Tag: PSG: Gender Based Violence

2022 RLLR 32

Citation: 2022 RLLR 32
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 8, 2022
Panel: Kari Schroeder
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Alfonso Mejia-Arias
Country: Mexico
RPD Number: VC1-05483
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01960
ATIP Pages: N/A

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX as a citizen of Mexico who is claiming refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “Act”).[1]

[2] In hearing and assessing this claim, I have considered and applied the Chairperson’s Guideline on Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution,[2] which offers guidance in recognizing women as members of a particular social group and also with respect to other gender specific issues present in this claim.

ALLEGATIONS

[3] The claimant fears a man named XXXX XXXX “XXXX” who sexually assaulted her in XXXX 2019. He had been a customer at the XXXXshe worked at and prior to the assault he had been sexually harassing her. She alleges that he is involved in a criminal organization. The claimant reported the rape to the police the next day but nothing came of it and a police officer told her just to let it go. XXXX days after the assault, the claimant’s husband was beaten. They relocated to Puebla. In XXXX 2019, the claimant received threatening phone calls. In XXXX 2019, the claimant states that XXXX associates found her in Puebla and attempted to shoot at her and her neighbour’s car that she escaped into. The claimant travelled to Canada and claimed protection in February 2020.

[4] There was an application to join the claimant with her son but was denied as the claimant did not want to discuss the rape with her son present.

DETERMINATION

[5] I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee under s. 96 of the Act.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[6] I find that the claimant’s identity as a national of Mexico has been established on a balance of probabilities by her testimony and a copy of her Mexican passport.[3]

Credibility

[7] When a claimant swears to the truth of her allegations, this creates a presumption that those allegations are true, unless there is reason to doubt their truthfulness. In this case, I have found no reason to doubt the claimant’s truthfulness. She testified in a straightforward and convincing manner, answered all of the questions posed to her, and was able to speak out of chronological order about the events giving rise to her refugee claim in Canada.

[8] I have some documentary evidence to corroborate the allegations, most significantly a police report taken on the night of the assault as well as a letter from the claimant’s husband confirming he was assaulted two days after his wife’s assault and was told it was retaliation for reporting to the police. I also have letters from the claimant’s former colleagues at the restaurant, confirming that the agent of harm had been repeatedly harassing the claimant in the months leading up to the assault.

[9] In addition to these documents, the claimant testified spontaneously and in a detailed manner about the risks that she faces in Mexico. I thus find that the claimant is a reliable witness and I believe what she has alleged in support of her claim.

Well-Founded Fear of Persecution

[10] In order to satisfy the definition of a Convention refugee found in section 96 of the Act, a claimant must establish that he or she has a well-founded fear of persecution by reason of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion. In this case the claimant was a victim of sexual violence and was targeted because of her gender. I thus find that there is a nexus to the Convention ground of particular social group, namely women. I have therefore assessed this claim under s. 96 of the Act.

[11] The claimant testified that XXXX is a very dangerous man who was known to be part of a criminal organization. She did not know the name of the organization, however, included into evidence were screen shots of an anonymous facebook group that tries to identify and expose members of criminal organizations, due in part to the fact that police are helpless to do so. In this case XXXX repeatedly sexually harassed the claimant at the XXXXwhere she worked. She testified that although he was rude to other waiters, the focus of his advances were on the claimant. When she rejected his request to celebrate her birthday with him, he followed her with his friends from the restaurant, forced her into the vehicle, and raped her. I find that the claimant has established a subjective fear of returning to Mexico to face further sexual violence from the agent of harm.

[12] The objective evidence indicates that violence against women is a significant problem in Mexico. Sources indicate that the rate of femicides in Mexico has increased by 137 percent over the last five years, while homicides have comparatively increase by 35 percent over the same periods. Sources indicate that the number of femicides committed by organized crime groups is “on the rise” with some analyses indicating that 63 percent of femicides reported in March and April 2020 were connected to organized crime.[4]

[13] Organized crime femicide occurs in areas where there is a presence of “gang cultures”, which women are considered “disposable” and that violence against them represents “gang cohesion and masculinity.” Sources further state that organized crime culture is “very macho, patriarchal, with very sexist undertones” and that organized crime groups murder women because they are “seen as an object owned by the rival and, to cause damage, they kill their women.” A recent Response to Information Request cites a case where a woman was killed in her home by persons who broke in looking for her husband, their presumed target, who was not home at the time.[5] The objective evidence indicates that a number of criminal organizations operate in Mexico and that their “predatory” activities include extortion and kidnapping.[6]

[14] Considering all the evidence before me, I find that the claimant would face a serious risk of persecution were she to return to Mexico.

State Protection

[15] The next element in my analysis is whether there is adequate state protection for the claimant in Mexico. While there is a presumption of state protection, this presumption can be rebutted with clear and convincing evidence that protection would not be forthcoming to the claimant.[7]

[16] The objective evidence confirms that police corruption in Mexico remains a major problem. A recent Response to Information Request (RIR) on the subject emphasizes that corruption within the federal police and the armed forces “underpins state collusion with criminals.” According to sources cited in the RIR, “analyses of drug trafficking, organize crime and human rights violations also highlight the role of police at all levels – federal, state, local – in facilitating illegal businesses, working for organized crime, and systematically violating human rights.” There are credible reports of police involvement in a number of crimes, including kidnappings for ransom.[8]

[17] A 2017 article from InSight Crime on police corruption, including police affiliation with cartels and police effectiveness, states that “in Mexico, organized crime has deeply permeated police institutions” and reports that in most Mexican states local police “have been infiltrated by organized crime.” In a different article, InSight Crime further notes that an entire municipal police force in the municipality of Tehuacan in central Puebla state was disbanded due to allegations of corruption and links to organized crime. According to that source, the “wholesale suspension of an entire municipal police force demonstrates the level to which organized crime and corruption networks penetrate the state on a local level.”[9]

[18] Compounding the above, the country condition documents indicate that laws addressing violence against women are not effectively enforced. Sources indicate that there has been “systemic impunity” in terms of how gender-based violence is addressed, and note the “complicity, indifference, and mismanagement of cases” involving violence against women. The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, amongst other sources, has emphasized that there are “deep-rooted institutional, structural and practical barriers” which continue to hinder access to justice for women, including that officials within the criminal justice system, including law enforcement officers, hold “discriminatory stereotypes” and “limited knowledge” of women’s rights.[10]

[19] In this case the claimant reported the rape to the police, but nothing was down. They told her to not to pursue anything further. Her husband was then beaten XXXX days later when XXXX found out about the police report. In view of both the objective evidence, which indicates that authorities have been compromised by corruption, and that gender-based violence is committed with impunity, as well as the claimant’s testimony on her inability to access state protection, I find that the presumption of state protection has been rebutted.

Internal Flight Alternative

[20] The final issue is whether the claimant has a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Mexico. In order to determine whether an IFA exists, I must assess whether there is any location in Mexico in which the claimant would not face a serious possibility of persecution and whether it would be reasonable to expect her to move there.[11] At the hearing I canvassed whether the claimant would have an IFA in Merida. However, after considering the evidence, I find that the claimant does not have a viable IFA because I am satisfied that the agent of harm would have the motivation and means to pursue her throughout Mexico.

[21] With respect to XXXX’s motivation, I considered that he has not contacted or threatened the claimant or her husband in the two years since she left Mexico. Conversely however, XXXXtargeted her specifically and violently attacked her when she rejected his advances. I find that if he were to learn that the claimant had returned to Mexico, he would have the motivation to pursue her in another city.

[22] Further, XXXXwas able to find the claimant in Puebla, which is five hours away from Mexico. This is the case despite the fact that she changed her phone number. His associates tracked her from the market and shot at her. The objective evidence before me also states that if organized crime groups in other parts of Mexico are interested and willing to retaliate against people relocated in Merida, Campeche, Cabo San Lucas, or Mexico City, they could do it easily. According to sources, criminal groups are motivated to track certain individuals because they steal or lose money; due to personal rivalries or due to personal vengeance; perceived betrayal; or public exposition of relationships with public officials.[12]

[23] Further, although the claimant is married, her testimony was that she and her husband’s relationship has changed since she came to Canada, and she is not certain that he would relocate to Merida with her. She is currently working in Canada and sending money back to the children, as he is not able to entirely support them. In terms of relocating in Mexico as a single woman, the evidence before me establishes that low-income single mothers with children under 15 years of age face limited access and enjoyment of the right to food, as well as economic, social and cultural rights due to, among others, the “vulnerable income status in which they find themselves, the discrimination they have suffered in different sectors such as social, labour and family, unequal access to employment opportunities, as well as low-paid jobs. Women face “difficulties and discriminatory practices … when attempting to enter the labour market.[13]

[24] I therefore find that an IFA would be objectively unreasonable in the claimant’s circumstances.

CONCLUSION

[25] For these reasons, I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee and I accept her claim.

(signed) Kari Schoeder

March 8, 2022

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

[2] Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution, Ottawa, Canada, March 1993, updated November 1996.

[3] Exhibit 1.

[4] National Documentation Package, Mexico, 29 September 2021, tab 5.20: Women whose past partners are involved in criminal activities and implications for their safety (2019–August 2021). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 27 August 2021. MEX200735.E.

[5] National Documentation Package, Mexico, 29 September 2021, tab 5.20: Women whose past partners are involved in criminal activities and implications for their safety (2019–August 2021). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 27 August 2021. MEX200735.E.

[6] National Documentation Package, Mexico, 29 September 2021, tab 7.18: Crime and criminality, including organized crime, alliances between criminal groups and their areas of control; groups targeted by cartels; state response; protection available to victims, including witness protection (2018–September 2020). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 21 September 2020. MEX200313.E.

[7] Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, 103 D.L.R. (4th) 1, 20 Imm. L.R. (2d) 85.

[8] National Documentation Package, Mexico, 29 September 2021, tab 10.2: Police corruption, including police affiliation with cartels and police effectiveness; state protection, including complaints mechanisms available to report instances of corruption (2017–September 2020). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 1 September 2020. MEX200314.E.

[9] National Documentation Package, Mexico, 29 September 2021, tab 10.2: Police corruption, including police affiliation with cartels and police effectiveness; state protection, including complaints mechanisms available to report instances of corruption (2017–September 2020). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 1 September 2020. MEX200314.E.

[10] National Documentation Package, Mexico, 29 September 2021, tab 5.20: Women whose past partners are involved in criminal activities and implications for their safety (2019–August 2021). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 27 August 2021. MEX200735.E.

[11] Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (C.A.); (1993), 22 Imm. L.R. (2d) 241 (F.C.A.).

[12] National Documentation Package, Mexico, 29 September 2021, tab 7.8: The crime situation in Mérida, Mexico City, Campeche, and Cabo San Lucas; organized crime and cartel groups active in these cities (as well as Yucatán state, State of Campeche, and Baja California Sur); the ability and motivation of organized … Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 8 September 2021. MEX200732.E.

[13] National Documentation Package, Mexico, 29 September 2021, tab 5.7: Situation of single women and of women who head their own households without male support, including access to employment, housing and support services, particularly in Mexico City and Mérida (Yucatán) (2017-October 2019). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 5 February 2020. MEX106364.E.

All Countries Barbados

2022 RLLR 30

Citation: 2022 RLLR 30
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 28, 2022
Panel: Nick Bower
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Tiffani Frederick
Country: Barbados
RPD Number: VC2-07212
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01960
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: These are my reasons for decision in the claims for protection of XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, citizens of Barbados who seek protection under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act as Convention refugees under section 96 and as persons in need of protection under section 97(1).

[2] I have heard your testimony and considered all of the evidence before me in this matter. As an initial matter, and I mean no disrespect by using your first names, but XXXX, you are the designated representative for XXXX XXXX XXXX who is still a minor.

[3] I have considered and applied the chairperson’s guideline 4 regarding claims of gender-based persecution.

[4] I specifically note as a starting point at paragraph 11.2.1, the guideline states that the Convention refugee ground of membership in a particular social group includes individuals fearing gender-based persecution.

[5] At paragraph 4.3 and paragraph 4.4, the guideline states that Members should avoid the application of myths, stereotypes, and incorrect assumptions when making findings of fact and law and when making decisions. Specific examples of these incorrect myths and stereotypes include assumptions that survivors of gender-based violence can be expected to behave in a particular manner, including pursuing criminal complaints, that a person in an abusive relationship will seek to leave at the first opportunity, that a person who has experienced gender-based violence once in Canada will automatically seek out counselling or assistance in overcoming trauma, that well-educated women or women with a capacity for self-sufficiency are less likely to experience gender-based violence, and that a person who is a victim of gender-based violence will necessarily know before arriving in Canada that they possess basic human rights, that what has happened is an infringement of those rights, and that there may be avenues of recourse available to them.

