2024 RLLR 115

Citation: 2024 RLLR 115
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: June 12, 2024
Panel: Lusine Unanyan
Counsel for the Claimant(s): James Hill Lawson
Country: Georgia
RPD Number: TC1-06653
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2025-00611
ATIP Pages: 58–65

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] XXXX citizen of Georgia, is claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)[1].

ALLEGATIONS

[2] The claimant’s allegations are set out in full in her Basis of Claim (BOC) form and narrative.[2] In summary, she alleges fear of gender-based persecution at the hands of her husband in Georgia.

DETERMINATION

[3] I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 ofIRPA for the following reasons.

[4] In deciding this claim, I have considered and applied the Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Gender Considerations in Proceedings Before the Immigration and Refugee Board[3] (“Guideline 4”) which offers guidance in recognizing women as members of a particular social group and with respect to other gender specific issues present in this claim.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[5] I find that the claimant’s personal and national identity as a citizen of Georgia is established on a balance of probabilities by her testimony and copy of her Georgian passport.[4]

Nexus

[6] The claimant has alleged that she faces risk of harm amounting to persecution due to her gender. This establishes a nexus with the Convention ground of membership in a particular social group of women fearing gender related persecution. Accordingly, this claim is assessed under section 96 of IRPA

Credibility

[7] A refugee claimant’s sworn testimony is presumed truthful unless there are valid reasons to doubt the veracity of their allegations[5]. The claimant testified on her allegations, and at all times her testimony was fluid spontaneous and elaborated. She elaborated at her own initiative and described contextual details regarding her allegations. Her testimony was consistent with the allegations contained in her BOC narrative and the other documentary evidence before me. She has also provided several probative and reliable documents, including medical documents corroborating the injuries she alleges sustaining at the hands of her husband, as well as a police document confirming a report was made regarding the abuse.[6] Based on all the evidence before me, I find the claimant to be a credible witness and believe what she has alleged.

[8] Specifically, I find that the claimant has established that she has experienced physical violence at the hands of her husband throughout her marriage. The abuse was repeated and significant, sometimes resulting in physical injuries. Police was called on two occasions but failed to provide meaningful protection. After the claimant came to Canada in XXXX 2019, which was meant to be a temporary family visit, her husband demanded that she return back and became aggressive and threatening when she failed to do so. The totality of the evidence supports the finding that the risk the claimant would face from her husband if she were to return to Georgia is forward-facing. I find that the claimant has established her subjective fear of persecution on a balance of probabilities.

[9] I note that the claimant made her claim for refugee protection approximately nine months after arriving in Canada. She explained that she made the decision to seek asylum after changing her mind about returning to Georgia, because of the threatening and abusive behaviour of her husband. I find this explanation reasonable and do not draw a negative credibility inference.

Well-Founded Fear of Persecution

[10] I find that the claimant’s allegations are corroborated by the objective evidence. The objective evidence found in the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Georgia.

[11] Domestic and gender-based violence is a significant problem that the government has taken several steps to combat.[7] The high rate of domestic violence showed reporting of incidents increased in the country and that the police were responding. However, shortcomings remained, including a tendency of some police officers to ask women what they had done to prompt domestic violence against them.[8]

[12] Intimate partner violence is among the most prevalent forms of violence against women in Georgia, and these types of violence cut across all divisions of income, culture, and class.[9] A 2016 UN Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women found that violence against women is widespread and tolerated because of entrenched patriarchal attitudes and gender stereotypes.[10] The special rapporteur noted that the Georgian authorities have enacted legislation in 2006 to eliminate domestic violence and that they criminalised domestic violence in 2012. Nonetheless, domestic violence, including physical, sexual, and psychological abuse, is still considered a private matter and not an issue of public concern.[11]

