix Chakirov
Country: Mexico
RPD Number: TC2-20311
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2024-01886
ATIP Pages: N/A

 

DECISION

 

INTRODUCTION

[1]       The claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX, alleges to be a citizen of Mexico and is seeking refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).[1] 

[2]       During the refugee hearing and when writing this decision, the panel considered and applied the Chairperson Guidelines 4: Gender Considerations in Proceedings Before the Immigration and Refugee Board.[2]  The panel applied an intersectional approach to assess the claimant’s forward-looking risk, including her history of abuse.  The panel questioned the claimant in a sensitive manner, considering the potential impact of trauma and concussion on the claimant’s testimony, as well as her gender in the analysis of her refugee claim.

 

ALLEGATIONS

[3]       The details of the claimant’s allegations are set out in her Basis of Claim form (BOC) and amendments thereto.[3]   To summarize, the claimant alleges persecution in Mexico based on her gender.  She also asserts that she would be subjected to a personalized risk to life or to cruel and unusual treatment or punishment at the hands of her father out of revenge upon returning to Mexico.  The claimant asserts that no state protection or internal flight alternative exist for her country of origin. The details of her core allegations are as follows.

 

[4]       The claimant was born in the Municipality of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Veracruz State, but grew up in the community of XXXX XXXX, which belongs to the municipality of XXXX, in the State of Veracruz, Mexico.  The claimant has 4 biological sisters, 2 older sisters, XXXX, and XXXX, and 2 younger sisters, XXXX and XXXX, as well as 1 stepsister, XXXX, from her father’s side.  The claimant alleged that growing up her family life was marred by domestic violence, that she and her sisters suffered violence at the hands of their father, and that he had sexually abused her older sister XXXX from the age of 9 to 16. 

[5]       The claimant testified that in 2006, she and her sister, XXXX, went to work as house cleaners for a family in Papantla, and that they revealed to this family the abuse they had suffered at the hands of their father.  The claimant alleged that in 2006, XXXX, a member of that family, took them to the authorities and a denunciation against their father for his child abuse and sexual violence against XXXX was filed.  The claimant stated that she and her sisters, XXXX, and XXXX, gave statements to the police about their father’s abuse.  The police started an investigation.

 

[6]       The claimant alleged that after they had filed the denunciation, her father attacked XXXX with a machete outside of her school in XXXX 2006 and that after the attack, he was arrested, charged with attempted murder, and sentenced to 30 years in prison.  She stated that at the trial she, XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX testified against her father and that her father threatened to kill his daughters, and their mother, when he got out of jail.  After the trial, XXXX went to a convent-school in Xalapa, State of Veracruz, the claimant and XXXX went to study at the Catholic boarding school, ‘XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (XXXX), and the 2 youngest sisters stayed with their mother in XXXX XXXX.  After graduating, the claimant went to study at the university in the XXXX XXXX, State of Veracruz.

 

[7]       The claimant said her sister XXXX moved to Germany in 2016 and is now a permanent resident there.

 

[8]       The claimant declared that her father was released in 2018 without completing his full 30-year sentence.  He was in prison for only 12 years.  XXXX, her stepsister told the claimant’s mother and XXXX that she had met him at a supermarket in XXXX, he was out of prison, and that he was looking for them.  XXXX was close to her father and for this reason, the claimant and her mother and sisters never revealed any confidential information to her.

 

[9]       Fearful of their father, the claimant said that in XXXX 2018, she and her other 3 biological sisters moved from Veracruz State to Queretaro State.  Their mother went to live with her elderly parents in XXXX, XXXX Municipality, Veracruz State.

 

[10]     The claimant stated that XXXX left Mexico in XXXX 2019 for Germany and is now studying in the UK.

 

[11]     After XXXX left for Europe, the claimant said she felt paranoid, she only left home, when necessary, put false information online about herself, saying she lived in another state.  She claimed that since 2018 she visited her mother only twice.

 

[12]     The claimant said she sought ways to leave Mexico – she went to Canada for the month of XXXX 2019 for a language course, and after which she returned to Mexico.  She travelled to work in the US as an XXXX XXXX for 1 year from XXXX XXXX, 2020, to XXXX XXXX, 2021, under a JI visa, and then returned to Mexico.