[6] At paragraph 8.2.1, the guideline talks about corroborating evidence and notes that survivors of gender-based violence may not have access to any corroborating evidence, any independent evidence. And that of course makes sense when one (1) considers that the allegations are of domestic violence, violence that happens in the home, in a very personal and private setting, that other people in the community are not likely to see or not — in any event, not likely to see the full extent of.

[7] At paragraphs 11.3.1 through 11.3.3, the guidelines discuss persecution. The guideline states that an individual’s experience of gender-based violence may not necessarily amount to persecution in every case. It is — it needs to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. But discrimination amounts to persecution if the consequences are substantially prejudicial, such as the right to earn a livelihood, rights to private and family life, freedom of movement, or the right to an education, and that harassment that is sufficiently serious and occurs over a period of time of time such that the person’s physical or moral integrity is threatened may constitute persecution.

[8] Having considered all of the evidence, I find that each of you is a Convention refugee under section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[9] Very briefly, you allege that you have in Barbados been living in a household with long standing domestic violence, physical and emotional. The worst of the physical violence was directed against you, XXXX, but all three (3) of you did suffer threats of physical violence at the very least, as well as ongoing psychological, emotional violence. The agent of persecution, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, is still alive, well, still living in the family household in Barbados.

[10] Turning to analysis, the first issue is identity. I have copies of your current passports in Exhibit 1 and copies of your birth certificates in Exhibit 5. I am satisfied that each of you is a citizen of Barbados. I have heard your testimony and reviewed all of the evidence.

[11] I find that each of you is a credible witness, and I accept your testimony. There are no significant inconsistencies or omissions between your testimony and the other evidence before me. Your allegations are at the very least not inconsistent with objective evidence about current conditions in Barbados. You both testified in a spontaneous and forthright manner. You did not exaggerate or tailor your evidence.

[12] You have provided some corroborating documents in Exhibit 5, but I accept your testimony. I find that you are credible witnesses and specifically accept your evidence that you have all survived a long standing violent domestic home at the hands of XXXX XXXX in Barbados. (Inaudible) that you have all suffered psychological harm, and that you have all been victims of — threats of, or actual physical violence from XXXX. Now, there is — I find XXXX, that you are not excluded from protection under article 1(f)(b) of the Convention. There is no evidence that — well, that XXXX XXXX XXXX father, XXXX, has consented to her coming to stay in Canada. It is potentially the crime of abduction under the Canadian criminal code, which does have a maximum penalty of 10 years, and so is presumed serious.

[13] However, section 285 of the Canadian criminal code provides a full defense if the person who removes the child from the other parent does so to either protect the child from imminent harm, or is him or herself escaping a danger of imminent harm. As I will explain, I find that you were escaping a danger of imminent harm, as well as protecting XXXX XXXX XXXX from danger of imminent harm. You therefore have access to the full defence under section 285, and so there is no serious reason to consider that you would be excluded from protection because you might have committed a serious non-political crime outside Canada before arriving in Canada to seek protection.

[14] There is a nexus between the persecution alleged and the particular social group of women in Barbados. The UN compilation at the NDP Exhibit 3, Tab 2.4, note that patriarchal attitudes in Barbados for example, prevent women from among other things, participating in governmental decision making. The country gender assessment at Tab 5.3 notes that very high levels of overall human development in Barbados have not been accompanied by a correlating and an expected gender equality, and that these patriarchal norms are used to justify violence against women who do not “know their place”, and support male control over women and girls’ bodies, including use of violence to get access to sex.

[15] I find that women and girls in Barbados do constitute a particular social group for the purposes of the refugee Convention in section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Further, XXXX XXXX XXXX, I find that there is also a particular social group (inaudible) your case as the family member of a person who fears persecution under section 96. You testified that if you were to return a loan, you may face a harm or at the very least ongoing pressure from XXXX to get information from you about your mother and sister that — in addition to potentially pursuing you — to pursue you, he would also pursue you to get after your family members who allegedly face gender-based persecution, and so, there is this additional particular social group in your circumstances.

[16] Turning to the well-founded fear of persecution, that has two (2) parts. A subjective fear and an objective basis. I have heard your testimony and I accept that each of you does have a subjective fear of persecution if you were to return to Barbados today. In the case of XXXX XXXX XXXX, I note guideline 3, dealing with child refugee claims — notes that due to a child’s age, the child might not be able to testify or give evidence themselves about specific issues in their claim, which can include whether or not they are afraid to return. But the Panel, the Division, as the deciding member, I can consider all of the evidence, and I can infer details of XXXX XXXX XXXX claim from all of the evidence provided. And based on the evidence, I can certainly infer, and I accept that she also has a subject subjective fear of persecution if she were to return to Barbados today.

[17] Considering all of the evidence, I find that your subject fear is objectively well-founded, and that you would face a serious risk of persecution if you were to return to Barbados today. Specifically, based on the evidence I have, I am satisfied that each of you would face at the very least, a serious risk of threats of physical violence, physical violence, and ongoing psychological violence causing psychological injury from XXXX, if you were to return.

[18] As the guideline notes, persecution can and should be considered to include threats to a person’s moral integrity. And the law is quite clear that psychological health is also health. Psychological harm is harm, just the same as physical harm. Threats of violence that cause psychological harm is as persecutory as threats and violence that cause physical harm. And it is analytically wrong to require an element of actual physical violence or harm if a person faces a serious risk of psychological harm. The evidence is that the physical violence has mostly — largely been directed against you, XXXX. But there have been threats of physical violence, and there has been, I find, on the evidence demonstrated, psychological harm to all three (3) of you.

[19] XXXX XXXX XXXX, you and XXXX XXXX XXXX have both sought out psychological treatment for the harm you have suffered. XXXX, you have looked into the availability of psychological treatment. XXXX XXXX XXXX in particular has — you have seen — shown very concerning signs of serious psychological harm that has led her to cut herself to inflect physical harm, just to demonstrate the depth of her psychological harm. If you were to return, there is a serious risk that XXXX would continue to act as he has done in the past. That he would continue to threaten you, that he would continue to manipulate you, that he would continue to use violence or threats of violence to control you, down to the level of what you can spend for groceries, something that is not even in your control. And that these threats of violence and violence would cumulatively, seriously threaten your physical and your moral integrity, would threaten your physical and your psychological health, and amounts to persecution.

[20] This is consistent with the objective evidence about conditions in Barbados. At Tab 2.2, the report by Freedom House notes that violence against women in Barbados remains widespread, and laws addressing domestic violence are not well enforced. At Tab 5.11, the report notes that rates of domestic violence have increased with the COVID-19 pandemic, which has forced families to remain at home.

[21] At Tab 5.3, the report notes that Barbados has a very high rate of gender violence with 27 percent of women and girls, or more than one (1) in four (4) reporting having experienced domestic violence. At Exhibit 6, there is an article from April 2022, where the chief magistrate correctly observes that domestic violence is harmful to everyone in the family. The chief magistrate notes that — states that domestic violence around children creates war zones in households, that unleash terrorists on society. It is a recognition that domestic violence has serious ongoing long-lasting harm, whether or not that instant of physical violence is directed against that individual or someone else in the family. I will come back to that article in a moment.

[22] If you were to return, Barbados is a very small country with a very small population. It is about 400 square kilometres, and has a population of just over 300,000 people. You would either be living with the agent of persecution again, or in the same community. There is simply not enough physical space or population to not be either living with him or living near him. If you are living with him, there is a serious risk that the same circumstances are simply going to continue, and you are going to continue to experience physical violence and psychological violence. If you were to live independently, out — away from him in another household, that would be — there would be a serious risk that would be seen as a loss of his face in the community.

[23] The reports note that — sorry, let me just find it — that — lethal violence against women. Murders of women in Barbados have increased. They did dip for one (1) year, but have remained well, far too high. And so, simply removing yourself from the same household does not reduce the risk of ongoing violence, and maybe an inciting incident, a triggering event that can lead to an increase in violence. If you were to return based on all of the evidence, I am satisfied that each of you would face a serious — persecution.

[24] XXXX XXXX XXXX, you are an adult. If you were to return, then it is possible that you could live outside the same home as the agent of persecution. However, you have testified, and I accept that there is a serious risk. He would still continue to pursue you either to continue to exert his control over you, as he is the man of the house, and you are therefore one (1) of (inaudible) “his women in the house to control.” But there is also a serious risk he would continue to pursue you to force you to give information about your mother, his wife, about your sister, his child daughter. And there is a serious risk given his use of violence in the home in the past, in a domestic situation in the past, that he could threaten and could use physical violence to compel you to either give him the information he wants, or to hurt you to — through hurting you, hurt your mother and sister.

[25] I find that you do not have a viable internal flight alternative. As noted by the CIA World Fact Book, Tab 1.3, Barbados is a very small nation. It is geographically small. It has got a small population. You have testified and I accept that everyone knows everyone. There is nowhere where you could relocate to, where you would not be able to find you easily. And of course, if he is able to find you, he would be able to travel to and reach you. It all comes down to his motivation, and there is no reason that — to believe that he will not be as motivated to continue the persecution as he was in the past. There is no reason to believe that his behaviour has changed or will change.

[26] I also note at Tab 5.3, the report on the country gender assessment for Barbados, that occupations — work in Barbados is highly differentiated by sex, and the — this differentiation has only been growing since 1996. That women make up the majority of workers who earn less than 500 dollars a week, and men make up the majority in all income brackets, earning more than 500 dollars a week. Women are statistically at the very bottom of the pay scale. Female headed households the reports states, poverty is concentrated among female headed households in Barbados.

[27] The CIA World Fact Book notes that unemployment overall is 10 percent as of 2017. That is one (1) in 10 people. But for youths, it is as high as 26 percent overall, and more than 20 percent for young women. That is more than one (1) in five (5). Given the evidence about work, about earnings, there is a serious risk that if you were to return and relocate, you would face poverty, because of your gender as independent women. I therefore find you do not have a viable internal flight alternative.

[28] Finally, I find that you would not receive adequate state protection. The US DOS report and other reports do note that Barbados has legally made steps to increase the laws protecting women from violence. However, considering all of the evidence, I find that these not — these are not practically enforced. Going back to that article I referred to, where the chief magistrate correctly notes that domestic violence is hurting everyone. He then goes on to say that the police are “too much involved” in domestic matters.

[29] You have provided another article in Exhibit 6, from January 2020, about a recent domestic violence case where the report quotes the president of the National Organization for Women, stating that domestic violence is not taken seriously by the courts, and particularly by the police. At Tab 2.4, the UN compilation, it states in regards to domestic violence and court response to domestic — “the committee was however, concerned about the insufficient resources allocated to the justice system, the overly burdened procedural rules, considerable backlogs and lengthy delays in processing cases, the limited capacity of the police and courts to address complaints from women about gender-based violence in a gender sensitive manner, and the absence of a specialized court on family laws.”

[30] At Tab 5.5, report by the research directorate states that police are slow and reluctant to respond to calls about domestic violence, and their response is by and large, inadequate. That is also consistent with the objective evidence about patriarchal norms in Barbados and society. The police are members of society and are presumed reasonably, to share those same opinions in the absence of evidence of effective training to combat these patriarchal attitudes. There are reports that there have been some attempts to provide this evidence, but the police are still reluctant to respond to domestic violence and see it as a domestic matter.

[31] Despite the laws in place or coming soon, I find that the police and the courts do not provide a practical adequate response to issues of domestic violence. That the police response is slow, it is inadequate, the court system is slow and inadequate, and this not only leads to a tolerance of domestic violence, a impunity for offenders, it is also consistent with and reinforces the patriarchal beliefs that say that men have control. That men are allowed to use violence to exert that control, and that women should know their place, because the police and the courts are not acting in a way to say anything different. For all of these reasons, I find that each of you is a Convention refugee under section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and I accept your claims for protection.

——————–REASONS CONCLUDED ——————–

All Countries Ukraine

2022 RLLR 29

Citation: 2022 RLLR 29
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 9, 2022
Panel: Hannah Gray
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Melissa Singer
Country: Ukraine
RPD Number: VC2-06405
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01960
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division, the RPD, in the claims of XXXX XXXX, the principal claimant or the PC, and her daughter, the minor claimant, XXXX XXXX, of Ukraine, who are cleaning refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and section 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the IRPA.

