Citation: 2019 RLLR 76
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: May 24, 2019
Panel: Nick Bower
Counsel for the claimant(s): Ramin Joubin
Country: India
RPD Number: VB8-02905
ATIP Number: A-2020-01274
ATIP Pages: 000233-000242
REASONS FOR DECISION
INTRODUCTION
[1] These are the reasons for the decision in the claim of [XXX], a citizen of India who claims 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 and applied the Chairperson’s Guidelines on Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution.2
ALLEGATIONS
[3] The claimant alleges that she is at risk of being killed by her husband’s family to satisfy their honour.
[4] The claimant was born in and grew up in Punjab, India. Except for her time in university, the claimant lived with her parents until she married.
[5] She attended university at [XXX], a city [XXX] or [XXX] hours away. She stayed in [XXX] for two days a week to attend classes, and returned home for the other five days each week. While in [XXX] she lived in a [XXX] with other women. She graduated with a bachelor’s degree in [XXX].
[6] After graduation, the claimant returned to live with her parents. Her parents did not let her stay in [XXX]. She looked for work in her hometown without success. Her parents did not support the claimant looking for work elsewhere in India, and the claimant did not want to live on her own because she was afraid that she would get a bad reputation as a single woman living alone.
[7] The claimant’s family and the family of her future husband were acquainted through distant relatives. Her future husband, [XXX], contacted the claimant through Facebook in 2014 and they stayed Facebook friends until he asked her family to marry her. The claimant’s family agreed, and the claimant and [XXX] were engaged in 2015.
[8] [XXX] brother, [XXX], and sister-in-law, [XXX], lived in Canada. After the claimant confessed her anxieties about her upcoming marriage to [XXX], [XXX] passed this information to [XXX] parents. [XXX] parents were angry that the claimant was opposing her husband, and right before the formal engagement ceremony [XXX] parents called off the engagement.
[9] [XXX] insisted on marrying the claimant, and his parents relented. The claimant and [XXX] were engaged in summer 2015, and married on [XXX], 2015. Following the marriage the claimant moved to live with [XXX].
[10] For the first few months after they were married, [XXX] consulted with the claimant regarding decisions for the couple. He later stopped considering the claimant’s opinion, and the claimant was not even allowed to choose what food to prepare for family meals.
[11] In mid-2017 the claimant discovered that [XXX] had been abusing drugs when he suffered a [XXX]. The claimant spoke to [XXX] family about seeking treatment for him, but they did not cooperate. The claimant believes that [XXX] family, who continued to dislike the claimant, were hoping that [XXX] addiction would drive the couple apart. [XXX] did eventually go to treatment for his addiction.
[12] [XXX] family arranged for the couple to visit [XXX] brother and sister-in-law in Canada, and the claimant and [XXX] arrived in Canada in [XXX] 2018. They stayed with [XXX] brother and sister-in-law. The sister-in-law, [XXX], was the same woman who had worked to turn [XXX] family against the claimant years before.
[13] In Canada [XXX] continued to use drugs. [XXX] told the claimant’s mother-in law that the claimant was blaming the mother-in-law for the claimant’s and [XXX] problems. The mother-in-law spoke to [XXX] about this. A few weeks after the claimant and [XXX] arrived in Canada, [XXX] confronted the claimant, and the two argued. [XXX] then assaulted the claimant, choking her.
[14] Disagreements between the claimant and her in-laws continued. Later, on [XXX], 2018, [XXX] and [XXX] insisted that the claimant leave their home. The claimant did so the next day.
[15] The claimant went to stay in a women’s shelter. She returned to her in-laws’ home a few days later in the company of police to collect the rest of her belongings. The claimant told the police about [XXX] assault on her, and the police returned to arrest [XXX].
[16] Although there were no charges against [XXX] that proceeded to court, [XXX] parents learned that he had been arrested. Others in their community in Punjab heard about the arrest from their own relatives in Canada. The claimants’ parents-in-law felt shamed that their son had been arrested, and threatened to kill the claimant once she returned from Canada. The parents-in law made this threat to the claimant’s parents, who passed the information to a family friend, who in turn passed it to the claimant.
[17] The claimant has had no contact with her parents-in-law since she left [XXX] brother’s home. She has had no contact with her own parents for several months.
[18] The claimants’ in-laws had owned a high-earning [XXX] that earned them social status in the community. Her wedding was attended by significant local figures, including actors, retired military officers, and criminals. The claimant saw some of these people visit her in-laws’ home socially on other occasions.
[19] However, after the claimant came to Canada, she learned that her in-laws had lost the [XXX], and had little liquid assets left. The claimant’s sister-in-law [XXX] was working at [XXX] and other jobs, and sending money back to the claimant’s parents-in-law.