 

[13]     On XXXX XXXX, 2022, the claimant came to Canada where she was to work for a family until XXXX XXXX, 2022.  The claimant alleged that the family promised to help her apply for a work permit as a XXXX, but they changed their mind and did not hire her.  The claimant then moved to XXXX, where she stayed for XXXX days with a fellow Mexican who was applying for refugee protection and then rented a room in a house which she shared with other people in XXXX from XXXX XXXX-XXXX XXXX, 2022.  The claimant alleged that a fellow renter, a Mexican, drugged and sexually abused her. The next day she went to the hospital, where she was given a pill to prevent pregnancy and administered some tests.  The claimant alleged that she filed a complaint regarding the sexual assault with police in XXXX.  She stated that the police gave her several telephone numbers to organizations she could contact for help, including one called Colombian Refugees; through that organization she found a refugee lawyer in June of 2022.

 

[14]     The claimant alleged that in 2023, XXXX was kidnapped and raped, she managed to escape and filed a denunciation against her assailant.

 

[15]     The claimant stated that her mother and younger sisters live in hiding in Veracruz State.

 

[16]     The claimant filed for refugee protection in Canada on July 5, 2022.

 

DETERMINATION

 

[17]     The panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA; she faces a serious possibility of persecution on the ground of her gender (membership in a particular social group) if returned to Mexico.

 

 

ANALYSIS

 

[18]     In making its assessment, the panel has considered all the evidence, including the claimant’s testimony and written evidence,[4] the objective country conditions documentation[5], as well as counsel’s submissions.[6]  The panel was also mindful of the many challenges faced by refugee claimants in establishing their claims, including the claimant’s age and educational background, nervousness, the impact of trauma, cultural and social factors, the difficulties inherent in providing testimony through an interpreter, the unfamiliar virtual hearing environment, and the high-stakes nature of refugee proceedings.

 

Identity

 

[19]     The personal and national identities of the claimant were established, on a balance of probabilities, by her Mexican passport, a certified true copy of which was provided by the Minister.[7]

 

[20]     The claimant established, on a balance of probabilities, that her biological father is XXXX XXXX XXXX by a copy of her birth certificate submitted into evidence.[8]

 

Nexus

 

[21]     For a claimant to be a Convention refugee, their fear of persecution must be based on one of the five grounds enumerated in the Convention refugee definition, namely race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.  The panel finds that the claimant’s fear of gender-based violence at the hands of her father falls within the Convention.   Women have been recognized by the Federal Court as constituting a particular social group, and that the fear of persecution likely to be committed against women in Mexico was sufficient to bring to bring their claim under the Convention, because sexual violence constitutes a serious violation of fundamental human rights and a denial of equality for women.[9]   Therefore, this claim is assessed under s. 96 of the IRPA.

 

Credibility

 

[22]     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.[10]  This presumption, however, does not apply to inferences, conclusions a claimant may draw from the facts, or speculation regarding future events, nor to fears that are not sufficiently supported by the objective evidence. The court stated in Olusola v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 799 at paragraph 25, that the presumption of truthfulness is “not a presumption that everything the witness believes to be true, but has no direct knowledge of, is actually true”.  The panel is entitled to draw negative inferences based on inconsistencies, contradictions, or omissions in the claimant’s evidence.  The determination as to whether a claimant’s evidence is credible is made on a balance of probabilities.  

 

[23]     The panel finds the claimant to be overall a credible witness.  She was consistent and detailed in her testimony about the abuse that she and her sisters suffered at the hands of their father, particularly about his sexual and physical violence against her sister XXXX.  She fluently described her family history, the context of the police denunciation, and who helped the XXXX to file the complaint, who provided statements in support the denunciation, her father’s threats against the women in his immediate family for filing the complaint, his conviction, how they discovered he had been released, and her family’s reaction to it (relocation, security precautions).  The claimant had difficulty accurately recalling dates, at times she would go blank, however given her past trauma and concussion as confirmed by submitted medical evidence (Dr. XXXX paper on the psychological impact of trauma and effects on memory and a medical report indicating that the claimant also has suffered a concussion recently),[11] the panel draws no negative credibility inferences.  The panel did have some credibility concerns unrelated to the claimant’s memory; however, they were either reasonably explained and/or insufficient to undermine her claim.  These concerns are as follows.