[13] A 2018 report by a Georgian human rights centre states that mitigation of domestic violence and violence against women is still a serious challenge in the state. The report attributes the lack of progress to “existing gender stereotypes in society, direct or indirect discrimination of women, patriarchal approaches, early marriages, women’s awareness about their rights, and legal mechanisms, no competence of law enforcement officers, their professional negligence, and the so-called “solidarity of policemen” or mail harassers.”[12] A 2022 report by the US Agency for International Development affirms that Georgia has taken significant steps to harmonize its national legislation with international standards, but that violence against women in Georgia remains a significant challenge.[13]

[14] The above objective evidence establishes that domestic violence is prevalent in Georgia, and the evidence before me demonstrates that the claimant personally experienced significant physical violence at the hands of her spouse. Therefore, I find that the claimant’s subjective fear of persecution in Georgia is objectively well-founded.

State Protection

[15] There is a rebuttable presumption that states are capable of providing protection to their citizens absent a complete breakdown of the state apparatus. However, this presumption can be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence that on a balance of probabilities adequate protection would not be forthcoming.

[16] The objective evidence set out above states that although the state has taken steps to address gender-based violence, problems remain, and the police have been reported to be complicit in enforcing patriarchal attitudes in which women are expected to tolerate abuse. In the claimant’s case, she has established on a balance of probabilities that she disclosed physical violence at the hands of her husband to police on two separate occasions. On both of those occasions, the police were aware that she suffered physical injuries, requiring medical intervention. She testified that she never heard from the police again after her initial interaction with them, and that her husband was never charged with any crimes. She has obtained a document from the police[14] regarding one of the incidents, when her knee was injured. The document states that after the complaint was received regarding the assault, the investigation was discontinued due to lack of evidence. Considering the claimant’s allegations that the police took her statement from the hospital and were aware of her injury, as well that her neighbour was a witness and was the one to contact the police, it raises questions about how the police concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support intervention. As I have found the claimant to be credible about these allegations, I find her evidence about her experience with the police to be sufficient to establish that on a balance of probabilities, she would not receive adequate state protection if she were to seek it in the future.

Internal Flight Alternative

[17] Tbilisi was proposed as an internal flight alternative (IFA) location.

[18] To determine whether a viable IFA exists, I must consider a two-pronged test. Under the first prong, I must be satisfied that on a balance of probabilities, 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 part of the country where there is an IFA. And, 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.[15] Both prongs have to be met in order to find that a viable IFA exists.

[19] In this case, for the reasons below, I find that the second prong of the test has not been met, and therefore that the claimant does not have a viable IFA. Accordingly, it is unnecessary for me to consider the first prong of the test.

The second prong of the IFA test (reasonableness) is not met.

[20] The Court set a very high threshold for what makes an IFA unreasonable in all the circumstances.[16] It is well established that the hardship associated with relocation requires proof of adverse conditions which would jeopardize the life and safety of the claimants in travelling to or in living in the IFA location.[17]

[21] The claimant is a 65-year-old woman and would live on her own if she were to move to Tbilisi. She alleges that she has a son in Tbilisi but that they have not spoken in several years and that she does not know anyone else there. Accordingly, she would have no family support in the IFA location. She testified that her knee injury continues to cause her ongoing pain and limited mobility, as well as about having other medical issues that require daily medication. She worked in Georgia as an administrator. She testified that she would need to attempt to find work in Tbilisi as the state pension is too low to afford to rent a home and other basic necessities, but that she suspects she would not be able to find work due to her age and lack of contacts there. Counsel has proposed, and I agree, that as the claimant ages, it is reasonable to expect that at some point, working would become too difficult. Counsel has further proposed that the claimant would experience discrimination in the employment market based on her status as a woman as well as based on her age.