[2] At the hearing, the principal claimant, who is the mother of the minor claimant, acted as the designated representative for her child pursuant to section 167(2) of the Act and Rule 20 of the RPD Rules. Throughout this hearing and in this decision, I have considered and applied the Chairperson’s Guideline 4 on gender considerations in proceedings before the Immigration and Refugee Board as these claims include allegations of a risk of gender-based violence. I have also applied and considered the Chairperson’s Guidelines on child refugee claimants’ procedural and evidentiary issues as it relates to the claim of the minor claimant.

DETERMINATION

[3] I find that the claimants are Convention refugees pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA based on their well-founded fear of persecution in Ukraine.

ALLEGATIONS

[4] The specifics of their claims are stated in the claimants’ Basis of Claim forms and narratives in evidence. The principal claimant is a 33-year-old XXXX and the minor claimant is a 13-year-old girl. And they are both from Kharkiv, Ukraine. The claimants are Russian speakers and the principal claimant’s cousin and her family live Saint Petersburg, Russia. Starting in 2014 the claimants began to experience discrimination in Kharkiv as they had Russian relatives who came to visit them often. The threats they received began to escalate in 2021 when the claimants’ home was vandalized and they received written threats on a few occasions. When they went to the police, the police did not assist them or offer them protection. As the war began at the end of February 2022, the claimants began to fear for their lives and fled to western Ukraine to Lviv in early XXXX 2022 where they attempted to rent a house. They were informed that they could only rent a home if they spoke Ukrainian and if the principal claimant’s husband fought for Ukraine. They were told to leave when the principal claimant informed the landlord that her husband would not fight for Ukraine. The claimants then fled from Ukraine to Poland and then to Canada where the claimant’s cousin lives in Montreal at the end of XXXX 2022. The claimants fear they will be persecuted due to their imputed political opinion in Ukraine as they are Russian speakers who have Russian family numbers. And they also fear being persecuted by the Russian military as Ukrainian women or girls by the invading Russian troops or killed by the ongoing missiles and bombs. The claimants made their refugee claim in April 2022.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[5] I am satisfied with the identity of the claimants as citizens of Ukraine which is established by their testimonies and the copies of their passport with Canadian visas in evidence.

Credibility

[6] According to Maldonado, when a claimant swears the truth of their allegations, this creates a presumption that those allegations are true unless there is reason to doubt their truthfulness. I find no reason to doubt the truthfulness of the claimants. They testified in a straightforward, forthright, detailed and candid manner and there were no material inconsistencies, omissions or contradictions between the claimants’ testimonies and the other evidence in their case. They did not exaggerate or tailor their evidence. And in summary, their testimonies were consistent with the other evidence on the central aspects of their claims. I find the claimants provided ample details to expand upon their allegations. And although the claimants did not provide additional corroborating documents, I do not draw a negative inference on their overall credibility. I find that the objective evidence before me as well as the claimants’ identification documents and credible testimony establish on a balance of probabilities the facts alleged in their claims. Including that the claimants are Ukrainian women or girls from Kharkiv and Russian speakers. In addition, I accept, on a balance of probabilities, that they were threatened and received written threats to their home on multiple occasions. Therefore, I accept the subjective fear they have of returning to Ukraine now as they have nowhere to live and no protection there. And in sum, I find the claimants to be credible witnesses and therefore, I believe what they have alleged in support of their claims.

Nexus

[7] To qualify for refugee status under the Refugee Convention, an individual must demonstrate that they have a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion. The allegations establish a nexus to the Convention ground for the claimants based on their membership in a particular social group as women or girls facing a risk of gender-based violence in a situation of war. In addition, the allegations support a nexus to the Convention ground for the claimants based on their imputed political opinion as they have relatives who are Russian family and who often visited them in Kharkiv from Russia. And therefore, the claimants experienced repercussions in the form of discrimination which escalated to threats due to their imputed pro-Russia political opinion. I will, therefore, assess their claims under section 96.

Well-founded Fear of Persecution and Risk of Harm

[8] I find that the claimants have established a well-founded fear of persecution based on their gender due to the war. The claimants testified that they were fearful for their lives prior to leaving Ukraine due to the threats they received as well as the escalating violence from the war in Kharkiv and throughout Ukraine. Country condition evidence from the most recent update of the National Documentation Package for Ukraine. In particular, an independent legal analysis of the Russian Federation’s breaches of the Genocide Convention in Ukraine and the duty to prevent by the New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy at NDP Item 1.13. Establishes that there are one (1), reasonable grounds to believe Russia is responsible for direct and public incitement to commit genocide. And a pattern of atrocities from which an inference of intent to destroy the Ukrainian national group, in part, can be drawn. And two (2), the existence of a serious risk of genocide in Ukraine, triggering the legal obligation of all states to prevent genocide. This report provides examples of what it describes as a genocidal pattern of destruction targeting Ukrainians. The examples include mass killings, deliberate attacks on shelters and humanitarian routes, deliberately inflicting life-threatening conditions by targeting vital infrastructure, indiscriminate bombardment of residential areas, rape and sexual violence and forcible transfer of Ukrainians.

[9] One (1) second. Okay. In regards to the claimants’ risk of being persecuted as Ukrainian women or girls, a rapid gender analysis by Care International and UN Women at NDP Item 5.6 states that women constitute the majority of those displaced within and outside of the country. And they face significantly increased safety and protection risks, incidents of gender-based violence, particularly domestic violence and conflict-related sexual violence. Since the war began, women’s care burden has increased significantly with the lack of access to education facilities due to security risks, women’s engagement in volunteer activities, and men’s absence due to engagement in the armed forces. The war will increasingly impact unemployment rates among all categories of the population and will likely continue to push women into the unprotected informal sectors of the economy, poverty and dependency on social payments, especially among female headed households, will be expected to increase. This report, the rapid gender analysis, further states that staying in Ukraine can, however, have negative impacts on women and children’s security and can mean a lack of access to basic services. There are also accounts of family separation at the border. When women and children choose to leave, they face family separation and anxiety about the well-being of those left behind. This article further delves into the challenges for women of all ages to access aid and services in the war-torn areas of eastern Ukraine such as Kharkiv, where the claimants lived before coming to Canada. Many have fled and face further hurdles in accessing safe shelters in the western region of the country. This article states that, “For many respondents, financial and social support including pensions, child benefits and disability benefits is their only source of income. And many are concerned about whether they will be able to access these benefits. This is especially true for female headed households, families with persons with disabilities and families of pensioners. Moreover, this issue disproportionately affects women, who make up 72 percent of social protection recipients and the majority of older people and caregivers in Ukraine.”

[10] Women and girls are also more at risk of conflict-based sexual assault. NDP Item 5.6 states that there is increasing and concerning media reports of conflict-related sexual violence emerging in Ukraine, and many interviewees raised gender-based violence as a safety concern. Interviewed women CSOs highlight the particular risk of gender-based violence in occupied war affected areas. And the executive director of UN Women, Sima Bahous, noted in her speech to the UN Security Council, that this increasing information on sexual violence committed by the Russian forces is raising all the red flags. NDP Item 5.3 states that Kharkiv has been the site of heavy fighting between Russian and Ukraine forces since the start of the Russian invasion and continues to be one (1) of the front lines of the war. As a result, there is currently limited evidence available for what is happening in Kharkiv up to date. Based on the evidence before me and the circumstances of this claim, I find the claimants have demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution on both a subjective and objective basis. I also find that the claimants would face a serious possibility of persecution in Ukraine based on their profiles as women or girls who would be at risk of gender-based violence by the Russian military who have invaded the country of Ukraine.

State protection

[11] The claimants faced threats and vandalism due to their Russian language and their relationship with their relatives who were Russian in the past between 2014 and 2021. When these threats were reported to the police, the police did not assist the claimants, and the police are no longer in a position to help civilians due to the war in Ukraine. While states are presumed to be capable of protecting their citizens, it is the obligation of the claimants to demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that their home country is unable or unwilling to provide adequate state protection. And I find that while Ukraine has done all it can to protect its citizens, it is currently unable to provide them with adequate protection because the enemy they face is better armed and has sheer numbers of weapons and soldiers that are more than the Ukrainians have at their disposal. NDP Item 5.6 states that women constitute the majority of those displaced within and outside of the country and they face significantly increased safety and protection risks. Incidents of gender-based violence, including domestic violence and conflict-related sexual violence, are increasing, but services for survivors are not provided in full. And in many parts of Ukraine, the police are no longer responding to such cases of domestic or conflict-related sexual violence. Furthermore, drivers, mostly women, feel it has become dangerous to drive a car in Ukraine now because traffic lights are not working, and there are no police on the streets. Based on all the country condition evidence available, it is evident that the current ability of Ukraine to defend itself is entirely reliant on the military contributions from other countries. And therefore, whatever protection is being offered to its citizens is actually a form of surrogate protection. In considering the totality of the information available to me, including the most up to date publicly available news report and all the objective evidence before me, I find the claimants have rebutted the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence.

Internal Flight Alternative or IFA

[12] I will now consider a two (2) prong test in order to determine the viability of an internal flight alternative location for the claimants. First, I must be satisfied that, on a balance of probabilities, the claimants would not face a serious possibility of persecution or risk to life or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or danger of torture in the proposed IFA. Second, I must be satisfied that the conditions in the suggested IFA are not such that it would be objectively unreasonable, in all the circumstances including those particular to the claimants, for them to relocate and reside there. In the circumstances of this claim, I find that the risk the claimants face would exist throughout entire territory of Ukraine if they were to return now. The forces of the Russian Federation have shown the ability and willingness to strike each and every city in Ukraine from land, sea or air. They have also shown a willingness to indiscriminately rain artillery and missile fire on civilian infrastructure, bomb shelters, train stations, maternity hospitals and shopping malls. They have shown a willingness to summarily execute unarmed civilians, starve them of food, water and medical supplies and deprive them of basic necessities and sanitation.

[13] And this is reflected in the March 2022 UNHCR report on return to Ukraine found at NDP Item 1.23, that describes the situation in Ukraine as volatile and uncertain. The UNHCR report calls on states to suspend the return of nationals to the country. It states that in view of the volatility of the situation in the entire territory of Ukraine, UNHCR does not consider it appropriate to deny international protection to Ukrainians and former habitual residents of Ukraine on the basis of an internal flight or relocation alternative. A June 2022 report at NDP Item 1.10 indicates that there are more than 8 million internally displaced persons in Ukraine. The report highlights numerous challenges in Ukraine facing internally displaced persons,ncluding the lack of accommodation, shortages of food, water and energy supplies, and barriers to accessing financial, social support and health services. In addition, the claimants did make – take steps to relocate within Ukraine. However, due to their Russian language as well as the fact that the principal claimant’s husband did not agree to join the war, they were not invited to stay longer at their place of residence in western Ukraine. The Ukrainian government has made some efforts to counter the Russian aggression and provide protection to its citizens. But in sum, its operational effectiveness falls short of adequacy. And this state of affairs exists throughout the entire country of Ukraine. Therefore, I find there is no location within Ukraine that the claimants could relocate to now and not face a serious possibility of persecution on the Convention ground of being a woman and a girl.

CONCLUSION

[14] For these reasons, I find the claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 of the Act and I accept their claims.

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———

All Countries Lebanon

2022 RLLR 17

Citation: 2022 RLLR 17
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: August 23, 2022
Panel: Doug Armstrong
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Ronald Yacoub
Country: Lebanon
RPD Number: VC1-06944
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01960
ATIP Pages: N/A

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

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

[2] In rendering my reasons, I have considered the Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Gender Considerations in Proceedings Before the Immigration and Refugee Board.

Allegations

[3] The specifics of the claim were set out in the narrative of the claimant’s Basis of Claim (BOC) Form[2] and in her oral testimony. In summary, in 2004 she married a man named XXXX XXXX (XXXX) and had two daughters with him. However, through means such as recording his conversations, the claimant learned by 2013 that XXXX is gay. XXXX was threatened by this and told the claimant to move out, and he said that if the claimant told anyone about his sexuality, he would kill her.