 

Failure to apply for refugee protection in Canada & reavailment to Mexico

 

[24]     The claimant came to Canada for 1 month in 2019, but did not apply for refugee protection, when asked to explain why she did not, the claimant said that she received a scholarship to attend the language program in Canada[12] and that it was a requirement to return to Mexico at the end of the said course.  Moreover, she was not aware that she could apply for refugee protection, she only discovered this when the Canadian police referred her to an organization in Canada helping asylum seekers.

 

[25]     The panel accepts her explanation as reasonable because it is not commonly known that women suffering gender violence can apply for refugee protection.  On her last trip to Canada, she tried to stay legally in the country through work but was unsuccessful.  She applied for protection after receiving contacts to an organization helping refugee applicants. Therefore, the panel finds that her failure to claim in Canada does not detract from her subjective fear of persecution in Mexico and draws no negative credibility inference.

 

Failure to apply for refugee protection in the US & reavailment to Mexico

 

[26]     The panel asked the claimant after their father was released from prison, if anything had happened to her, her other and sisters, if they had been threatened or harmed by their father.  The claimant said they lived in fear and paranoia and felt that they were being watched.  The claimant decided to leave Mexico for the US because she was afraid of being in Mexico.

 

[27]     The panel asked the claimant why she did not apply for refugee protection in the US when she went to work there as an XXXX XXXX [XXXX XXXX, 2020 – XXXX XXXX, 2021] and she replied that she was unaware at the time that she could apply for refugee protection and that she tried to prolong her legal status in the US by getting a job or going back to school.  She searched employment in her field of XXXX XXXX but was not successful.  Furthermore, her contract with the XXXX XXXX placement company was restrictive, she could only work with them and had to return to Mexico once her contracted ended.  The claimant testified that she also investigated studying in the US but was told she would need to change her US visa from J1 to F1.  To do this she would have to return to Mexico and then come back to the US.  She had not sought legal advice on filing a refugee claim, but she had spoken to a family member of a person at the Mormon Church that worked at the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (UCSIS), and they told her she had to get a F1 visa to study in the US.

 

[28]     Finally, the panel notes that the claimant testified that when she returned from the USA to Mexico, she went to live in XXXX, in the State of Mexico, because her mother and sister XXXX were there.

 

[29]     The panel asked why the claimant did not use her eTA to fly from US to Canada, instead of returning to Mexico, and she replied that the company she worked for made sure that their employees returned to their countries of origin, otherwise they would report them to US immigration.

 

[30]     The panel finds the claimant’s explanation for failing to apply for refugee protection in the US as reasonable, as she had clearly tried to prolong her legal status in the US through work or studies and was unaware of the possibility of applying for refugee protection. Therefore, the panel finds that her failure to claim asylum in the US does not detract from her subjective fear and draws no negative credibility inference.

 

[31]     Overall, the panel finds that there were no inconsistencies, contradictions or omissions between the claimant’s oral and written evidence and the country conditions documentation that went to the heart of her claim.  The claimant also submitted other documentary evidence which provide strong corroboration of her main allegations, namely:

 

