Prompt:
What precedents are cited in this Refugee Protection Division decision from the Refugee Law Lab Reporter?

2023 RLLR 113 Citation: 2023 RLLR 113 Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division Date of Decision: November 22, 2023 Panel: Sandeep Chauhan Counsel for the Claimant(s): N/A Country: Turkey RPD Number: VC3-00957 Associated RPD Number(s): N/A ATIP Number: A-2024-00593 ATIP Pages: N/A DECISION INTRODUCTION [1] This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claim of XXXX XXXX (the “claimant”), as a citizen of Türkiye, who is claiming refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).[1] ALLEGATIONS [2] This is a brief synopsis of the allegations put forth by the claimant, the details of which can be found in his Basis of Claim (BOC) form.[2] He fears persecution in Türkiye at the hands of Turkish authorities because he is a Kurd, practices Alevi faith, and because his conscientious objection to conscription. The claimant also fears persecution at the hands of his ex-girlfriend’s family due to their relationship. [3] The claimant is a 21-year-old Kurdish man who practices Alevi faith. He commenced a romantic relationship with XXXX, a girl from his area, whose family practices Sunni Islam. When XXXX’s family found out of their relationship through her pregnancy, they attacked his house on XXXX XXXX, 2023 and threatened to kill the claimant, who was not at home at that time. The claimant managed to hide in another city and left Türkiye on XXXX XXXX, 2023. He reached the United States (US) on XXXX XXXX, 2023, transiting through Mexico. After being detained in a camp in the US and furnishing a bind for his release, the claimant got out of detention on XXXX XXXX, 2023. He entered Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2023, and filed for refugee protection. The claimant fears for his life as there are warrants out for his arrest for evading conscription and on charges filed by XXXX’s family for impregnating her out of wedlock. DETERMINATION [4] I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee as he has established a serious possibility of persecution for the following reasons. ANALYSIS Identity [5] The claimant’s identity as a national of Türkiye is established, on a balance of probabilities, based on a certified copy of his Turkish passport on file.[3] Nexus [6] For a claimant to be considered a Convention refugee, the well-founded fear of persecution must be by reason of one or more of the five grounds: race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion. The persecution that the claimant fears in this case is due to his faith as an Alevi, because he is a Kurd, and due to his conscientious objection to conscription. I find that he has established nexuses to three Convention grounds – ethnicity, religion, and political opinion. As such, his claim is being assessed under section 96 of IRPA and not under section 97. Credibility [7] The claimant testified in a straightforward manner and there were no inconsistencies in his testimony or contradictions between his testimony and the other evidence before me. He did not attempt to embellish his testimony at any time during the hearing. [8] The claimant has provided corroborative documentary evidence[4] in support of his claim, including evidence of his Alevi faith and Kurdish ethnicity, photographs of his father being assaulted by XXXX’s family, two warrants of arrest against the claimant, and his photographs with XXXX, which are consistent with his allegations. I have no reason to doubt the genuineness of these documents and accept them as genuine. [9] Therefore, on a balance of probabilities, I find the claimant to be a credible witness and accept his allegations to be true, including his subjective fear of returning to Türkiye. Well-Founded Fear of Persecution and Risk of Harm [10] In order for me to find that the claimant is a Convention refugee, I must find that the objective evidence supports his subjective fears, and that there was a serious possibility that he would be persecuted if removed to Türkiye. I find that the objective evidence supports his subjective fears and establishes a serious possibility of persecution for the claimant if he is forced to return to his country. My reasons are as follows. [11] On the issue of treatment of Alevis by state authorities, objective evidence states that: A report by the International Association for Human Rights Advocacy in Geneva (IAHRAG), an organization that aims to “assist, support, guide and sustain victims of human rights violations,” including in Turkey, states that it is “quite common” for individuals in the executive branch to use hate speech toward minorities, including Alevis (IAHRAG May 2021, 3, 4). CSW notes that “[t]he promotion of ultra-nationalism has contributed to a rise in discrimination and in hate speech that encourages violence towards non-Sunni religious communities” which occurs in “education, the workplace and religious practice, to day-to-day administrative procedures” (CSW 1 May 2020).