[4] XXXX divorced the claimant; the divorce was finalized in XXXX 2014, with XXXX having full custody of their children. The claimant continued receiving phone calls from XXXX threatening that he would kill her if she tried to come near their daughters or if she told anyone about his sexuality. In XXXX 2014, the claimant met a man named XXXX XXXX (XXXX) who lived in the United States of America (USA) and was visiting his father in Lebanon. They began dating.

[5] In XXXX 2015, the claimant went to the USA, and soon her mother, brothers and sister also moved there. The claimant reconciled with XXXX, and in XXXX 2015 they were married. XXXX applied to sponsor the claimant as a US permanent resident, but this application was denied twice, in 2018 and in XXXX 2019. The second denial letter said that XXXX had gone on vacation with another woman. This notice ended their marriage, and the claimant returned to her parents’ house in Michigan.

[6] The claimant realized that she would be forced to return to Lebanon, and she was barred from making a refugee claim in the USA. She decided to come to Canada, and on XXXX XXXX, 2019, she entered Canada irregularly by boat. She alleges that she cannot return to Lebanon, as she fears violence and persecution by XXXX and his contacts, and because she would be at risk as a divorced woman in Lebanon.

Decision

[7] I find that the claimant is a refugee, pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA, as there exists a serious possibility of persecution, should she return to Lebanon, on account of being a member of a particular social group as a woman fearing gender-based persecution.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[8] I find that the claimant’s identity as a national of Lebanon is established by the documents provided, particularly a certified true copy of her passport in Exhibit 1.

[9] I note that the claimant lived in the USA from XXXX 2015 to XXXX 2019. However, this does not constitute a country of reference, considering the evidence that she only had temporary status in that country.

Credibility

[10] 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.[3] However this presumption does not apply to inferences or speculation.

[11] I find the claimant to be a credible witness and therefore believe what she alleged in support of her claim. She 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.

[12] I note that the claimant did not seek asylum in the USA when she was there from XXXX 2015 to XXXX 2019. However, the claimant’s evidence is that she married XXXX, an American citizen, in XXXX 2015, and he sponsored her for permanent residence as his spouse. By the time U.S. authorities denied their application for the second time, in XXXX 2019, the claimant was barred from making an asylum claim because more than one year had elapsed following her entry to the USA. This is consistent with my understanding of USA immigration law, so this explanation seems reasonable in the claimant’s alleged circumstances, and therefore does not raise significant concerns with respect to subjective fear or credibility. I find it was reasonable for the claimant not to apply for asylum during this time, because she married a U.S. citizen and she had status while waiting for a decision about her application for permanent residence.

[13] The claimant disclosed documents in support of her claim. These include, in Exhibit 5, a translated divorce certificate at pages 5-6, a translated letter from her sister XXXX at pages 48-51, a translated letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX at pages 52-54, a letter from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to XXXX at pages 8-15, and copies of counselling and psychotherapy records. In Exhibit 6, the claimant disclosed a photograph of herself with a translation of the handwritten caption. The divorce certificate corroborates the claimant’s relationship with XXXX, and the two letters from XXXX and XXXX both corroborate the threats from XXXX to which the claimant was subjected. The U.S. immigration letter corroborates the claimant’s activities in the USA and the reasons she left for Canada. The counselling and psychotherapy records also corroborate the claimant’s account of her treatment by XXXX and her fear of returning to Lebanon, and the photograph corroborates the claimant’s description of a threatening note that was left on her door in XXXX 2015. After reviewing the documents, I have no reasons to doubt their authenticity.

[14] Considering the evidence, I find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant endured a history of mistreatment from XXXX including physical violence, and that he divorced the claimant while keeping custody of their children. I find that the claimant believes XXXXto be gay or bisexual, and that XXXXhas threatened the claimant multiple times, including threats to kill her, if she discusses his sexuality or if she tries to see their daughters.

Objective basis

[15] The objective evidence provides support for the allegation that XXXXfears being perceived as a gay man in Lebanon.

[16] Item 6.4 in the National Documentation Package (NDP) notes how the LGBTQ community is ostracised in Lebanon. While there may be growing acceptance in Beirut, the report also describes police abuses against LGBTQ individuals, raids on LGBTQ establishments, and it states that LGBTQ individuals are unable to live openly in Beirut without facing severe harassment and discrimination. “Homosexuality in Lebanon is illegal, and social stigma of same-sex relationships persists, especially in conservative areas.”[4]

[17] Item 6.5 in the NDP reiterates much of this and notes that LGBTQ individuals are highly vulnerable to both state and social violence because of their sexual orientation. This report also talks about the risk of individuals who are part of the LGBTQ community to face family violence, which may include death threats, physical abuse, or being shunned.

[18] I find, based on the objective evidence, that the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution based on her status as a woman in Lebanon. Gender-based violence in Lebanon is tolerated, ignored, and perpetuated in Lebanese society. The claimant’s BOC and testimony referred to multiple incidents of verbal and physical abuse by XXXX, who also controlled other aspects of her life such as not wanting her to finish high school. XXXXthreats continued after they divorced, even when she changed her phone number, and the claimant fears that he will one day follow through with his death threats.

[19] This past abuse demonstrates a prospect of continued violence that can be characterized as serious, sustained, and systematic human rights violations amounting to persecution. As the claimant’s fear of persecution is based on her membership in a particular social group, her allegations form a nexus to the Convention. The objective evidence corroborates the fact that gender-based violence in Lebanon is a serious problem.

[20] A Response to Information Request (RIR) cites an estimate that one woman a month is killed by a family member in Lebanon, usually her husband.[5] It goes on to state that gender-based violence is serious and widespread, and women are also victims of discrimination both in law and practice. Furthermore, women cannot depend on family to prevent violence as they rarely receive their family’s support. Finally, the RIR finds that customs and beliefs have ‘normalized’ violence against women in Lebanon.

[21] The RIR indicates that Lebanese women are victims of discrimination in both law and practice. It describes how there are no official statistics on domestic violence in Lebanon and cites a UN report stating that “gender-based violence is prevalent in Lebanon in different forms, including domestic/marital physical, sexual and psychological violence.” The RIR quotes another source who states that “there was a broad consensus that domestic violence, including spousal abuse, was a serious and widespread problem in the country.”[6]

[22] The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) reports that until recently, discussion of gender-based violence was subject to strong taboos, considered to be private and a matter of concern only for religious courts.[7] It indicates that there are no official national statistics on the prevalence of gender-based violence and notes that the issue of violence against women is largely ignored by local and religious authorities. The report goes on to describe how “honour crimes” are difficult to measure, but 66 women were identified as being murdered in an “honour crime” over an 8-year period.[8]

[23] The U.S. Department of State (DOS) reports that the law criminalizes domestic violence, calls for provision of shelters, gives women the ability to file a restraining order against the abuser, and assigns special units within the ISF to receive domestic violence complaints. However, although the law provides for a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison for battery, religious courts could cite personal status law to require a battered wife to return to a home shared with her abuser. Some police, especially in rural areas, treated domestic violence as a social, rather than criminal, matter.[9]

[24] The Australia Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) states that according to international observers, despite many advantages and acquired rights, women in Lebanon continue to face discrimination at numerous levels.[10] It reports that a Domestic Violence Law was passed in 2014, but a March 2018 Human Rights Watch (HRW) report noted that the Domestic Violence Law did not require religious courts to adhere to civil court rulings relating to domestic violence, leaving women trapped in abusive marriages; and that some religious courts issue obedience and cohabitation rulings against women, requiring them to return to the marital home.

[25] Documents disclosed by the claimant also support the risk to the claimant as a woman in Lebanon. One February 2021 article at pages 7-9 of Exhibit 5 notes that, according to the Internal Security Forces (ISF), “cases of domestic violence against women skyrocketed by 96% during Lebanon’s strictest lockdown.” A December 2021 article at pages 10-15 of Exhibit 5 reported that figures shared by the ISF said that domestic violence reports in Lebanese homes doubled in the previous year. The article quoted one lawyer who said, “We have never witnessed this much violence against women.”

[26] The evidence reveals that domestic violence in Lebanon is widespread. Based on the past violence suffered by the claimant, the threats to harm her further and the treatment of women in Lebanon generally, I find that there is a serious possibility of persecution if she returns to her country.

State Protection

[27] I find that there is no operationally effective state protection for the claimant in Lebanon.

[28] While the U.S. DOS report for Lebanon at item 2.1, indicates that Lebanon criminalizes domestic violence, the law provides for shelters and protections, and Lebanon is making progress in improving the police and judicial management of domestic cases, the report also states that “NGOs and activists criticized the domestic violence law, claiming that it does not sufficiently protect victims or punish abusers, who they alleged often received disproportionately light sentences.”[11]

[29] The RIR at item 5.2 quotes a report that states that “in most cases, police ignored complaints submitted by battered or abused women.” Another source stated that “even tough

women could theoretically go to a police station in order to submit a complaint against anyone who subjects them to violence, it rarely happens because women know that they do not have legal protection against domestic violence” and that source goes on to indicate that police often do not take complaints of these women seriously.[12] This is consistent with the claimant’s testimony that following one incident when XXXXhit and threatened her in about 2014, she went to the police to make a written complaint, but they made excuses and did not help.

[30] The OECD report at item 5.3 indicates that while some shelters exist that are run by NGOs, overall capacity to house victims is limited. The report also indicates concerns with the lengthy process required for a woman to obtain a protection order in the country.[13]

[31] The country condition documents indicate that the government in Lebanon has taken steps with respect to gender-based violence. I considered that state protection does not mean that the state must provide perfect protection or always be successful in providing protection, but that it must be adequate. However, the country conditions documents, as a whole, indicate that those steps have not translated to operationally effective state protection.

[32] Given the country conditions, I find that the claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence establishing that there is no operationally effective state protection available to her in Lebanon.

Internal Flight Alternative

[33] I also examined whether a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) exists for the claimant. Potential IFA locations of Tripoli and Tyre were identified at the start of the hearing. The test is comprised of two prongs, both of which must be satisfied before an internal flight alternative can be found. The first is that the claimant is not at risk of persecution, torture, or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in the internal flight location; the second is that it is not objectively unreasonable for the claimant to relocate there.

[34] The second prong of the IFA test may be stated as follows: would it be unduly harsh to expect the claimant to move to another, less hostile part of the country before seeking refugee status abroad? The courts have set a very high threshold for what makes an IFA unreasonable in all the circumstances. (Thirunavukkarasu [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (C.A.))

[35] On the evidence before me, I find that it would be objectively unreasonable for the claimant, in all the circumstances, including those specific to her, to relocate to another place in Lebanon.

[36] In North America the claimant worked XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, but as of the hearing date, she is a 39-year-old high school graduate who has never held a job in Lebanon. The only relative she has remaining in Lebanon is a sister, who is trying to leave the country. The claimant’s ability to support herself in another city is therefore quite limited, particularly given income inequality and other disadvantages women experience.

[37] The claimant testified that Lebanon is a small country and anywhere she went, XXXXwould find out. She said that XXXXhas acquaintances and contacts at the airport and in the government, and her counsel submits that eventually someone will recognize the claimant and tell XXXXof her whereabouts.

[38] The 2021 World Factbook for Lebanon found at item 1.5 indicates that Lebanon is a small country, approximately 10K square KMs, which is described as one-third the size of the state of Maryland, and roughly 5.5M people with the majority living in the capital Beirut.[14]

[39] The DFAT report referred to earlier considers the ability of single women such as the claimant to relocate:

DFAT assesses that the ease with which an individual is able to relocate internally depends to a large degree on their individual circumstances, including whether they have family or community connections in the intended area of relocation, and their financial situation. Internal relocation is generally easier for men and family groups. Single women, particularly those fleeing family violence, are less likely to have access to sufficient support services and are likely to face societal discrimination in the form of harassment, particularly in rural and more conservative areas.[15]

[40] Given the size of Lebanon, the threats against the claimant, the fact that the claimant and her ex-husband are still in contact with their children, the prevalence of violence against women, and the lack of state protection noted previously, I find that the claimant would face a serious possibility of persecution throughout Lebanon. Accordingly, I find that there is no internal flight alternative available to the claimant in Lebanon.

Conclusion

[41] Having considered all the evidence, I conclude that the claimant is a refugee, pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA. Accordingly, I accept her claim.

(signed) Douglas Armstrong

August 23, 2022

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

[2] Exhibit 2.

[3] Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1980] 2 F.C. 302 (C.A.)

[4] National Documentation Package, Lebanon, 29 September 2021, tab 1.13: BTI 2020 Country Report — Lebanon. Bertelsmann Stiftung. 2020.