  • A letter with personal and professional ID attached from a Ms. XXXX, in which she confirms that she represented the legal case of XXXX XXXX XXXX in 2006, at the time Ms. XXXX was the Legal Advisor and Head of the Conecalli, Xalapa Municipality (Assistance Department) in the State of Veracruz, which is under the Attorney General Office for the Protection of Children and Adolescents of Veracruz State.  She corroborates the claimant’s allegations that her father was physically and psychologically abusive to her and her sisters, that XXXX suffered sexual violence at the hands of their father from the time she was 9 years old to 16 years old and that he seriously assaulted her with a weapon and was arrested for attempted homicide in 2006.  Ms. XXXX states that the claimant’s father is “a highly dangerous person”, that during the course of his trial he threatened that when he got out of prison “ he would be paid”, that he was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment but that he was released from prison in 2018, he has been seen by the claimant’s relatives and that fearing his reprisals the claimant and her sisters left XXXX, Veracruz.[13]
  • Her High School and University diplomas.[14]
  • Her flight tickets for her trips to the US and Canada, and her XXXX XXXX work contract in the US and a letter from a Foundation confirming the claimant received a scholarship for language training in Canada in 2021.[15]
  • Two letters from XXXX, with ID attached (German PR card).  In the first letter she states that she “personally experienced the distressing circumstances that compelled my sister, XXXX XXXX XXXX, to seek refugee assistance. The situation has deeply affected all of our members of our family…”  In the second letter XXXX confirms that she was sexually abused by her father that he physically assaulted her resulting in his imprisonment for attempted murder and that she suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of these events.  Now the letter is typed and not signed, however since a copy of XXXX PR card in Germany was also submitted the panel still finds the letter reliable.[16]
  • A letter from the claimant’s XXXX, signed, dated XXXX XXXX, 2024, and with passport ID confirming the claimant’s allegations of her father’s abuse, sexual assault of XXXX, his imprisonment and early release.  She also corroborates the claimant’s allegation that her father threatened to kill them and for that reason she fled Mexico.[17]
  • A letter dated XXXX XXXX, 2024, with ID attached from a member of the family for whom the claimant, XXXX and XXXX worked for in XXXX, confirming that XXXX confided in them that XXXX had been sexually abused by their father, and that the signatory’s sister XXXX assisted XXXX in filing a police complaint against her father for sexual abuse.[18]

 

[32]     The panel accepts these documents as relevant, reliable, and probative and therefore assigns them substantial weight. 

 

[33]     Based on the overall credibility of the claimant’s testimony, the presumption of truthfulness, and the corroborative evidence, the panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant has established that her father abused her, and all of her sisters, that her sister XXXX suffered sexual violence at her father’s hands from the age of 9 – 16, that XXXX filed a complaint with the police against her father, that her father attempted to kill her because of this, that he was tried for attempted murder and sentenced to 30 years in prison, that he threatened to take revenge against all the daughters, that he was released after 12 years and that his daughter XXXX from a previous marriage, with whom he was on good terms, sought information about the claimant and her sisters whereabouts after his release from prison.

 

[34]     Therefore, the panel finds based on all the evidence, that the claimant has established on a balance of probabilities, her subjective fear of persecution at her father’s hands due to her membership in a particular social group namely women in Mexico fearing violence due to their gender.  The claimant’s subjective fear is supported by the objective evidence as follows.

 

 

Objective Basis

 

[35]     Objective sources in the National Documentation Package for Mexico and the submitted country conditions documentation, confirm the principal claimant’s allegations about the impunity and prevalence of gender-based violence in Mexico.[19]  

 

[36]     The Human Rights Watch World Report 2023 for Mexico notes: “Women and girls continue to face alarming rates of gender-based violence. In 2019, the government reported more than 1,000 femicides—killings of women because of their gender—about a quarter of all women murdered. Women’s rights groups say femicide is likely under-reported.”[20]

[37]     Amnesty International reported that gender-based violence continued to rise since 2018, with at least 20,292 feminicides from 2018–2023. Despite the Gender-based Violence against Women Alert activated in 22 states, impunity in the investigations remained unabated.[21]

[38]     In the report by Freedom House entitled ‘Mexico: Freedom in the World 2023’[22] it states: “Sexual abuse and domestic violence against women are common, and perpetrators are rarely punished. Implementation of a 2007 law designed to protect women from such crimes remains halting, particularly at the state level, and impunity is the norm for the killers of hundreds of women each year. Gender-based violence remains common in Mexico.  The vast majority of cases go unreported – nearly 80% of victims of domestic violence did not file a report on the abuse nor requested any support from institutions.  Despite this, domestic violence represents the second-highest number of criminal investigations in the country.”[23]

 

[39]     Based on the claimant’s firsthand experiences and the documentary evidence cited above, the panel finds that the claimant has established, on a balance of probabilities, a well-founded fear of persecution if returned to Mexico.

 

 

 

 

 

State Protection

 

[40]     Absent a situation of complete breakdown of the state apparatus, there is a presumption that the state is capable of protecting its citizens.  To rebut this presumption, the claimant must provide clear and convincing confirmation of a state’s inability to protect them.  State protection need not be sought where the evidence demonstrates it would be ineffective. 