[5] [12] The Response to Information Request (RIR) on the treatment of Kurds in Türkiye, including supporters of the HDP, states that: A representative of a confederation of Turkish trade unions, cited in a UK Home Office report, stated that the situation in the areas of south-eastern and eastern Turkey, which are mainly populated by Kurds, can be “‘harder’,” with “‘problematic'” economic and social issues (UK Oct. 2019, 24). The same representative further stated that the Kurdish regions are less developed than western Turkey and that Kurds in this area suffered “serious forms of human rights violations” by the Turkish government, which has prompted westward Kurdish migration (UK Oct. 2019, 95).[6] [13] On the issue of draft evasion, objective evidence states that: The 2019 annual report of the European Bureau for Conscientious Objection (EBCO), “an umbrella organisation for national associations of conscientious objectors” (EBCO n.d.), states that “conscientious objectors fac[e] ongoing arrest warrants; a life-long cycle of prosecutions and imprisonment, and a situation of ‘civil death’ which excludes them from social, cultural and economic life” (EBCO 14 Feb. 2020, 20) The same source further reports that [o]bjectors are still criminalised as call-up/draft evaders. An unlimited arrest warrant is issued and due to this arrest warrant, they are detained on any occasion when they have to present their ID to the police or gendarmerie, a situation which frequently occurs. On the first detention, the objector is given an administrative fine. But every subsequent detention opens a new criminal case, which can lead to a prison sentence of anything from 2 months to 3 years. To avoid arrest and detention, objectors are forced to live an underground life. In the event that the government declares a military mobilization, conscientious objectors risk being charged with desertion, which is subject to the death penalty under Article 63 of the Military Criminal Code. (EBCO 14 Feb. 2020).[7] [14] The objective evidence discussed above establishes that Alevite Kurds are targeted by the Turkish authorities. Such individuals, as the claimant in this case who evade military draft, are fined, and then persecuted to such an extent that they must live in hiding all their lives. This escalates to a death penalty if the government declares military mobilization. In this case, the claimant is already wanted by the Turkish authorities as there are warrants out for his arrest for draft evasion. Therefore, based on all the evidence before me, I find that he will face a serious possibility of persecution if forced to return to his country. His fears are indeed well-founded. State Protection [15] I find that the claimant will not be able to access adequate state protection if forced to return to Türkiye. [16] Since the State of Türkiye is the agent of persecution, I find that it will be objectively unreasonable for him to seek protection in his country, and that the presumption of state protection has been rebutted. Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) [17] I have also considered whether the claimant has a viable IFA in his country and find that there is none. The government of Türkiye is in control of the entire territory of the country and the treatment of Alevi Kurds, including conscientious objectors to conscription, is uniform throughout the country. [18] Given the persecution Alevi Kurds and draft evaders face everywhere in Türkiye, I find that it is neither safe nor objectively reasonable in all of the circumstances, including the claimant’s circumstances, for him to relocate anywhere within his country. Accordingly, I find that there is no viable IFA available to the claimant. CONCLUSION [19] For the foregoing reasons, I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 of IRPA. Therefore, I accept his claim. ——— REASONS CONCLUDED ——— [1] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27. [2] Exhibit 2. [3] Exhibit 1. [4] Exhibit 4. [5] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Türkiye, 31 July 2023, tab 12.2: Situation of Alevis, including political and religious rights; treatment of Alevis by society and authorities; state protection (2019–November 2021). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 3 December 2021. TUR200819.E. [6] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Türkiye, 31 July 2023, tab 13.1: Situation of Kurds, including in Istanbul, Ankara, and Izmir; situation of supporters or perceived supporters of the Peoples’ Democratic Party (Halkların Demokratik Partisi, HDP); situation of Alevi Kurds (July 2018-December 2019). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 7 January 2020. TUR106385.E. [7] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Türkiye, 31 July 2023, tab 8.2: Military service, both compulsory and voluntary, including requirements, length, alternatives and exemptions; consequences of draft evasion and conscientious objection (2018–November 2020). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 30 November 2020. TUR200361.E.