[5] National Documentation Package, Lebanon, 29 September 2021, tab 5.2: Family violence, including legislation, state protection and services available to victims (2011-November 2013). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 22 November 2013. LBN104656.FE.

[6] Ibid.

[7] National Documentation Package, Lebanon, 29 September 2021, tab 5.3: Lebanon. Social Institutions and Gender Index 2019. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 7 December 2018.

[8] Ibid.

[9] National Documentation Package, Lebanon, 29 September 2021, tab 2.1: Lebanon. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2020. United States. Department of State. 30 March 2021.

[10] National Documentation Package, Lebanon, 29 September 2021, tab 1.3: DFAT Country Information Report: Lebanon. Australia. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 19 March 2019.

[11] Supra, footnote 9.

[12] Supra, footnote 5.

[13] Supra, footnote 7.

[14] National Documentation Package, Lebanon, 29 September 2021, tab 1.5: Lebanon. The World Factbook. United States. Central Intelligence Agency. 14 September 2021.

[15] Supra, footnote 10.

All Countries Nigeria

2022 RLLR 12

Citation: 2022 RLLR 12
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 8, 2022
Panel: Kevin Kim
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Mary Alison Pridham
Country: Nigeria
RPD Number: VC1-06001
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01960
ATIP Pages: N/A

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

[1] This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX as a citizen of Nigeria who is claiming refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “Act”) .

[2] The panel has considered and applied the Chairperson’s Guideline 4 on Female Refugee Claimants fearing gender-related persecution, particularly when considering the possibility of an internal flight alternative.

ALLEGATIONS

[3] The following is a brief synopsis of the claimant’s allegations as set out in her Basis of Claim (BOC) form as well as her testimony. The claimant is a 30-year-old Nigerian woman who fears persecution from her mother-in-law who is a member of the XXXX XXXX.

[4] The claimant alleges that her mother-in-law has been targeting the claimant’s son to be initiated into the XXXX XXXX, and that her mother-in-law has been attempting to forcefully take the claimant’s son away.

[5] After the claimant married her husband, she moved into his family home and lived with her husband and his family, including the husband’s mother. Due to the husband’s job, he traveled frequently for months at a time across Nigeria and was often unable to be contacted as he was out of cellular service. In 2016, the claimant and her mother traveled to Canada for vacation while the claimant was pregnant with her son. In XXXX 2016, the claimant gave birth to her son in Canada.

[6] The claimant alleged that her relationship with her mother-in-law has always been tumultuous. On XXXX XXXX, 2018, at her family home, the claimant’s mother-in-law and her husband’s cousin insulted the claimant and pushed her, injuring the claimant’s leg. In XXXX 2018, the mother-in-law made death threats to the claimant and stated that if the claimant did not surrender her son, she would send the “area boys to attack her and kill her so that she will no longer be a problem for her”. The claimant reported this incident to the police, but the claimant alleged that the police did not act as the mother-in-law was an influential member of the XXXX XXXXwith connections to the police. Although the mother-in-law was required to report to the police, she was let go within the same day. Furthermore, the claimant alleged that the police ignored this matter and dismissed it as a domestic dispute.

[7] Feeling unsafe, the claimant fled to her cousin’s house with her son in XXXX on XXXX XXXX, 2018. At her cousin’s home, the claimant continued to receive threatening phone calls from her mother-in-law. The claimant changed her phone number, but she continued to receive threatening phone calls from her mother-in-law who said that she knows the claimant is hiding in XXXX and there was no point in hiding as she would eventually find her.

[8] On XXXX XXXX, 2018, the claimant fled to her church in Lagos where she took shelter for 24 days. Although the threatening phone calls continued, the claimant’s mother-in-law or anyone from the XXXX XXXXwas able to confront her directly. The claimant testified that she believes her mother-in-law knew the general vicinity of where she was, but not the precise location.

[9] The claimant fled Nigeria with her son on XXXX XXXX, 2018 and made a claim in Canada on June 12, 2018.

DETERMINATIONS

[10] The panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the Act for the reasons that follow.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[11] The panel finds that the claimant’s personal identity and her identity as a citizen of Nigeria has been established on a balance of probabilities by a copy of her Nigerian passport.

Nexus

[12] The panel finds that the claimant’s allegations establish a nexus to the Convention ground of particular social group as a woman experiencing domestic violence in Nigeria. Therefore, the panel will assess this claim under section 96 of the Act.

Credibility

[13] When a claimant swears to the truth of his or her allegations, this creates a presumption that those allegations are true, unless there is reason to doubt their truthfulness. In this case, the panel has found no reason to doubt the claimant’s truthfulness. The claimant testified in a straightforward manner that was consistent with all of the other documents on the file, including her Basis of Claim form and narrative. The claimant was able to answer all questions fully and provided all details that were requested of her. There were no relevant inconsistencies in her testimony or contradictions between her testimony and the other evidence before the panel, which have not been satisfactorily explained.

[14] The claimant also provided documentary evidence in support of her claim. The documents form parts of Exhibit 4 and contain the following:

1. XXXX XXXXcard of XXXX XXXX, the claimant’s mother in law;

2. Medical report for the claimant dated XXXX XXXX, 2018;

3. Police report dated XXXX XXXX, 2018 in relation to the death threats made by the mother-in-law towards the claimant.

[15] Although the panel initially had some concerns with the legitimacy of the medical report and the police report due to formatting and grammatical mistakes identified, the panel accepts the claimant’s explanation of the mistakes to be typographical in nature and finds the documents to be genuine.

[16] Ultimately, in terms of the claimant’s allegations, the panel finds the following:

1. The claimant’s mother-in-law is a member of the XXXX XXXX;

2. The claimant’s mother-in-law has attacked her on XXXX XXXX, 2018 and made death threats to the claimant demanding that she surrenders her son in XXXX 2018;

3. The claimant’s mother-in-law continued to threaten her while the claimant hid at her cousin’s home as well as her church;

4. The claimant’s mother-in-law was able to find her new phone number and knew of her general vicinity while the claimant was fleeing.

Well-Founded Fear of Persecution and Risk of Harm

[17] Turning to the well-founded fear of persecution, the panel accepts that the claimant has a subjective fear of returning to Nigeria. Considering the totality of the evidence, the panel finds that the claimant’s subjective fear is objectively well-founded and if she was to return, she would face a serious risk of persecution. Although the panel finds that the sphere of influence and the reach of the XXXX XXXXhas been diminishing in the recent years, as will be discussed below, the panel finds that the claimant’s fears are objectively well-founded.

[18] The objective evidence as set out in the National Documentation Package (NDP) confirms that the XXXX XXXXexists. According to the EASO Country of Information , the XXXXis the best-known but certainly not the only secret society in Nigeria. The XXXX XXXX is a caste of Yoruba priests who elected and controlled the Oba, the Oruba king. The XXXXhad great political and societal powers, and it used to be highly prestigious to become a member.

[19] The same report indicates that the XXXX XXXXhad considerable influence in Nigerian society and government in the 1990s. Only members of the XXXX XXXXcould give access to an influential or government job. However, nowadays, the influence of the XXXX XXXXis declining although not totally disappeared. The report noted that in these days, money is a greater means to access political power.

[20] The same report also indicates the general sphere of influence of the XXXX XXXX. It indicates that the XXXXare only influential in “Yoruba parts of Nigeria where they still have some real influence… [cities such as] Egba, Egbado, and Abeokuta parts of Nigeria (Ogun and Lagos States). Also, in some rural villages and small towns along in the borders of Ogun state with Oyo, Osun, and Ondo, they might still be able to intimidate pockets of people”. However, the report also indicates that XXXXare often members of Nigerian society’s elites working in the police, judiciary, and government institutions.

[21] Turning to the refusal of membership in the XXXX XXXX, the report indicates that while membership in the XXXX XXXXis primarily voluntary, social pressure and intimidation can occur, especially when the person refusing has personal knowledge of the XXXX XXXX. The report indicates that “refusal to join in such cases is very difficult”.

[22] The panel acknowledges that the evidence regarding the capacity and influence of the XXXX XXXXis mixed. The evidence appears to indicate that the XXXX XXXXis a well-known secret society that wielded considerable power in the 1990s but has been declining in the recent years. However, the panel finds that the claimant’s fears are well-founded as the persecution she has experienced, such as the beatings and death threats from her mother-in-law, has been localized in Lagos and Ogun states, where the objective evidence indicates the XXXX XXXX still has a considerable amount of influence.

[23] Based on the claimant’s testimony regarding the sustained periods of domestic abuse suffered by the hands of her mother-in-law and other relatives, and due to the claimant’s personal knowledge of the XXXX XXXXresulting from living in the same household as her mother-in-law, the panel finds that the claimant would face a serious risk of persecution should she return to Nigeria. Therefore, the panel finds that the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution.

State Protection

[24] There is limited country conditions documents that directly reflect whether state agencies would protect individuals from the XXXX XXXX. According to the United States Department of State report , the government in Nigeria lacked effective mechanisms and sufficient political will to investigate and punish most security force abuse and corruption. Police remained susceptible to corruption, committed human rights violations, and operated with widespread impunity in the apprehension, illegal detention, and torture of suspects. This document raises serious concerns about the efficacy of state protection agencies in Nigeria.

[25] The claimant also testified that she went to the police regarding the death threat her mother-in-law made in XXXX 2018. Although the police report provided by the claimant indicates that the mother-in-law was invited for an investigation, she was released on the same day and no further investigations were actioned by the police. The claimant testified that she was only let off with a warning, and the claimant believes that this is because of her influence in the XXXX XXXX.

[26] Further, as mentioned earlier, some members of the XXXX XXXXare connected to or are members of the Nigerian elite, such as the police, judiciary, or politicians. The evidence indicates that some of the XXXX XXXXappears to be above the law. When the panel reviews the totality of the evidence, the limitations of the police and in general in Nigeria and the links between the XXXXand Nigerian authorities, the panel finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that state protection would not be reasonably forthcoming to the claimant. As such, the panel finds that there is no operationally effective state protection for the claimant in Nigeria.

Internal Flight Alternative

[27] The final issue is whether the claimant has a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Nigeria. In order to determine whether an IFA exists, the panel must assess whether there is any location in Nigeria in which claimants would not face a serious possibility of persecution and whether it would be reasonable to expect them to move there. At the outset of the hearing, the panel proposed Abuja as a possible IFA. The panel finds that the claimant does not have a viable IFA because the panel finds that given the claimant’s profile as a woman who would mostly travel and live alone without her husband, it would be unreasonable for the claimant to relocate within Nigeria.

First prong – Means and motivations of mother-in-law and XXXX XXXX

[28] Turning to whether the claimant’s mother-in-law or the XXXX XXXXas a whole would have the means and the motivation to find the claimant in Abuja, the panel finds that they would not. The evidence about the XXXX XXXX seems to indicate that although they were powerful and well-known in the past, their capacity and their influence has been diminishing in the recent years. Furthermore, the sphere of influence of the XXXX XXXXappears to be localized in the Ogun and Lagos states which is in the southwest region of Nigeria. This sphere of influence does not include Abuja, which is in central Nigeria.

[29] The claimant testified that she ran away to her cousin’s home in XXXX and to her church in Lagos, where the objective evidence appears to indicate that the XXXX XXXXstill has a considerable amount of influence. Although the claimant’s mother-in-law was able to find the claimant’s new phone number, she was never able to precisely locate the claimant at the claimant’s church or her cousin’s home despite the fact that these locations are within the XXXX XXXXarea of influence.

[30] The panel notes that the claimant’s church and her mother in law’s home are both located in Lagos, and that the claimant remained hidden in her church for 24 days prior to leaving Nigeria. However, despite being so close geographically, the claimant’s mother-in-law was not able to precisely locate the claimant. The panel therefore finds that the XXXX XXXXlacks the means to locate an individual, even within their reported sphere of influence. Therefore, the panel finds that the claimant’s mother-in-law or the XXXX XXXXwould have the means to locate the claimant in Abuja.

[31] Turning to the motivations of the agents of persecution, the panel finds that the claimant’s mother-in-law or the XXXX XXXXas a whole still has the motivation to locate the claimant. The claimant testified that ever since coming to Canada, the claimant never had any direct contact with her mother-in-law or any other members of the XXXX XXXX. The claimant also did not mention any threats made to her family or friends from the XXXX XXXX. The panel therefore finds that the agents of persecution in this specific case lacks the motivation to locate the claimant because of the lack of measures taken by the claimant’s mother-in-law or the XXXX XXXX.