[20] The claimant alleges that her parents insist that she return to her husband, whatever the situation, because that is what is expected of a wife. She alleges that her in-laws are angry that she has shamed them by having their son arrested and seek to kill her to restore their honour.
DETERMINATION
[21] I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee.
ANALYSIS
Identity
[22] I find that the claimant’s identity as a citizen of India is established by her testimony and the copy of her current Indian passport including a Canadian visa.3
Credibility
[23] When a claimant swears to the truth of their allegations, there is a presumption that those allegations are true, unless there is reason to doubt their truthfulness.4 I cannot find a reason to doubt the truthfulness of the claimant’s allegations.
[24] The claimant’s testimony was generally consistent with the other evidence before me. She testified in a responsive manner and with reasonable detail on relevant matters.
[25] The claimant provided some corroborating documentary evidence. She has provided a name card with a file number from a constable with the [XXX] RCMP.5 Although there is no date or any further information, the card does corroborate that the claimant had some contact with the RCMP in [XXX], where she stayed with her brother-in-law and his wife.
[26] The claimant has provided a letter from a women’s shelter.6 This letter corroborates that the claimant stayed at the shelter for an extended period after being kicked out of her in-laws’ home in [XXX].
[27] The claimant has provided a transcript of a recorded telephone conversation between her mother and a friend of the claimant’s that corroborates details of the claimant’s testimony. Details of the conversation, including the first names and family circumstances of the subjects of the conversation, are consistent with the claimant and [XXX]. The speaker identified as the claimant’s mother states that [XXX] father has threatened to kill the claimant because she filed a complaint against them, and that the claimant’s mother wants nothing more to do with the claimant.
Nexus
[28] I find that there is a nexus between the persecution alleged and the Convention ground of membership in a particular social group as a woman. The claimant alleges that she faces persecution because she is a woman, and faces harsh consequences for not behaving as expected by the community.
Well-Founded Fear
[29] The claimant has testified that she fears returning to India. Considering all of the evidence before me, I find on a balance of probabilities that her fear is objectively well-founded.
[30] The claimant’s father-in-law has threatened to kill the claimant because she publicly shamed the family. I find that there is a serious risk that the claimant’s in-laws will carry out that threat.
[31] The claimant has testified that her in-laws have publicly and proudly associated with high-ranking members of local criminal organizations, including at her wedding, and that her father-in-law has bragged to her of using his connections to bribe police. This demonstrates that the claimant’s in-laws are willing to demonstrate in illegal activity for their own benefit.
[32] Objective evidence states that police in India are subject to corruption and operate in an environment of “widespread impunity,” corroborating the father-in-law’s boasts of bribery.7
[33] The claimant has provided photos obtained from Facebook of her father-in-law and other relatives posing proudly with a variety of firearms.8 I am satisfied that the claimant’s in-laws have the means to carry out their threat to her.
[34] The objective evidence establishes that ‘honour’ crimes against women in India remain a major issue.9 10
[35] ‘Honour’ crimes are committed to maintain a family’s or community’s honour in society and are usually targeted against women. Family honour is particularly connected to women and marriage, and ‘honour’ crimes can occur because a child married against the parents’ wishes. Although there are no official statistics available, ‘honour’ crimes are reported to be “prevalent” or “widespread” in India, and are more common in northern areas, including Punjab. ‘Honour’ crimes occur in all sectors of society, among all religions, and in both urban and rural areas. ‘Honour’ crimes frequently end in the death of the victim.11
[36] The claimant’s in-laws have threatened to kill the claimant because her actions in leaving their son and involving the police have insulted their honour. Based on the evidence before me in this case, I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that there is a serious risk that the claimant faces persecution in the form of ‘honour’ killing if she were to return to India.
State protection
[37] I find that the claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection.
[38] Police in India are under-staffed, under-resourced, under-trained and overburdened. Police are subject to political pressure, and are themselves sometimes responsible for human rights abuses. Police frequently failed to respond effectively, particularly regarding crimes against women.12
[39] Police are reluctant to accept complaints or carry out investigations regarding ‘honour’ crimes, generally only registering complaints if the complainant is influential or wealthy. Powerful perpetrators often face no real consequences. In some areas, police are sympathetic to the perpetrators and implicitly condone ‘honour’ crimes.13
[40] Based on the evidence before me in this case, I find that the state will not provide adequate protection to the claimant.
Internal flight alternative (IFA)
[41] Considering all of the evidence before me, in the particular circumstances of this case, I find that it is not objectively reasonable for the claimant to relocate within India.