Response:
## Analysis of Refugee Decision: 2023 RLLR 113

### Key Issues
lematic'” economic and social issues (UK Oct. 2019, 24). The same representative further stated that the Kurdish regions are less developed than western Turkey and that Kurds in th

### Legal Analysis
The decision analyzes refugee protection criteria by examining: on for the following reasons. ANALYSIS Identity [5] The claimant’s identity as a national of Türkiye is established, on a balance of probabilities, based on a certified copy of his Turkish passport on file.[3] Nexus [6] For a claimant to be considered a Convention refugee, the well-founded fear of persecution must be by reason o

### Implications for Immigration Practice
This decision provides guidance for refugee claimants on evidentiary requirements and credibility assessments. Legal practitioners should carefully document client narratives and address potential inconsistencies proactively. The case demonstrates the importance of thorough country conditions research and proper preparation of witnesses.


Prompt:
What specific procedures does this Federal regulations from the Canadian government establish for immigration processes?

# Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Regulations CRC, c 1033 Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Regulations Enabling authority: MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT RETIRING ALLOWANCES ACT 1 [Repealed, SOR/2003-111, s. 2] ## Defined Benefit Limit 2 For the purposes of paragraph (b) of the definition deﬁned beneﬁt limit in subsection 2(1) of the Act, the amount of the defined benefit limit in respect of the 1995 calendar year is $1,722.22 and, in respect of any subsequent calendar year, is determined in accordance with the definition deﬁned beneﬁt limit in subsection 8500(1) of the Income Tax Regulations. ## Credits to Retiring Allowances Account and Compensation Arrangements Account 3 The amounts referred to in paragraphs 5(1)(a) and 28(1)(a) of the Act must be credited to the Retiring Allowances Account and the Compensation Arrangements Account, respectively, in the calendar month following the month in which the contributions referred to in paragraphs 4(1)(a) and 27(1)(a) of the Act are paid. 3.1 [Repealed, SOR/2020-180, s. 2] 4 For the purposes of subsection 63(2) of the Act, interest must be calculated at the rate of 4% compounded annually. ## Payment of Allowances 5 (1) The monthly instalment of an allowance payable under the Act must be paid on the last day of that month. (2) When a member becomes entitled to an allowance after the first day of any calendar month, the amount of the instalment that is payable on the last day of that month is determined by prorating the instalment by the number of days in that month in respect of which the member is so entitled to the total number of days in that month. (3) When a person to whom an allowance is payable under the Act dies and the date of death is a day other than the last day of that month of death, the amount of the instalment that is payable for that month is determined by prorating the instalment by the number of days in that month prior to death, including the day on which the person dies, to the total number of days in that month. 6 If a recipient is incapable of managing their own affairs and there is no person entitled by law to act as their representative in respect of managing their affairs, the Receiver General may pay the allowance or other benefit payable under the Act to any person designated by the Minister to receive it on the recipient’s behalf. ## Payment by Member 7 (0.1) For the purpose of subsection (1) and paragraph (3)(b), the actuarial valuation report is the one that was most recently laid before Parliament, in accordance with subsection 65(1) of the Act, before the day on which the member makes the election or, if that report was laid before Parliament in the month in which that day falls or in the preceding month, the report that was laid before Parliament immediately before that report. (1) When a member has elected to pay in instalments in respect of any period of service for which they have elected to pay into the accounts, (a) the first instalment is due and payable on the last day of the month in which the election made by the member is received by the Minister, and succeeding instalments are payable during the lifetime of the member in equal amounts, with the exception of the last instalment, which may be less in amount than the preceding instalments, all instalments to be fully paid within a period of 20 years from the day on which the member makes the election and to be calculated in accordance with the mortality rates used in the preparation of the actuarial valuation report with interest at (i) the rate of 4% per annum, where the election is made before April 7, 1970 or after September 20, 2000, and (ii) the rate of 8% per annum, where the election is made during the period beginning on April 7, 1970 and ending on September 20, 2000; and (b) the member may from time to time amend their payment plan to provide for payment of the instalments still to be paid (i) by a lump sum, (ii) by larger monthly instalments on a basis similar to that described in paragraph (a) calculated as of the date of the amendment, or (iii) by a lump sum and monthly instalments on a basis similar to that described in paragraph (a) calculated as of the date of the amendment and payable within the same or a lesser period than that previously arranged under paragraph (a), or (iv) by smaller monthly instalments on a basis similar to that described in paragraph (a), calculated as of the date of the amendment and payable within a longer period than that previously arranged under paragraph (a), if they amend their payment plan in the time which they may elect under the Act to contribute in respect of previous sessions. (2) When a member has elected to pay a lump sum under paragraph 57(1)(a) of the Act and that sum has not been paid in full by the