 

[41]    The panel asked the claimant why she could not obtain state protection in Mexico, as her father had been convicted of his crimes and sent to prison and she replied that the Mexican authorities cannot protect her – when those type of things happen (child abuse, sexual violence) the authorities don’t do anything about it.  They only do something if the victim’s parents are lawmakers or millionaires. In Mexico there are many people who have been victims of sexual violence and abuse, the authorities tend to arrest the criminals once they have killed their victims, and the aggressor may have contacts with other criminals, or they pay a large amount of money to get out of prison.  The claimant asserted that the police were corrupt, and she believed that this is why her father did not serve his full term and was released after only 12 years in prison.  They did not know why he was released so early; to find out the reason of his release they would have to retain a lawyer to appeal his release.

[42]     The objective sources in the NDP for Mexico, report that the government has enacted many laws and regulations to protect victims of domestic and sexual violence and to punish its perpetrators, including making femicide a federal offense punishable by 40 to 60 years in prison, however these laws related to violence against women have not been effective.  Furthermore, “the state agents responsible for the practical implementation of the law do not have a gender perspective, are not committed to women or are openly misogynistic”.  Amnesty International reported that perpetrators were rarely brought to justice, state and municipal laws addressing domestic violence largely failed to meet federal standards and were often unenforced and authorities routinely failed to investigate gender-based crimes.[24]

 

 

[43]     According to the IRB’s Response to Information Request [MEX200313.E], dated 21 September 2020, municipal and state police forces lack the necessary resources and training to properly investigate crimes.  Ninety-three percent of all committed crimes are not reported or investigated.  Only 4 percent of cases were sent to trial.  In 2018, only thirty one percent of cases were finalized and only in fourteen percent of the cases were sentences handed down.  As of January 31, 2018, the number of state police officers for every 1,000 persons in Mexico is .8, and for municipal police officers it is 1.21, when the UN recommends the figure of 2.8.  Twenty-seven percent of municipalities do not even have a police force.  There is an average of 2 prosecutors and .9 judges for every 100, 00 inhabitants in Mexico in 2018.

[44]     Poor working conditions in law enforcement agencies leave police officers vulnerable to bribes and infiltration by organized crime.  The NDP sources indicate that the majority of Mexican society perceived the police, the Attorney General’s Office, and the judiciary as corrupt.[25]  People who are victims of crimes rarely file denunciations because of impunity, the police is often involved in crimes and thus they feel it is useless.

[45]     Based on the above, the panel finds the claimant has demonstrated that adequate state protection is not reasonably forthcoming to her, and the presumption of state protection has been rebutted with clear and convincing evidence.

 

Internal Flight Alternative

 

 

[46]     The panel considered whether a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) exists for the claimant in Mexico City, or Merida.  To determine whether a viable IFA exists, the panel must consider a two-pronged test.  Under the first prong, the panel must be satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant would not face a serious possibility of persecution or risk to her life or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in the proposed IFA location. Secondly, the IFA must be such that it would not be objectively unreasonable or unduly harsh in all the circumstances for the claimant to relocate there. Once an IFA is raised as an issue, the onus is on the claimant to show that they do not have an IFA.

 

First Prong: Risk in the IFA

 

[47]     Based on the claimant’s evidence and supporting documentation, the panel finds that the claimant has established, on a balance of probabilities, that her father is highly motivated in finding and harming her, because of her support of her sister XXXX and denunciation of his abusive behavior.

 

[48]     The panel questioned the claimant about her father’s ability to track her down in the proposed IFA locations, and she replied that her father was a very clever person who can obtain weapons.  She believed that he would use technology, family, and school connections to find her.  He could threaten anyone for information.  XXXX was close to him, and she knows where the claimant’s aunts live and the claimant communicates with them, so XXXX could find her through them, the claimant’s father could threaten anyone to get information about the claimant’s location.  The panel notes that the claimant has provided no evidence that her father has approached any of her aunts or family members, who are not in hiding, asking for information about the claimant’s location or that of her sisters, or mother. She clearly stated that her family does not trust XXXX and has not provided her with any confidential information. 

 

[49]     Therefore, the panel finds that the claimant has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that her father has the means to track her down in an IFA location.  She is speculating.

 

Second Prong: Reasonableness of the IFA

 

[50]     The claimant then went on to consider the second prong of the IFA test.  The test to show that an IFA is unreasonable requires nothing less than the existence of conditions that would jeopardize the life and safety of the claimant in relocating to a safe place. Actual and concrete evidence of adverse conditions is required.