[32] As such, the panel finds that there is no serious possibility that the claimant’s mother-in-law or the XXXX XXXXas a whole would locate the claimant in Abuja.

Second prong – Reasonableness test, jeopardy to life or safety

[33] Considering the totality of the evidence, the panel finds that the claimant would face jeopardy to her life or safety should she relocate to Abuja. In coming to this conclusion, the panel has considered the claimant’s profile as a woman traveling with a young son whose husband is largely absent due to his work obligations.

[34] The claimant wrote in her narrative and also testified that although she and her husband is still married and on good terms, there are times when she is left to support herself alone for extended periods of time. The claimant testified that she was not able to contact her husband to tell him about the attack on XXXX XXXX, 2018 and the threats in XXXX 2018 because he was out of cellular service, and that she was only able to contact him after she arrived in Canada. When asked if this kind of occurrence is common with her husband, the claimant testified that it is does happen from time to time and she has learned to deal with issues herself.

[35] The documentary evidence is clear that women in Nigeria are subject to stereotypical beliefs and cultural norms that significantly restrict a woman’s ability to participate in free and equal individuals.

[36] The US Department of State report in the NDP indicates that women in Nigeria are subjected to considerable economic discrimination and that the culturally implemented restrictions on women prevent women from finding jobs in numerous industries. In a report at tab 5.1 , women are frequently restricted to work in the informal sectors, which carries a high level of uncertainty, a high risk of employment, lower wages, and in some cases an outright dangerous work environment.

[37] Both the US Department of State report and the report at tab 5.1 indicates that it is commonplace for employers to request sexual favours from women in exchange for employment. Sexual violence is endemic both in the household and in the community at large.

[38] At tab 5.9 , a report about female headed households, indicates that it is very difficult, or even potentially impossible, for women to live independently as a single woman, to relocate without a support network, and that it is “very difficult for women heads of households” to survive in any place in Nigeria. Potential landlords suspect single women as working as prostitutes or may demand sexual favours for a place to live. The panel finds that there is a serious risk that the claimant could be left unemployed and homeless.

[39] Should the claimant relocate to Abuja, she would be relocating without any family support and with only limited support from her husband, whose employment requires him to travel throughout Nigeria. Considering all of the circumstances, including the current situation in Nigeria as well as the claimant’s personal circumstances, the panel finds that the claimant would face a serious risk of persecution should she relocate to Abuja as a single woman trying to establish her own household. Therefore, the panel finds that the claimant does not have a viable IFA in Nigeria.

CONCLUSION

[40] In conclusion, for the reasons above, the panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the Act and the Refugee Protection Division acPSGcepts her claim.

(signed) Kevin Kim

February 8, 2022

All Countries Mexico

2022 RLLR 11

Citation: 2022 RLLR 11
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 10, 2022
Panel: Kari Schroeder
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Mary Jane Campigotto
Country: Mexico
RPD Number: VC1-05967
Associated RPD Number(s): VC1-05966
ATIP Number: A-2022-01960
ATIP Pages: N/A

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claims of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the “principal claimant”), and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX(the “minor claimant”) as citizens of Mexico who are claiming refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “Act”)[1].

[2] I have reviewed and applied the Chairperson’s Guideline on Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution[2] during the hearing and in this decision.

[3] The principal claimant acted as designated representative for the minor claimant. Their claims were previously joined with the principal claimant’s husband, however, due to allegations of domestic violence the claims were separated.

ALLEGATIONS

[4] The claimant fled Mexico with her husband XXXXand son due to fears of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (XXXX). The claimant’s husband owned XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. He had been extorted for two years before the principal claimant learned about what was happening. The claimant’s husband left Mexico on XXXX XXXX, 2019 and the claimants went to live with an Uncle in Pachuca. However, when they returned the principal claimant began receiving multiple threats. The XXXX asked about her husband’s whereabouts and threatened to kill the claimants if the husband’s debt was not paid. The claimants left Mexico on XXXX XXXX, 2019. The principal claimant has since been separated from her husband and has full custody of the minor claimant. She fears additional harm from him if she returns to Mexico.

DETERMINATION

[5] I find the claimants are Convention Refugees pursuant to s.96 of the Act, for the reasons that follow.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[6] The claimants’ identities as nationals of Mexico are established through certified copies of their passports on file.

Credibility

[7] The claimant was a credible witness and I believe what she has alleged in support of their claims. The principal claimant testified in a direct and straightforward manner, even when asked to testify about difficult subjects. There were no material inconsistencies between her testimony and her Basis of Claim form. There were no attempts to embellish her evidence even when given the opportunity to do so. I have documentary evidence to support her claim. I accept that even though her initial reasons for fleeing Mexico were to escape the XXXX cartel due to her husband’s activities, the claimant formulated an additional fear of domestic violence after initiating her refugee claim. It is clear from her testimony and the documents before me that she did not necessarily understand that she was a victim of domestic violence until arriving in Canada. Based on the totality of the evidence, I accept her allegations as credible.

Well-Founded Fear of Persecution

[8] I find there is a nexus in this claim to the Convention Ground of membership in a particular social group, namely women fearing gender-based violence for the principal claimant, and family members of a persecuted person for the minor claimant.

[9] The claimant testified that she became pregnant at a very young age and was essentially forced into a marriage with XXXXby her family and XXXXfamily, both who followed the Jehovah Witness faith. From the beginning of the marriage, XXXX, who is several years older than the claimant, was physically and emotionally abusive as well as unfaithful. The claimant told some members of her family about the abuse but had no recourse. She testified that she tried to tell her mother, who did not really listen to her.

[10] She testified that the physical abuse stopped once she arrived in Canada, but only because XXXXappeared to understand that he could potentially face repercussions from authorities in this country, whereas he could act with relative impunity in Mexico. Indeed, in the transcript the claimant captured of a zoom call with XXXX, he states the following in response to the claimant’s assertion that hitting XXXX as a form of discipline is violence:

“XXXX, that is not violence. That is not violence. Those are your rules and your laws as a Canadian, and honestly, well, you aren’t even a Canadian. [3]”

[11] In other words, it appears that the only reason the claimants were not subjected to physical abuse here in Canada was due to the fact that XXXXwas aware the claimant could call the police. However, according to the claimant’s testimony and witness affidavit before me, emotional abuse continued, as did the withholding of financial support for food and other necessities.

[12] The objective evidence also supports the claimants’ allegations. Sources report that gender-based violence is common in Mexico. In its Concluding Observations on the Ninth Periodic Report of Mexico, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) notes that “the persistence of high levels of insecurity, violence and organised crime in [Mexico] … is negatively affecting the enjoyment by women and girls of their human rights”. Sources report that the average of 10 women who were killed per day in 2019 remained unchanged in [January] 2020. The New York Times also reports that an average of 10 women were killed each day in 2019 and adds that this rate represents an increase from 7 killed per day in 2017.[4]

[13] The 2016 National Survey on the Dynamics of Household Relationships found that 42 percent of married women over 15 years old and 59 percent of separated, divorced, or widowed women have experienced situations of emotional or economic abuse, or physical or sexual violence in their current or previous relationship. The same source reports that 64 percent of the women victims of domestic violence have experienced severe or very severe violence at the hand of their spouse or partner.[5]

[14] According to recent evidence provided by the Board in an RIR report, women are often seen by their intimate partners who are involved in organized crime as an accomplice and “they must participate to varying degrees in their illicit activities, [whether] it be actively in aiding and abetting crimes, or by keeping secrets and providing a minimal amount of support. Women in those situations do not tend to leave their partners unless they feel it is safe or necessary to do so because if they end up returning to them afterwards, the violence always escalates.[6]

[15] Based on the totality of the evidence, I find the claimants would face a serious possibility of persecution in Mexico.

State Protection

[16] In terms of state protection, the federal penal code prohibits domestic violence and stipulates penalties for conviction of between six months’ and four years’ imprisonment. Of the 32 states, 29 stipulate similar penalties, although in practice sentences were often more lenient. Federal law criminalizes spousal abuse. However, state and municipal laws addressing domestic violence largely failed to meet the required federal standards and often were unenforced.[7] Despite passing laws to protect women in 2007, the situation for women in Mexico has worsened. The process of seeking state protection has been described as perpetual bureaucratization, politicization, and revictimization”, and so far very few of the state’s efforts have resulted in a reduction of gender-based violence.[8]

[17] XXXXhas already demonstrated that while he is mindful of Canadian laws, he is aware that he can act with far more impunity in Mexico. I find that state protection would not be forthcoming to the claimants in this case.

Internal Flight Alternative

[18] I also find that the claimants do not have an internal flight alternative in Mexico. Although the principal claimant has a temporary custody order from a Canadian court, there is no evidence that this would be valid in Mexico. XXXXhas told the claimant that if returned to Mexico he would ‘fix things’, which the claimant believes means he would take XXXX away or attempt to seek custody. A Response to Information Request (RIR) issued by the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) also states the following with respect to family court legal proceedings:

Once a family law-related proceeding, including divorce, custody or guardianship, has been initiated before the court, if the address or location of the other parent is unknown and they fail to comply with their obligation to the child, the other parent can request that the judge issue an order to government institutions such as the Mexican Social Security Institute (Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social), the Tax Administration Service (Servicio de Administración Tributaria), among others, to search in their respective databases on the estranged parent.[9]

[19] I find that the agent of harm in this case has the means and motivation to track the claimants to another location.

[20] Further, the claimant would be returning to Mexico as a young, uneducated single mother. Her father is deceased, and she has never worked outside the home. The objective evidence before me states that low-income single mothers with children under 15 years of age face limited access and enjoyment of the right to food, as well as economic, social and cultural rights due to, among others, the vulnerable income status in which they find themselves, the discrimination they have suffered in different sectors such as social, labour and family, unequal access to employment opportunities, as well as low-paid jobs.[10] I find it would be objectively unreasonable for the claimants to relocate in these circumstances.

CONCLUSION

[21] I find the claimants are Convention Refugees pursuant to s.96 of the Act and the Board therefore accepts their claims.

(signed) Kari Schroeder

January 10, 2022

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

[2] Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution, November 13, 1996.

[3] Exhibit 5.

[4] National Documentation Package, Mexico, 29 September 2021, tab 5.10: Domestic violence, including treatment of survivors of domestic violence; legislation; protection and support services available, including psychological services, particularly in Mexico City and Mérida (2017–September 2020). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 11 September 2020. MEX200311.E.

[5] National Documentation Package, Mexico, 29 September 2021, tab 5.10: Domestic violence, including treatment of survivors of domestic violence; legislation; protection and support services available, including psychological services, particularly in Mexico City and Mérida (2017–September 2020). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 11 September 2020. MEX200311.E.

[6] National Documentation Package, Mexico, 29 September 2021, tab 5.20: Women whose past partners are involved in criminal activities and implications for their safety (2019–August 2021). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 27 August 2021. MEX200735.E.

[7] National Documentation Package, Mexico, 29 September 2021, tab 2.1: Mexico. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2020. United States. Department of State. 30 March 2021.

[8] National Documentation Package, Mexico, 29 September 2021, tab 5.20: Women whose past partners are involved in criminal activities and implications for their safety (2019–August 2021). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 27 August 2021. MEX200735.E.

[9] National Documentation Package, Mexico, 29 September 2021, tab 5.13: Whether a parent may relocate with a child without notifying the other parent, including in situations involving domestic violence and whether this is affected by protection or restraining orders; procedures for a parent to locate their child … Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 13 February 2020. MEX106366.E.

[10] National Documentation Package, Mexico, 29 September 2021, tab 5.7: Situation of single women and of women who head their own households without male support, including access to employment, housing and support services, particularly in Mexico City and Mérida (Yucatán) (2017-October 2019). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 5 February 2020. MEX106364.E.

All Countries Syria

2022 RLLR 9

Citation: 2022 RLLR 9
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: May 11, 2022
Panel: Kay Scorer
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Salema Hage
Country: Syria
RPD Number: VC2-00062
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01960
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: I’ve considered your testimony and the other evidence before me and I’m prepared to provide you with my decision orally.

[2] This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division in the claim of XXXX XXXX as a citizen of Syria who is claiming protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act also referred to as the Act.

[3] In rendering my reasons and also in the conduct of the hearing, I’ve considered and applied the Chairperson’s Guideline on claims relating to a woman’s gender.