member within a period of 30 days after the day on which they make the election, the member is deemed to have elected to pay the amount owing by instalments calculated in accordance with subsection (1)(a). (3) When an allowance is payable to a person under the Act and they are in default in respect of any instalment payable by them under this section, recovery may be made at any time by deductions or set-off out of any amount payable to them, as they elect, a) by lump sum immediately; or b) by monthly instalments — calculated in accordance with the mortality rates used in the preparation of the actuarial valuation report with interest at the rate set out in subparagraph (1)(a)(i) or (ii), whichever is applicable — for the shorter of (i) the lifetime of the person, or (ii) the remainder of the period during which instalments under this section are to be paid. (4) Any amount payable under subsection 57(2) of the Act by a member or former member that remains unpaid at the time of their death and that is not paid within 30 days after the date of a demand by the Minister to the survivor of the member or former member, or if there is no such person, to the children of the member or former member to whom an allowance is payable, must be recovered by deductions as set out in subsections (4.1) to (4.4). (4.1) Deductions must be made over the period required to pay the amount in monthly instalments equal to 10% of the gross monthly amount of the allowance payable to the person in question under the Act. (4.2) Deductions must be made from the gross monthly amount of the allowance and the first deduction must be made in the month following the month in which the 30-day period referred to in subsection (4) ends. (4.3) A person in respect of whom deductions are made under this section may at any time a) pay the amount then owing in a lump sum; or b) arrange to pay the amount then owing by (i) larger monthly instalments, or (ii) a lump sum payment and monthly instalments within the period referred to in subsection (4.1) or with a shorter period. (4.4) If the person demonstrates that the monthly deductions referred to in subsection (4.1) would cause them financial hardship, the Minister may reduce the amount of deductions, and lesser monthly deductions may be made, commencing the month after the date of the notice of the Minister’s decision, but the deductions must not be less than 5% of the gross monthly amount of the allowance, or $10, whichever is greater. (5) Subject to subsection (6), when an amount that is payable by a member or former member is paid after the day on which it is due, the amount must bear interest at the rate set out in subparagraph (1)(a)(i) or (ii), whichever is applicable, from the due date to the date on which it is paid. (6) If a member or former member has authorized or directed that the amount payable by them under this section be deducted from moneys payable to them by or on behalf of Her Majesty and the member or the former member is in default because those deductions have not been made, interest is not payable under subsection (5) on the amount equal to the deductions that have not been made. (7) Nothing in this section prohibits a person from paying at any time before it is due any amount that is payable by them or that is deductible from their benefit under this section. (8) [Repealed, SOR/2020-180, s. 4] (9) [Repealed, SOR/2020-180, s. 4] 8 [Repealed, SOR/2020-180, s. 5] ## Allowance to Child of Former Member 9 Where a child is born to a former member, the child is not entitled to an allowance under the Act unless, (a) where the member ceased to be a member because of death, the child is a posthumous child; and (b) where the member ceased to be a member for any reason other than death, it appears to the Minister that the child was born following a gestation period commencing prior to the date when the member ceased to be a member. 10 (1) For the purposes of the definition child in subsection 2(1) of the Act, the expression *full-time attendance at a school or university* means full-time attendance at a school, college, university or other educational institution that provides training or instruction of an educational, professional, vocational or technical nature. (2) For the purposes of the definition child in subsection 2(1) of the Act, a child is deemed to be or to have been in full-time attendance at a school or university substantially without interruption during a scholastic vacation in the following circumstances: a) they begin or resume full-time attendance at a school or university at the beginning of the academic year following the vacation; or b) because of any reasonable cause, they cannot begin or resume full-time attendance at a school or university at the beginning of that academic year but they do so during that academic year or the next academic year. (3) A child who is absent during the academic year because of any reasonable cause is deemed to be or to have been in full-time attendance at a school or university substantially without interruption a) if, immediately after the absence, they begin or resume full-time attendance at a school or university during that academic year; b) until the end of the academic year during which they are absent, if they begin or resume full-time attendance at a school or university during the next academic year; and c) until their death, if they die during the academic year in which their absence commenced, or until the end of the academic year in which their absence commenced, if their death occurred after that academic year. (4) A child who is deemed to be or to have been in full-time attendance at a school or university must submit to the Minister a) a signed declaration by a responsible officer of the relevant institution that the child is or has been in full-time attendance at a school or university; and b) a signed declaration by the child is or has been in full-time attendance at a school or university. 11 [Repealed, SOR/2020-180, s. 7]