[42] The threshold for an IFA to be objectively unreasonable is very high; conditions must jeopardize the life and safety of the claimant for a proposed IFA to be unreasonable.14 The onus is on the claimant to provide actual concrete evidence of conditions that would jeopardize her life and physical safety if she were to relocate, considering all of the circumstances, including those particular to her.15
[43] The claimant has a university education; she has obtained a bachelor’s degree in [XXX]. However, she has never worked outside the home, and had never lived independently before separating from her husband in Canada. Even given her education, the claimant is inexperienced and unsophisticated.
[44] The claimant has not kept in contact with her friends from university. Her family will not support her, and she no longer has contact with her family members. She has only a few friends willing to assist her, and they are here in Canada. If the claimant were to return to India, she would be alone and without support.
[45] Single women are stigmatized and marginalized in Indian society, and are not considered complete without a husband. Women face significant difficulties finding employment, often only able to find low-paid subsistence work in the informal sector. Women are more vulnerable to inequities in job security, pay parity, access to credit, and suitable work conditions.16
[46] Single women have great difficulty finding housing. Single women are seen to be of poor moral character and possibly engaged in prostitution, and so landlords do not like to rent apartments, even to single women who are professionals. Landlords who do rent to single women sometimes impose rules on their tenants, including curfews, and frequently look for opportunities to evict single female tenants.17
[47] Many women who flee domestic violence are left homeless. Homeless women are subject to constant violence, sexual assault and murder, from passers-by and even police, and lack access to essential public services.18
[48] Women in India are subject to violence including rape and violation of their rights, which occur throughout the country systematically and with impunity, within the home and within the community at large. State actors perpetrate or condone the violence. There are few resources available to assist single women to live independently.19
[49] As set out by the country documents, these conditions exist throughout India, including in large metropolitan cities such as Mumbai and New Delhi.
[50] Based on all of the evidence before me in this case, including the objective documentary evidence about country conditions in India faced by single women, I find on a balance of probabilities that internal relocation is objectively unreasonable for the claimant. She would face significant and constant obstacles in finding work and shelter, and would be at constant risk of homelessness and violence. These conditions jeopardize her life and safety.
[51] Because relocation is objectively unreasonable in all of the circumstances of this case, the claimant does not have a viable IFA.
CONCLUSION
[52] Based on the analysis above, I conclude that the claimant is a Convention refugee, and I accept her claim.
(signed) Nick Bower
May 24, 2019
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 1996.
3 Exhibit 1.
4 Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1980] 2 FC 302 (C.A.).
5 Exhibit 5, p. 10.
6 Exhibit 5, p. 9.
7 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, India, 29 March 2019, tab 2.1: India. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2018. United States. Department of State. 13 March 2019.
8 Exhibit 5, pp. 25-29.
9 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, India, 29 March 2019, tab 2.1: India. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2018. United States. Department of State. 13 March 2019.
10 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, India, 29 March 2019, tab 2.11: Compilation on India. United Nations. Human Rights Council. 22 February 2017. A/HRC/WG.6/27/IND/2.
11 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, India, 29 March 2019, tab 5.10: Honour crimes, including their prevalence in both rural and urban areas; government protection and services offered to victims of honour crimes (2009-April 2013). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 9 May 2013. IND104370.E.
12 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, India, 29 March 2019, tab 2.1: India. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2018. United States. Department of State. 13 March 2019.
13 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, India, 29 March 2019, tab 5.10: Honour crimes, including their prevalence in both rural and urban areas; government protection and services offered to victims of honour crimes (2009-April 2013). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 9 May 2013. IND104370.E.
14 Hamdan v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2017 FC 643, para. 12.
15 Diaz Pena v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 369, para. 36.
16 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, India, 29 March 2019, tab 5.11: Whether single women and women who head their own households without male support can obtain housing and employment, including in Delhi, Mumbai and Chandigarh; women’s housing, land, property and inheritance rights; government support service… Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 26 May 2015. IND105109.E.
17 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, India, 29 March 2019, tab 5.11: Whether single women and women who head their own households without male support can obtain housing and employment, including in Delhi, Mumbai and Chandigarh; women’s housing, land, property and inheritance rights; government support service… Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 26 May 2015. IND105109.E.
18 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, India, 29 March 2019, tab 5.2: Violence against women, including domestic violence, homelessness, workplace violence; information on legislation, state protection, services, and legal recourse available to women who are victims of violence (2013-April 2015). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 15 May 2015. IND105130.E.
19 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, India, 29 March 2019, tab 1.10: Country Information and Guidance. India: Women fearing gender-based harm/violence. United Kingdom. Home Office. April 2015.