ALLEGATIONS

[4] The claimant’s full allegations are contained in her Basis of Claim form and in her testimony at the hearing. Summarized only briefly, the claimant is an elderly Sunni widowed woman from Syria. She fears risk of persecution in Syria on the basis of her gender as a woman. All of her children reside outside of the country and she has no immediate family remaining in the country apart from a sister-in-law who is also an elderly woman. She fears being targeted as a vulnerable elder woman. The claimant also fears persecution on the basis of her religion as Sunni and her political opinion.

DETERMINATION

[5] I find the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to Section 96 of the Act. I find the claimant has established a nexus to Convention grounds of membership in a particular social group as a woman and religion as Sunni. It’s the intersections of these identities where I find the claimant faces a risk in Syria.

ANALYSIS

IDENTITY

[6] The claimant’s identity is established on a balance of probabilities by her testimony and by the copy of her Syrian passport in Exhibit 1.

CREDIBILITY

[7] In refugee determination claims, there is a presumption that the claimants and their allegations are true. In this case, I find no reason to doubt the claimant’s truthfulness. The claimant testified in a forthcoming and spontaneous manner.

[8] The claimant is an 80 year old woman and despite obvious frailties, I found that she testified in a clear and compelling manner. There were no material inconsistencies or contradictions between her Basis of Claim form, her testimony, and the other evidence before me.

[9] The claimant was also able to support her claim with some documentary evidence all of which can be found in Exhibits 4 through 6 which includes identity documents and a copy of her late husband’s death certificate. I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of these documents and I assign them weight as they corroborate the material elements or the claimant’s allegations, namely the fact that she is an elderly widowed woman from Syria. I find the claimant has established on a balance of probabilities that she is an elderly Sunni widowed Syrian woman who fears persecution by the state on the basis of her gender as a woman, her political opinion, and her religion as a Sunni Muslim. I find the claimant has established her subjective fears.

WELL-FOUNDED FEAR OF PERSECUTION

[10] The objective evidence supports the claimant’s fears of returning to Syria, My reasons for this are as follows: The documents in the NDP, for example, at items 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 indicate that gender-based violence against women and children is pervasive in Syria and it has increased due to the conflict. Rape and sexual violence are endemic, underreported, and uncontrolled and are used to terrorize women, men and children perceived to support the opposition. Regime officials perpetrated gender-based violence with impunity. Government forces have perpetrated rape and sexual abuse of women. When women try to file police reports, the police often do not investigate thoroughly if at all and sometimes responded themselves with abusing women. The risk of gender-based violence is exacerbated in this case because the claimant is an elderly widowed woman. The country evidence before me confirms that women with particularly vulnerable profiles including widowed women like the claimant herself, face a higher risk of gender-based violence.

[11] At NDP item 5.1 of the NDP, it states that widowed women face a heightened risk of sexual exploitation and are highly stigmatized by the Syrian society. The combination of being both female and Sunni adds a further dimension of risk in this case.

[12] According to NDP item 1.12, Sunnis are often targeted by the regime due to a perceived anti-government opinion and arrests may be based merely on a person having resided in an area associated with the opposition or associated with Sunni communities.

[13] Item 5.2 states that sexual violence against women has been used as a tactic in the war and has an integral part to the regime policy of subjugation of the opposition. The regime has framed the conflict as a fight between Alawites and Sunnis instead of a struggle for democracy. This government’s antagonism towards Sunnis in particular has led to sexual violence against Sunni women. Ultimately I found the country evidence before me does establish that Sunni elderly widowed women face a serious possibility of persecution in Syria on the basis of their religion and their gender. I find the claimant’s subjective fears are therefore objectively well-founded.

STATE PROTECTION

[14] Except in situations where a state is in complete breakdown, states are presumed capable of protecting their citizens. In this case, the primary agent of persecution is the state and the persecution the claimant would face if returned to Syria is at the hands of the authorities. Accordingly, I find there is no state protection available to the claimant.

INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE

[15] Further, the state of Syria is the agent of harm and it is in control of most of its territories. Where it is not in control, other armed groups as discussed posed a threat to women such as the claimant herself. Ultimately the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution as an elderly woman without family support in all parts of Syria. I therefore find there is no Internal Flight Alternative available to this claimant.

[16] For the foregoing reasons, I find the claimant is a Convention refugee under Section 96 of the Act and I therefore accept her claim.

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———

All Countries Colombia

2022 RLLR 8

Citation: 2022 RLLR 8
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: August 15, 2022
Panel: Kay Scorer
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Karen Jantzen
Country: Colombia
RPD Number: VC1-08948
Associated RPD Number(s): VC1-08949
ATIP Number: A-2022-01960
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: Your testimony and the other evidence before me, and I am prepared to provide you with my decision orally.

[2] This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division in the claims of protection of XXXX XXXX XXXX, the principal claimant, and her daughter, XXXX XXXX XXXX, the minor claimant, as citizens of Colombia, who are claiming protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. In coming to this decision today, I have considered and applied the Chairperson’s Guidelines on woman claimants fearing gender-related persecution.

DETERMINATION

[3] I find the claimants are Convention refugees within the meaning of section 96 of the Act, because there is a serious possibility they will be persecuted in Colombia by reason of their membership in a particular social group of women and girls who are victims of domestic and family violence.

ALLEGATIONS

[4] The following is a brief synopsis of the allegations that the claimants put forth in their Basis of Claim forms and narratives in Exhibit 2.

[5] The claimants allege they face persecution in Colombia at the hands of the Principal Claimant’s ex-partner, XXXX (ph), who is also the father of the minor claimant. The principal claimant met XXXX when she was young. Shortly after their relationship began, XXXX became violent. The principal claimant wanted to leave him, but she then became pregnant, and believed she had to stay for the sake of the minor claimant. The abuse continued throughout their relationship, including the pregnancy, the abuse was emotional, psychological, physical, and sexual. XXXX would follow her to and from work, threaten the claimant and her family, and abuse her on a regular basis. He stalked her in person and online and contacted partners and family members. The claimant was able to separate from XXXX after the minor claimant was born. The principal claimant felt compelled to allow XXXX and his family access to the minor claimant. At times, he would take her without bringing her back and at other times, when the minor claimant returned, she was unwell and seemingly uncared for. The principal claimant does not know how XXXX earns money but would be advised that he was involved with the Medellin Cartel and narco traffickers. He would post photographs on social media with narco traffickers. He would also advise the claimant of these connections and threatened to have someone kill her.

[6] Despite being separated from XXXX, the abuse continued. The principal claimant tried to seek state protection. She called, for example, the XXXX XXXX XXXX a number of times. XXXX would flee before they arrived, and the police would never follow up on the incident. This allowed XXXX to continue with his behaviour. The principal claimant also obtained a protective order, which is in evidence, but XXXX abuse continued. In XXXX 2017, the principal claimant met a Canadian citizen online named XXXX (ph). XXXX paid for the claimant’s travel to Canada. On the first trip, in XXXX 2018, the principal claimant came alone because she did not know how to obtain XXXX authorization for the minor claimant’s travel. The claimant returned to Colombia in XXXX 2018. She wanted to bring the minor claimant to Canada with her. She spoke to a lawyer, and ultimately, the principal claimant was able to make an agreement not to pursue support payment against XXXX in return for his agreement to allow the minor claimant to permanently leave Colombia. Again, a copy of this agreement is also in evidence.

[7] The claimants entered Canada for the final time in XXXX 2019. The claimants were fearful of returning to Colombia. They believed XXXX was going to sponsor them in Canada. In the summer of 2019, the claimant contacted the office responsible for the sponsorship application and was advised that XXXX had put a stop to the process without advising her. In XXXX 2019, he left the home, which forced the claimant to move in with a friend. Both claimants, I should say. XXXX returned after a month and apologized. They again began the spousal sponsorship process with a new firm. In XXXX 2020, XXXX again left with — while the claimants were out. He did not return. At the end of the relationship, he also was abusive.

[8] At the end of XXXX 2020, the claimants contacted a legal clinic. The principal claimant explained her situation in Colombia and was advised about the refugee process. She then initiated the claim in about XXXX 2021.

[9] Over the years, XXXX has continued to threaten the claimants, including by contacting XXXX in Canada and other partners and family members in Colombia. The claimants fear ongoing domestic violence should they return to Colombia.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[10] I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the claimant’s identities as nationals of Colombia are established by the copies of their passports in Exhibit 1 and also by the principal claimant’s credible testimony today.

Credibility and Well-Founded Fear of Persecution

[11] The duty of this Panel is to find that there is sufficient, credible, or trustworthy evidence to determine that there is more than a mere possibility that these claimants would be persecuted if returned to Colombia. My role is to determine if there is a reliable and trustworthy evidence that can establish the claimant’s allegations on a balance of probabilities. In this case, I find there is.

[12] The principal claimant testified on behalf of her family. She testified in a voluntary, detailed, and straightforward manner. She testified to her personal history, including her abusive relationship, and the resulting threats that she and her daughter have faced. Her testimony was very detailed, spontaneous, and emotive, and the claimant also provided ample supporting evidence to corroborate their allegations, including identity documents, a copy of the minor claimant’s birth certificate, a custody order, a permanent travel authorization for the minor claimant, numerous police and state documents relating to the abuse from XXXX, including police reports and a copy of the temporary protective order, numerous documents relating to the relationship with XXXX and the sponsor — spousal sponsorship application in Canada, copies of correspondence between the principal claimant and the airport authorities in Colombia requesting information on XXXX notification request. I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of any of these documents. I assign the documents significant weight, as they corroborate the central elements of the claimants’ allegations.

[13] I also find the principal claimant has satisfactorily explained her delay in making a claim for protection in Canada and her re-availments to Colombia, which were at the behest of her ex-partner, XXXX, who controlled her immigration status in Canada, and which were based on her understanding of the requirements of the sponsorship process in Canada, and given she was required to return to Colombia to pick up her daughter. The delay in re-availments do not diminish the claimant’s overall credibility or the core of their story about domestic, physical, and sexual violence. I find that the claimant’s delays in claiming or the returns to Colombia do not impact the credibility of the claimant’s subjective fears, as I find she has provided reasonable explanations. I therefore make no negative inference against the claimants.

[14] Overall, I identified no material contradictions, inconsistencies, or omissions between the claimant’s allegations and the evidence before me. I find the principal claimant was a credible witness, and I believe what she has alleged both in testimony and in whole in her Basis of Claim form and narratives. I note the — I note further that the claimant’s subjective fears are objectively well-founded and corroborated by the country evidence before me.

[15] According to a report at Item 5.4 of the NDP, “sources indicate that violence against woman has become normalized to the point that it is invisible to authorities and society in general in Colombia. Although prohibited by law, rape, including spousal rape, remains a serious problem. In Cali, women only report domestic violence to the FGN’s office. Family commissaries not properly trained to deal with domestic violence complaints, and the process for dealing with domestic violence complaints are slow and lack effectiveness. Women are revictimized at state institutions as their — as they are the object of offensive or inconsiderate comments by officials who lay the blame on these women for the violence they have experienced. Conciliation is often considered in domestic violence situations, which, in practice, makes women vulnerable, because it means they have to accept the violence from their partner, and leaves them in an even more dire position. The infrastructure and personnel, especially at the family commissiaries (sic), is insufficient.

[16] I accept the principal claimant was a victim of intimate partner violence, and that the minor claimant was a victim of domestic violence in Colombia as she was used as leverage by XXXX to harm the principal claimant. I also accept the principal claimant’s testimony that she is certain that XXXX would harm the minor claimant. I find this certainty is not speculative, but actually a valid inference which can be drawn from the evidence, and which is derived from her own firsthand experiences. I note the objective evidence supports the claimant’s allegations of the tolerance and impunity perpetrators of violence experience in Colombia. I find the claimants have established, with reliable and credible evidence, that they would likely – more likely than not, continue to experience emotional and physical violence from XXXX in Colombia. I find the claimants face a serious possibility of persecution in that country.

State Protection

[17] States are presumed capable of protecting their citizens. In this case, I find the presumption has been rebutted. According to the country condition documents before me, the Colombian Government has passed legislation to address domestic violence. However, these efforts have not been effective on an operational level, and domestic violence continues to be a serious problem throughout the country. The US DOS report at Item 2.1 of the NDP states that although prohibited by law, rape, including spousal rape, remains a serious problem in the country. The report further states that violence against women and impunity for perpetrators continue to be a problem.