Response:
## Analysis of REGULATIONS-FED: Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Regulations

### Purpose and Context
This legislation establishes legal requirements relevant to immigration and refugee matters. It creates obligations for government officials, applicants, and other stakeholders in the immigration system. Understanding these provisions is essential for ensuring compliance with Canadian law in immigration contexts.

### Key Provisions
The document contains provisions related to immigration procedures, requirements, and enforcement mechanisms.

### Application to Immigration Cases
These regulations provide specific implementation details for broader legislative frameworks. Practitioners should ensure strict compliance with procedural requirements, timelines, and documentation standards. The regulations must be interpreted consistent with their enabling legislation and may be subject to challenge if they exceed the authority granted by the statute.


Prompt:
What legal tests are applied in this Refugee Protection Division decision from the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada?

RPD File No. / N° de dossier de la SPR : TA9-05908 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Claimant(s) XXXXX XXXXX Demandeur(e)(s) d'asile Date(s) of Hearing July 22, 2009 Date(s) de l'audience Place of Hearing Toronto, Ontario Lieu de l'audience Date of Decision November 2, 2009 Date de la décision Panel Me Michel Jobin tribunal Jacques Fortin Michael S. McCaffrey Counsel for the Claimant(s) Ron Shacter Lawyer Conseil(s) du / de la / des demandeur(e)(s) d'asile Tribunal Officer D. Hitayezu-Fall Agent(e) de tribunal Designated Representative(s) N/A Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre [1] These are the reasons for decision in the refugee protection claim filed by XXXXX XXXXX, a citizen of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. She is claiming refugee protection from Canada under section 96 by reason of her membership in a particular social group, namely women, and under section 97 as a person in need of protection. ALLEGED FACTS [2] According to the Personal Information Form1 (PIF), the claimant was born on XXXXX 1982. She was married in XXXXX 2005 and her family lives in XXXXX. [3] The claimant has a sister in Denmark and a sister who is living in Canada. [4] The claimant did not work after she finished her studies. [5] The claimant claims that she is wanted by the XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX. The claimant, who travelled back and forth between the two countries, lived in Rwanda as much as she did in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. [6] In her narrative, the claimant states that she and her family were victims of the Zairean army, mercenaries working for the AFDL (Alliance of Democratic Forces of the Congo) and for Rwanda. She was also accused of sheltering rebels in her home. [7] The claimant's parents were killed and then an attempt was made to rape her sister XXXXX. She resisted and was killed. The other members of the family were tied up and put in prison for one week. She adds that the women were tortured and raped and the men were dumped into the river. [8] Over the past few years, the claimant sought refuge in the neighbouring country, Rwanda. [9] The claimant concluded her narrative by pointing out that her husband and her son disappeared from the house when XXXXX XXXXX and his group passed through the area. [10] The claimant was finally accepted at a university in the United States. According to the PIF, the claimant travelled with an improper passport that was issued on July 7,2004, and an American visa issued on XXXXX 2007. The claimant left the Congo on XXXXX, 2007, and passed through Rwanda from XXXXX, 2007, to XXXXX, 2007. She arrived in the United States on XXXXX of the same year and lived there until July 18, 2007, when she arrived at our border to claim refugee protection from Canadian authorities. [11] As for her fear of returning, the claimant stated that she fears the rebels and the XXXXX XXXXX who attacked her family and would attack her should she return. ANALYSIS [12] The refugee protection claimant based her claim on the fact that she is targeted as a member of a particular social group, namely women, in order to request protection from Canadian authorities. She also added that section 97 applies in her case. [13] At the start of the hearing, the presiding member requested clarification on a number of points. The claimant stated that she left her country on XXXXX, 2007. When asked to explain when her problems started, she replied that it was in XXXXX 1996. The panel wanted to know what would happen to her should she return to her country. The claimant stated that, as Tutsis, her tribe is not liked. When asked to explain when she made the decision to leave her country, the claimant replied that it was on XXXXX, 2007. It should be noted that this was on the eve of her departure. [14] There is already a contradiction between the testimony and the PIF, where she mentions that she left the Congo on XXXXX 2007, which is a difference of one month. She claimed that she wanted to get to Rwanda to escape the situation in her country. [15] Having heard the testimony and analyzed all the evidence, the panel concludes that the claim for refugee protection should not be allowed, given the testimony and the major contradictions between some of the exhibits and the claimant's testimony. [16] For example, the panel questioned the claimant about the birth certificate issued by city hall.2 That document lists the father's occupation as a civil servant. Throughout her testimony, the claimant stated that he is a professor. Furthermore, on the birth certificate submitted, it is stated that the claimant was born when her father was 47 years old; however, the claimant testified that her father died when he was 42 years old. There is a major contradiction between the testimony and the document submitted. [17] The claimant stated that her father was 42 years old when