 

[51]     The panel considered the claimant’s psychological state and the ongoing risk to her in Mexico.  The claimant underwent 2 psychological assessments, one by an Ontario registered XXXX with the use of a Spanish interpreter and a second assessment by an Ontario registered XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.[26]  Both professionals have assessed the claimant as being severely traumatized by the abuse and violence at the hands of her father growing up.  The claimant has a diagnosis of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and symptoms of XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX.  The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX wrote, “I believe Ms. XXXX XXXX symptoms will increase considerably should she be asked to return to Mexico. Returning to the place of original trauma is often deeply traumatic for someone like Ms. XXXX XXXX who experienced harassment, threats, physical violence, abuse, sexual assault, and fear.”  “Being exposed to intense stress, re-traumatization, and/or dangerous circumstances would likely cause Ms. XXXX XXXX psychological and emotional state to deteriorate, for her engagement and involvement in society to lessen, and for her level of self-care, motivation, and confidence to decrease significantly.”  “A woman, such as Ms. XXXX XXXX, who has suffered from such fear, harassment, threats, physical violence, abuse, sexual assault, and trauma, requires appropriate counselling and a strong supportive network in order to rebuild a sense of security and self-worth.”[27]  The XXXX goes on to state that she believes it will be more difficult for the claimant to access the treatment she requires in Mexico and cites a 2021 article which indicates that minimal mental health services are available and there are large gaps in mental health treatment in Mexico.[28]

 

[52]     The objective sources for the NDP for Mexico also report that individuals with mental health conditions face stigma and discrimination and human rights violations and abuse in psychiatric institutions in Mexico. 

 

[53]     Counsel quoted a study in his submissions by Martinez et al., which states that health care workers interviewed reported shortages of both staff and necessary medications, and according to interviewees in the same study, medical personnel are overworked and “lac[k] the time necessary to adequately evaluate and treat physical ailments”; as a result, staff “believed that they would not have the time to adequately detect mental health issues.”[29]

 

[54]     The panel also notes that if the claimant returned to Mexico she would have to live in hiding.  The Federal Court has held in Murillo Taborda v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 954 (CanLII), that an IFA is not viable if a claimant must live in hiding for fear of being discovered by the agent of persecution.  Furthermore, it would be unreasonable for the claimants to cut themselves off from all their family members and acquaintances.  

 

[55]     Having considered the conditions in the proposed IFAs and all the circumstances of this case, including those particular to the claimant, namely her needs for psychological treatment and family support, the panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that it is objectively unreasonable for the claimant to seek refuge in the proposed IFAs.

 

[56]     Therefore, the panel concludes that the claimant has no viable IFA in Mexico.

CONCLUSION

 

[57]     Having considered the totality of the evidence, the panel finds that the claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX, faces a serious possibility of persecution in Mexico, due to her membership in a particular social group, namely women in Mexico fearing gender-based violence.   Therefore, the claimant is a Convention Refugee pursuant to section 96 and the panel accepts her claim.

 

 

 

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———

                       

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

[2] Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Gender Considerations in Proceedings Before the Immigration and Refugee Board, Ottawa, Canada, effective date: July 18, 2022.

[3] Exhibit 2.1-2.3.

[4] Exhibit 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13.

[5] Exhibit 3, 6, 14.

[6] Exhibit 14.

[7] Exhibit 1.

[8] Exhibit 12.

[9] Salibian v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1990] 3 FCJ 250 at para 17, Josile v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 39 at para 28, Vidal Fernandez v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration, [2024] FC3 at para 46.

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

[11] Exhibit 8, 9, 10.

[12] Exhibit 11.

[13] Exhibit

[14] Exhibit 7.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Exhibit 11.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Exhibit 3, 6.

[20] Exhibit 3, Item 2.3.

[21] Exhibit 3, Item 2.2.

[22] Exhibit 3, Item 2.8.

[23] Exhibit 3, Item 5.10.

[24] Exhibit 3, Item 5.2, 5.10, 10.2.

[25] Exhibit 3, Item 2.8.

[26] Exhibit 8, 9.

[27] Exhibit 8.

[28] Ibid.

[29] Exhibit 14