[18] According to Item 5.4 of the NDP, as I said, violence against women has become normalized in Colombia to the point that it is invisible to authorities and society in general. A Colombian non-governmental organization that advocated for woman’s rights reports that in many cases women prefer not to report domestic violence out of a fear of being stigmatized or revictimized by state institutions. According to the United Nations, institutions that deal with cases of domestic violence in Colombia have insufficient capacity, resulting in high levels of impunity. As an example, in 2015, Colombia’s Attorney General’s office received over 85,000 cases of intra-family violence, with charges laid in just 12 percent of the cases, and a conviction rate of only 24 percent. Ultimately, I find there is sufficient objective clear and convincing evidence to establish the claimants are unable to receive operationally effective protection from the state authorities in Colombia. In this case, the principal claimant herself has already attempted to seek state protection on numerous occasions, each without any meaningful follow up or protection provided, and even after contacting the state, XXXX continued to harm the claimants. I find in this case the presumption of state protection has been rebutted.

Internal Flight Alternative

[19] the first prong of this assessment is to determine on a balance of probabilities if there is a serious possibility of persecution in the internal flight alternative or a risk to life, cruel and unusual treatment. In this case, I did identify Medellin as a potential IFA. However, the Panel notes the agent of harm in this case has remained motivated and capable in finding the claimants through families and friends. He has been able to find the principal claimant online and even contacted her ex-partners. I find the claimants would have to remain in hiding to not come to XXXX attention. Further, as the father of the minor claimant having a parental connection to the child in the case would allow him to use the courts or police to assist him in locating the claimants throughout Colombia. Although the Panel recognizes court injunctions on him knowing her whereabouts could potentially be put in place under legislation, as previously noted, the ineffectiveness and the conciliation used in these cases is simply not reasonable, and I find there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that they would be effective.

[20] Ultimately, I find the claimants do face a series possibility of persecution throughout Colombia, and that there is no internal flight alternative available for the claimants as a result.

CONCLUSION

[21] For the above noted reasons, I find both of the claimants are Convention refugees pursuant to section 96 of the Act, and I accept these claims today.

[22] So, as I said, that will conclude our hearing for today. Again, thank you, everybody, for your involvement. I will take us off the record now and wish you all the best. Okay?

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———

All Countries Yemen

2022 RLLR 7

Citation: 2022 RLLR 7
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 1, 2022
Panel: Kay Scorer
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Diane B. Coulthard
Country: Yemen
RPD Number: VC1-07100
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01960
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: I have considered all of the evidence in this case, and I am prepared to provide my decision orally. This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, as a citizen of Yemen who is seeking protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. In coming to this decision today, and including in the hearing, I have considered and applied the Chairperson’s guideline on woman claimants fearing gender-related persecution.

Allegations

[2] The claimant’s allegations are contained in full in her Basis of Claim form and attached narrative at Exhibit 2. Summarized only briefly, the claimant is an elderly divorced female, alleging fear of persecution in Yemen due to her Sunni religion, her perceived political opinion, and membership in a particular social group, namely, her gender as a woman.

Determination

[3] I find the claimant is a Convention refugee. I find the claimant has established a nexus to the Convention ground of membership in a particular social group, namely, her gender as a woman. Therefore, I am assessing this claim under section 96. I do note that the claimant has also alleged persecution based on her political opinion and her religion, however, I found her claim to be established on her gender alone, and have therefore only analyzed this element of her claim as a result.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[4] I find the claimant’s identity as a national of Yemen is established based on her testimony, and also a copy of her passport, which can be found in Exhibit 1.

Credibility

[5] Pursuant to the Maldonado principle, the claimant benefits from a presumption that her allegations are true. In this case, I have no reason to doubt the truthfulness of the claimant. I note that the claimant is an uneducated elderly woman. This vulnerable profile was taken into consideration when assessing her testimony, and in questioning today. Despite some obvious barriers, she did testify in a forthcoming and emotive way that I did find to be compelling. Her Basis of Claim and narrative were detailed and materially consistent with her testimony at the hearing, and the other evidence before me. I found the claimant to be a credible witness. Further, I find that the material elements of her profile, namely her profile as an elderly woman, are corroborated by the objective evidence before me, which includes a copy of her passport. I find she has established she is a national of Yemen who fears persecution in Yemen based on her gender as a woman.

Well-founded Fear and Risk of Harm

[6] For a claimant to be a convention refugee, the claimant must have a well-founded fear of persecution due to a Convention ground. In this case, I find the documentary evidence is clear and consistent that women in Yemen face significant pervasive discrimination that amounts to persecution. I note that in this particular case, the claimant’s vulnerabilities are further exacerbated by the fact that she is an elderly, uneducated, and divorced woman. She has no family in Yemen, and I find that this puts her at a serious risk of persecution based on her gender in that country. As noted by the report at the human rights watch at Tab 5.8 of the NDP which is in Exhibit 3, laws in Yemen require women to be obedient to their husbands. Women are generally not allowed to leave the house without permission of men. Honour killings by men of women and girls are treated very leniently by the courts, if they are prosecuted at all. As noted by the US DOS report at Tab 2.1, a male relative’s consent was often required before a woman could even be admitted to a hospital. The claimant has no male relatives in Yemen. Without even taking into consideration the ongoing conflict in which woman and children bear a heavier burden of negative consequences, the discrimination against woman and girls in Yemen is so significant and pervasive that a woman is not even able to reliably seek medical treatment or help without a man there to give her permission. The US DOS report notes that with the loss of many men from households in the conflict, this requirement for a man’s consent before women can get medical treatment means that many women are simply not receiving any medical treatment because hospitals are refusing to deal with women alone. According to the report at 5.7, gender-based violence in Yemen has risen to alarming proportions, with an estimated 90 percent of woman facing sexual harassment in public spaces. A report at Tab 2.7 by the UN Human Rights Council notes “in 2018 and 2019, new oppressive gender norms have proliferated, and women and girls are further marginalized”. Women are marginalized by both state and non-state actors, and the conditions have only worsened in recent years. I am satisfied based on the evidence before me and the remaining evidence in the NDP that the claimant will face a serious possibility of persecution as a woman if she were to return to Yemen. I find the claimant’s fears are well-founded and forward-facing.

State protection and Internal Flight Alternative

[7] Except in situations where the state is in complete breakdown, states are presumed to be capable of protecting their citizens. The objective evidence before me indicates that all sides to the conflict in Yemen continue to commit severe human rights abuses. Given this, along with the ongoing conflict, instability, and widespread violence, I find there is no adequate or operational state protection available to the claimant in her particular circumstances, including the circumstances of being a divorced, elderly woman without male support. I find the presumption of state protection has been rebutted.

[8] Further, I find that it is not safe nor objectively reasonable in all of the circumstances, including those particular to this claimant, to relocate anywhere in Yemen. I find the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution through Yemen on the basis of her gender and profile as an elderly divorced woman. I also find that her gender would make internal relocation entirely unreasonable, given that women in Yemen often require permission from men to even leave their house. Accordingly, I find there is no IFA available to this claimant.

CONCLUSION

[9] Based on the foregoing analysis, I find the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the Act, and I therefore accept her claim.

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———

All Countries Lebanon

2022 RLLR 2

Citation: 2022 RLLR 2
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: May 24, 2022
Panel: Douglas Cryer
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Hachem Hassan Fawaz
Country: Lebanon
RPD Number: VC1-08109
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01960
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: This is a decision of the Refugee Protection Division in the claim of XXXX XXXX, citizen of Lebanon and making a claim for refugee protection under section 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[2] You allege the following. You owned XXXX XXXX, which were forced to close because members of Hezbollah and other religious extremist groups were accusing you of pulling women away from Islam. You did this by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and this is contrary to some people’s beliefs, that women should stay at home and wear the niqab when outside. On XXXX XXXX in 2021, you are at your client’s house in Beirut. You heard gunfire. You looked outside and you recognized one (1) of the members of Hezbollah who was a high-ranking official. When you called out to him, he was shocked that someone actually recognized him. He and his accomplices ran after you and fired gunshots towards you, but you are able to lock yourself and shelter in a building. 10 hours later when the clash ended, you were rescued by some police. The day following this clash, you received a threatening phone call from this Hezbollah member. He said he knew where your family was. He asked you to provide information about the people who sheltered you. He thought that you had taken a cellphone video of him. Out of fear, you did not return home, this based on the advice your father gave you. You fled to the United States before coming to Canada to make your refugee claim.

[3] INTERPRETER: Excuse me, sir?

[4] MEMBER: You fled to the United States before coming to Canada to make a refugee claim.

[5] This is a case where we consider the Chairperson’s gender guidelines. I did not have to make any particular application in relation to credibility. I considered the guidelines throughout.

[6] At the beginning, we listed the issues. Let us go through them now. Do you meet the definition of a Convention refugee or a person who is in need of protection? A Convention refugee is a person by reasons of a well-founded fear of persecution and for the following reasons. Race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or for political opinion as outside of your country of nationality, in this case, Lebanon, and that you are unable or by reason of your fear unwilling to avail yourself of the protection of the state. The definition for a person in need of protection does not apply here, so I will go over that.

[7] This is my decision. I find that you are a Convention refugee as you have established that you have a serious possibility of persecution if you return to Lebanon. This is based on your nexus to the Convention grounds. You belong to a particular social group, someone who fears gender-related persecution and for imputed political opinion because members of Hezbollah think that you could harm them. They think you have a video showing their violent actions.

[8] Next question. Have you established your identity, and do you possess acceptable documentation establishing your identity? I find that your identity as a national of Lebanon is established by your credible testimony and by the documents you provided. There is a certified photocopy of your passport in Exhibit 1.

[9] Is your claim credible? When you affirmed that you would tell the truth, this created a presumption that your allegations are true unless there are serious reasons to doubt their truthfulness. I had no reason to doubt your truthfulness. Your testimony today was consistent with what you wrote in your narrative. It is corroborated by documentary evidence, including letters of support from your father and your husband, especially.

[10] Is your fear to your return to your country well-founded? There must be both a subjective and an objective basis for your fear. What we mean by subjective fear is that your behaviour or your actions should be consistent with somebody who fears return to their country. In this case, the incident happened in Beirut and your family warned you not to return to your village. You stayed in hiding until very shortly afterwards you fled your country. These actions are consistent with somebody who would have a subjective fear of return. Is there objective evidence? The answer is yes based on your credible testimony and current country condition reports that you provided in Exhibit 4. Exhibit 3, the National Documentation Package, contains the evidence that people who fear Hezbollah, that Hezbollah has the resources to track people they are seeking. They have the ability to exercise control outside of the traditional legal system in Lebanon and they control large portions of Lebanon. This is described in Item 1.3, the Department of Foreign Affairs report for Australia and Item 7.8, which is a Response to Information Request that shows the extent and reach of Hezbollah.

[11] Have you provided evidence which establishes on a balance of probabilities that the authorities in your country cannot provide you with adequate protection? There is a presumption that states can protect their own citizens. This can be rebutted in a claimant’s individual circumstances. In this case, there is evidence that Hezbollah has harassed your husband and your immediate family over the months. There is evidence that the clash that you were speaking of, that there were approximately 30 people killed that day. Hezbollah has a reach and an influence that goes beyond Lebanon security forces. And like some other groups, Hezbollah has not given up their weapons. When you read these two (2) documents that I mentioned earlier, it is clear and convincing evidence that the state has an inability to protect from people who fear Hezbollah.

[12] Concerning the treatment of women in Lebanon, the Department of Foreign Affairs report that I referred to earlier mentions that Lebanon ranks I think 133 out of 144 for treatment of women in the world. This document summarizes that women generally face discrimination. In your own case, you face direct persecution, in that you had to shut down XXXX XXXX because religious extremists did not agree XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. And it is obvious in your case that the police did not offer you adequate protection in this case.

[13] Finally, we ask the question, would it be unreasonable for you to seek refuge in a different part of your country? Although not mentioned specifically throughout the hearing, Beirut is likely the most viable place that a person could flee to and live there. This is where you faced your own persecution, so it would be unreasonable for you to relocate to Beirut. There is a two-pronged test or two (2) tests. Could you live anywhere without a serious possibility of being persecuted? Since I find that there is inadequate protection for you in Lebanon, I find that there is no viable internal flight alternative.

[14] These are all the reasons that make you a Convention refugee under section 96 of the Act, and these are the reasons your claim is accepted.

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———