he died and that he was a civil servant, yet the claimant indicated that he was a teacher or a professor. There is obviously a confusing array of dates and the panel has little faith in the birth certificate issued by the authorities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Furthermore, the document in question is not dated. The claimant had this document when she arrived in Canada. [18] The panel asked the claimant about the formalities associated with coming to the United States. The claimant stated that she submitted documents to come to the United States in XXXXX 2007. When asked to explain who had given her the money to obtain the documents and her enrolment in an educational establishment in the United States, the claimant replied laconically that someone had lent her all that money. She added that she does not know this friend or where the money came from. There is a major contradiction in the fact that she does not know the name of this friend, which is peculiar in this case. [19] Still regarding her situation in the United States, the panel asked the claimant why she had not claimed asylum in that democratic country. The claimant replied that she did not attend school and never had. She added that she had no one to help her. She concluded her explanation by stating that she likes Canada and that there is no racism her. Furthermore, her sister is in Canada. [20] The panel does not attribute any weight to the fact that no one could help her and that she was not going to school; in spite of all these drawn-out explanations, the claimant still spent almost one month in the United States without claiming protection from American authorities, which leads the panel to suppose that, contrary to her allegations, she was not harbouring any fears. [21] Consequently, the fact that the claimant did not claim asylum in the United States underlines that the claimant had little fear, and almost complete annuls her contention that she had difficulties in her country of origin. [22] Similarly, the claimant's PIF and her narrative indicate that she went to Rwanda repeatedly after being attacked by the militia. The panel did not receive any explanation when the claimant was asked why she always returned to her place of origin after spending time in the neighbouring country. Once again, the claimant, who could have stayed in the neighbouring country, opted to return home where, according to her narrative and her testimony, her safety was greatly compromised. This also undermines the claimant's subjective fear because, if she actually did have problems in her country, it is nevertheless curious that she would return to the exact place where she might have to suffer at the hands of the militias. [23] The notes from the port of entry state that the claimant was beaten in prison. She testified that she was raped while in prison. When asked to explain the major contradiction between the information that she provided to the first Canadian authorities that she encountered and that given at the hearing, the claimant could not provide any pertinent information. When asked about the alleged sexual assault, the claimant stated that the men were separated from the women, and then the latter were put in prison and physically abused by the military officers. [24] The claimant stated that, after she was released, she was left in a school. She then walked for about thirty minutes and arrived at a refugee camp. When asked whether she had received medical attention in the refugee camp, the claimant replied that she had taken some aspirin. The panel inquired whether she had then received a medical examination and the claimant replied that she had not. The only explanations provided by the claimant about her sexual abuse were that she had taken sedatives, aspirin and antibiotics. The claimant did not undergo a gynaecological examination. [25] The claimant did not undergo any physical or gynaecological examination afterwards. This undermines her allegation of sexual abuse. [26] The panel has serious doubts about the explanations provided by the claimant, who stated that she travelled between the two countries between 1996 and 2007. She explained that she lived in difficult conditions in neighbouring Rwanda, but in spite of all this, she returned to her region of birth. [27] As mentioned previously, this seriously undermines her well-founded fear. [28] The panel strongly questions whether the claimant actually experienced all the horrors that she detailed at the hearing. Considering that she regularly travelled between the two countries and that she failed to claim asylum in the United States, the panel is of the opinion that this is not the behaviour of someone who genuinely fears for her life. [29] The fact that rape is not mentioned in the port of entry notes also undermines the claimant's credibility. CONCLUSION [30] In light of the fact that she is not credible, the refugee protection claimant did not discharge her burden of proving that she has a well-founded fear of persecution in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. [31] Consequently, for the aforementioned reasons, the panel determines that the refugee protection claimant is not a "Convention refugee" or a "person in need of protection" under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA. [32] Consequently, the panel rejects the claim for refugee protection. Michel Jobin Me Michel Jobin Concurred in by: Jacques Fortin Jacques Fortin Concurred in by: Michael S. McCaffrey Michael S. McCaffrey November 2, 2009 Date REFUGEE PROTECTION DIVISION / PARTICULAR SOCIAL GROUP / WOMEN / VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMENT / TORTURE / RAPE / SOJOURNING / FAILURE TO SEEK PROTECTION IN OTHER COUNTRIES / REAVAILMENT / FEMALE / NEGATIVE / REPUBLIC DEMOCRATIC OF CONGO 1 Exhibit C-1. 2 Exhibit R/A-2, Information received from Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC). --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RPD File No. / No de dossier de la SPR : TA9-05908 RPD File No. :TA9-05908