[22] The objective evidence states that the Law on Gender Equality provides that the government promotes equal access to employment for both genders, but that further stipulations are recommended to strengthen the legislation.[18] In 2020, amendments were made to the Labour Code including referring to the definition of discrimination and obliging employers to pay equal pay for equal work.[19] However, the US Department of State reports that women continue to experience discrimination in the labour market.[20] With respect to social security programs, though there are state-provided pensions and other benefits , the existing social security system and strategies are described as “ineffective against social and economic vulnerability”.[21] The claimant’s testimony about being unable to meet basic needs on her pension is corroborated by several sources in the NDP, which state that the amount of the social package provided by the state fails to provide an adequate standard of living.[22] Another report describes that UNICEF found in a 2018 Welfare Monitoring Study (WMS) that “the volatility of Georgian households’ welfare remains a major concern” and that “70% of households participating in the WMS have been found to consume less than the subsistence minimum at least once in the past eight years”.[23] Other objective evidence about women’s rights in Georgia highlights discriminatory gender stereotypes and patriarchal attitudes, which create further vulnerabilities.[24] Elderly women face additional discrimination and are more vulnerable to violence.[25]

[23] Having considered the objective country documentation and the claimant’s personal circumstances, I find that on a balance of probabilities, it would be objectively unreasonable or unduly harsh in the claimant’s particular circumstances to relocate to the proposed IFA location. I find that she does not have a viable IFA in Georgia.

CONCLUSION

[24] Having considered the evidence in totality, I find that there is a serious possibility of persecution upon the claimant’s return to Georgia. I therefore find that the claimant is a Convention Refugee pursuant to section 96 of IRPA. Her claim is accepted.

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———

[1] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.

[2] Exhibit 2

[3] Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Gender Considerations in

Proceedings Before the Immigration and Refugee Board. July 18, 2022.

[4] Exhibit I

[5] Maldonado v Canada (MEI), [1980] 2 FC 302 (CA) at 305

[6] Exhibit 5

[7] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Georgia, 31 May 2024, Georgia, Item 2.1: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2023. United States. Department of State. 22 April 2024.

[8] Ibid

[9] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Georgia, 31 May 2024, Georgia, Item 5.5: National Study on Violence Against Women in Georgia 2017. United Nations. UN Women.; National Statistics Office of Georgia (GEOSTAT). 2018.

[10] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Georgia, 31 May 2024, Georgia, Item 5.1: Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences on her mission to Georgia. United Nations. Human Rights Council. 22 July 2016.

[11] Ibid

[12] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Georgia, 31 May 2024, Georgia, Item 2.10: Access to Justice for the Women, Religious and Ethnic Minorities. Human Rights Center. 2018.

[13] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Georgia, 31 May 2024, Georgia, Item 5.6: Gender Equality in Georgia: Barriers and Recommendations. United States Agency for International Development et al. 17 March 2022.

[14] Exhibit 5

[15] Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (C.A.), at 710.

[16] Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 F .C. 589 (C.A.)

[17] Ranganathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [2001] 2 F.C. 164 (C.A.)

[18] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Georgia, 31 May 2024, Georgia, Item 5.6: Gender Equality in Georgia: Barriers and Recommendations. United States Agency for International Development et al. 17 March 2022.

[19] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Georgia, 31 May 2024, Georgia, Item 5.9: Country Gender Equality:

Profile of Georgia. United Nations. UN Women. April 2022.

[20] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Georgia, 31 May 2024, Georgia, Item 2.1: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2023. United States. Department of State. 22 April 2024.

[21] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Georgia, 31 May 2024, Georgia, Item 5.9: Country Gender Equality: Profile of Georgia. United Nations. UN Women. April 2022.

[22] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Georgia, 31 May 2024, Georgia, Item 2.27: The Main Challenges of the Social Protection System for Various Vulnerable Groups in Georgia. Coalition for Equality. 2022.

[23] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Georgia, 31 May 2024, Georgia, Item 1.9: Georgia. BTI 2022 Country Report. Bertelsmann Stiftung. February 2022.

[24] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Georgia, 31 May 2024, Georgia, Item 5.1: Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences on her mission to Georgia. United Nations. Human Rights Council. 22 July 2016.

[25] Ibid