Response:
## Analysis of Refugee Decision: TA9-05908

### Key Issues
. [16] For example, the panel questioned the claimant about the birth certificate issued by city hall.2 That document lists the father's occupation as a civil servant. Throughout h

### Legal Analysis
The decision analyzes refugee protection criteria by examining: attack her should she return. ANALYSIS [12] The refugee protection claimant based her claim on the fact that she is targeted as a member of a particular social group, namely women, in order to request protection from Canadian authorities. She also added that section 97 applies in her case. [13] At the start of the hearing, the p

### Implications for Immigration Practice
This decision provides guidance for refugee claimants on evidentiary requirements and credibility assessments. Legal practitioners should carefully document client narratives and address potential inconsistencies proactively. The case demonstrates the importance of thorough country conditions research and proper preparation of witnesses.


Prompt:
What are the implications of this Refugee Protection Division decision from the Refugee Law Lab Reporter for similar cases?

2023 RLLR 112 Citation: 2023 RLLR 112 Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division Date of Decision: April 17, 2023 Panel: Hannah Gray Counsel for the Claimant(s): N/A Country: Ukraine RPD Number: VC3-00901 Associated RPD Number(s): VC3-00902 ATIP Number: A-2024-00593 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, a citizen of Ukraine, and his spouse, XXXX XXXX, the associate claimant, a citizen of Russia, who are claiming refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the IRPA. In their claims I have considered and applied the Chairperson’s Guideline 9: Proceedings Before the IRB Involving Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Expression, and Sex Characteristics. DETERMINATION [2] 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 and in Russia. ALLEGATIONS [3] The specifics of the claims are stated in the claimants Basis of Claim forms and narrative in evidence as well as their updated Basis of Claim forms. The claimants are a married same-sex capital, aged 26 and 37 respectively. The principal claimant is a citizen of Ukraine, who resided in Moscow and had a temporary — sorry had a temporary status in Russia. The associate claimant is a citizen of Russia. They met in 2017 and both worked and live together in Moscow Russia. They fled to Canada in XXXX 2022 and made their refugee claim in November 2022. The claimants fear returning to Ukraine and Russia due to the homophobic policies and persecution towards LGBTQ+ persons. They also fear forced conscription in both Russia and Ukraine due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. ANALYSIS Identity [4] The claimants’ personal identities and their identities as nationals of Ukraine and Russia has been established by their sworn testimonies and the certified copies of their passports in evidence in Exhibit 1. The associate claimant testified that he was born in Kazakhstan and had citizenship there up until 2017 when he moved to Russia. He testified that he is no longer a citizen of Kazakhstan, as they do not allow for dual citizenship. The National Documentation Package for Kazakhstan at Item 3.1 states that citizens of the Republic of Kazakhstan are persons who permanently reside in the republic of Kazakhstan on the date of entry into force of this law, born on the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan, and are not citizens of a foreign country and acquire the citizenship of Republic of Kazakhstan in accordance with this law. A citizen of the Republic of Kazakhstan is not recognized as a citizen of another country. As the associate claimant provided his Russian passport and testified to living in Russia and being a citizen of Russia, I find that he is no longer a citizen of Kazakhstan, and therefore it is not a country of reference in his claim. I accept that the claimants are nationals of Ukraine and Russia and not nationals of any other countries. Credibility [5] When a claimant swears to 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 their testimony and the other evidence in this case that were not reasonably explained. 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 claim. The claimants provided ample details to expand upon their allegations and they also provided evidence in Exhibit 4 which included their marriage certificate from Canada in 2022 and the associate claimant’s military draft subpoena from Russia. I have no reason to doubt the genuineness of these documents and since the documents relate to the claimant’s relationship as a married same-sex couple, and the associate claimant’s requirements to join the Russian forces if he were to return now, I place significant weight on these documents to support their claims. Given the claimants’ careful testimonies and supporting documents, I find that they have established on a balance of probabilities the facts alleged in their claims, including that they are a same-sex couple who are married, and that Russia and Ukraine currently are conscripting military aged men into the armed forces. And therefore, I accept the subjective fear they have of returning to either Ukraine or Russia now. In sum, I find the claimants to be credible witnesses and believe what they have alleged in support of their claims. Nexus [6] 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 here establish a nexus to the Convention for the claimants based on their membership in a particular social group due to their sexual orientation as gay men, who are married to each other and who fear forced conscription. I will therefore assess their claims under section 96. Well-Founded Fear of Persecution & Risk of Harm [7] I find that the claimants have a well-founded fear of persecution in both Russia and Ukraine based on their sexual orientation. [8] I will first assess the risk of harm in Russia. I find that the claimants have established sufficient credible evidence to demonstrate that they face more than a serious possibility of persecution if they were to return to Russia now. Discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community in Russia is widespread and severe, including by the authorities, and this can be found at Item 6.7 of the National Documentation Package for Russia. A homophobic campaign continued in state-controlled media, in which officials, journalists and others derided LGBTQ+ persons as “perverts, sodomites and abnormal and conflated homosexuality with pedophilia”. A law prohibiting the propaganda of non-traditional sexual orientation, restricted freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly for LGBTQ+ persons and their supporters, and the claimants have testified about this law today in their testimony. There is also no law to prohibit discrimination against LGBTQ+ persons in housing, employment or access to government services and there were reports that government agents attack, harass and threaten LGBTQ+ activists. LGBTQ+ persons were particularly or particular targets of societal violence and police often fail to respond adequately to such incidents. Public officials portray LGBT identities as contradictory to Russian and orthodox values and as a western phenomenon imposed by Europe as part of its agenda to weaken and alienate Russia, and this is found at Item 6.3 of the NDP. Hate speech against LGBTQ+ persons is state-led and legislation severely restricts challenges against the dominant hateful narrative and laws aimed at preventing incitement to discrimination or violence are more likely to be used to prosecute than protect minorities, and this can be found at Item 2.1 and 6.3 of the National Documentation Package for Russia. I find that the claimants have therefore established a future risk that they would be subjected to societal abuse, mistreatment and violence at the hands of the community at large as well as the authorities such as the police due to their sexual orientation if they were to return to Russia now. I therefore find they have established a well-founded fear of persecution in Russia. [9] I will now assess the situation in Ukraine. The National Documentation Package for Ukraine describes Ukraine as a society that continues to harbor significant anti-LGBTIQ2 sentiment despite some signs of change. NDP Item 6.3 states that when first elected, President Zelenskyy told reporters ‘We live in open free society where everyone chooses a language to communicate and his orientation. Leave these people alone. Enough.’ The state has shown some signs of a willingness to improve, as reflected by its President’s statement. However, change has been slow and there are significant opposition both socially and from the authorities. The rights of LGBTIQ+ people in Ukraine are not fully protected, leaving them vulnerable to violence and discrimination, and this can be found at Item 6.4 of the NDP. NDP Item 2.1 establishes that events organized by the LGBTQ+ community were regularly disrupted by members of violent radical groups. Police at times did not adequately protect participants from attack before or after the events, nor did they provide sufficient security for smaller demonstrations or events, especially those organized by persons belonging to minority groups or opposition political movements. There was societal violence against LGBTIQ+ persons, often perpetrated by members of violent radical groups, as mentioned earlier. Additionally, Item 6.2 of the NDP states that police also committed violence against LGBTIQ+ people and victims rarely appeal to public associations that protect the rights of them and in about half of the cases, they did not get help. Religious leaders have also made anti-LGBTIQ+ statements and Ukraine has failed to criminalize hate speech, although the state did pull the licence of one (1) media outline broadcasting anti-LGBTIQ statements The LGBTIQ2 human rights group Nash Mir Centre’s annual report documented 369 cases of violence and discrimination against LGBTIQ+ people in 2019. A study on attacks against activists show that LGBTIQ+ activists were the most at risk and this could be found at NDP Item 6.1. Furthermore, NDP Item 2.1 states that when the Russians occupied Crimea, most LGBTIQ+ individuals fled and those who remained lived in fear of abuse due to their sexual orientation or gender identity. The UN Human Rights Council’s Independent Expert received reports of increased violence and discrimination against this community in Crimea, as well as the use of homophobic propaganda employed by the occupation authorities. Therefore, I am satisfied that now with the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, there is an increased threat to any LGBTIQ+ people in any part of the country that may fall under Russian control now or in the future. [10] Therefore, I find the claimants have demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution on both a subjective and objective basis and I find they would face a serious possibility of persecution in either Ukraine or Russia as a married gay couple. State Protection and Internal Flight Alternative [11] In all refugee claims, a state is presumed to be capable of protecting its citizens unless there is clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. In this case, I find this presumption has been rebutted. To prevent this presumption, a claimant must establish on a balance of probabilities through clear and convincing evidence that their state’s protection is inadequate and the onus is on the claimant to rebut this presumption. [12] I will first assess the situation in Russia. In the claimants’ particular case, the state is one (1) of the agents of persecution and I find that the objective evidence on file indicates that they would face persecution at the hands of authorities among others if they were to return to Russia. Accordingly, I find it would be objectively unreasonable for them to seek state protection in Russia and consequently, the presumption of state protection has been rebutted. With respect to internal flight alternative, meaning if there were to be somewhere safe for them to live in Russia, I do not find that they could live safely in any other part of the country given that the state is one (1) of the agents of persecution and has control over all of its territory. Furthermore, based on the evidence before me, I find there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Russia as the situation with respect to LGBTIQ+ persons is consistent throughout the entire country and I find they would face a serious possibility of persecution throughout the entire country of Russia. [13] I will now assess the situation in Ukraine. In Ukraine’s National Documentation Package at Item 6.5, which was published prior to the Russian evasion, it states that the police are extremely reluctant to investigate cases of homophobic and transphobic crime and most of the victims do not report attacks to the police as they do not trust the system. They fear harassment and violence from the police or having to divulge information about their sexual orientation. The absence of an effective investigation and relevant legal categorization of these offences as hate crime sends a clear message about impunity for such crimes. While country documents indicate that the police have shown some initial signs of improvement in their treatment of the LGBTIQ+ people, there are still homophobic incidents and investigation of homophobic hate crimes is extremely unsatisfactory and even when forced to investigate, it never leads to indictment, and that is at NDP Item 6.3. Currently, Ukraine is at war with Russia since the Russian evasion began in late February 2022. In the Ukraine-held territory, I am satisfied that the state continues to fail to provide adequate and effective protection in a consistent manner to the LGBTIQ+ people as detailed above and if Crimea is any indication, things will be much worse in any areas that fall under Russian control with the state being an active agent of persecution. Accordingly, I find there is no adequate state protection available to the claimants in their particular circumstances and I find that the presumption of state protection has been rebutted. In addition, I find the state of Ukraine is no longer in control of all of its territories and where the Russians have taken over, the situation is even more dire for LGBTIQ+ people. Therefore, I find the claimants face a serious possibility of persecution throughout the entire territory of Ukraine and there is no viable internal flight alternative available to them. CONCLUSION [14] For these reasons, I find the claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 of the Act and I accept each of their claims. ——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———

Response:
## Analysis of Refugee Decision: 2023 RLLR 112

### Key Issues
IQ+ people and victims rarely appeal to public associations that protect the rights of them and in about half of the cases, they did not get help. Religious leaders have also made

### Legal Analysis
The decision analyzes refugee protection criteria by examining: Russian invasion of Ukraine. ANALYSIS Identity [4] The claimants’ personal identities and their identities as nationals of Ukraine and Russia has been established by their sworn testimonies and the certified copies of their passports in evidence in Exhibit 1. The associate claimant testified that he was born in Kazakhstan and h

### Implications for Immigration Practice
This decision provides guidance for refugee claimants on evidentiary requirements and credibility assessments. Legal practitioners should carefully document client narratives and address potential inconsistencies proactively. The case demonstrates the importance of thorough country conditions research and proper preparation of witnesses.