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

2023 RLLR 101 Citation: 2023 RLLR 101 Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division Date of Decision: August 31, 2023 Panel: Cristina De Leon Counsel for the Claimant(s): Maksim Gonyakin Country: Russia RPD Number: TC3-00273 Associated RPD Number(s): N/A ATIP Number: A-2024-00593 ATIP Pages: N/A DECISION [1] MEMBER: This is a decision in the claim for refugee protection made by the claimant, XXXX XXXX, TC3-00273. The claimant is a citizen of Russia and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act or IRPA. ALLEGATIONS [2] The allegations in support of the claim are set out in the claimant’s Basis of Claim form marked as Exhibit 2. In summary, the claimant fears harm and persecution by members of a crime group headed by XXXX XXXX (ph), or XXXX (ph), who have targeted his business for a forced takeover. He also fears being charged for evasion and desertion under the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for refusing conscription due to his opposition to the war in Ukraine. DETERMINATION [3] I find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant faces a risk to life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment at the hands of the crime organization headed by XXXX XXXX if he were to return to Russia. Nexus [4] The claimant’s fear of harm arises from criminality and corruption, and I find that there is no nexus to any of the five (5) Convention grounds. Identity [5] The claimants’ identity is established on a balance of probabilities by a certified true copy of his Russia-issued passport. Credibility [6] The claimant testified in a detailed, spontaneous, and straightforward manner with regard to the central elements of his claim. There were no inconsistencies or omissions which were material or which went to the core of the claim. I find that the claimant was a credible witness. The claimant also submitted documentary evidence which corroborated elements of the claim. He submitted certificate of registration, the charter of the corporation balance sheet, a statement of transactions and personal account of the company, and other documents to establish on a balance of probabilities his ownership of [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] XXXX. The claimant also submitted a doctor’s note with regard to his injuries and treatment on XXXX XXXX, 2022. He also submitted witness statements with attached passports of two (2) employees of his XXXX company with regard to the visits to the company on XXXX XXXX, 2021, and XXXX XXXX, 2022, of XXXX XXXX’s men. He also submitted a statement from a neighbour regarding visits from unknown men to the claimant’s apartment and inquiries about him, as well as the mailing of summons from the military enlistment office to the claimant’s address. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of these documents, and as such I place great weight on them in support of the claim. [7] Based on the credible testimony and the corroborating documents, I find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant was a [REDACTED] and XXXX of the [REDACTED] [REDACTED] XXXX. The XXXX company was engaged in [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] XXXX. The business was very successful and profitable, and in 2021 its annual turnover was XXXX XXXX rubles. I find on a balance of probabilities that in the year 2020, the claimant started receiving intimidating phone calls from people who demanded sale of the company. The claimant refused to entertain these calls or engage in any conversation about the sale of his business. He largely ignored these phone calls or refused to answer these calls. [8] I find on a balance of probabilities that on XXXX XXXX, 2021, a man who introduced himself as XXXX (ph) showed up at the company office at Tver with two (2) well-built men. They offered to buy out the company for (inaudible) of [REDACTED] rubles under threat that, if he refused, the claimant and his wife would not live to see the following year. I accept that on the very same day, the claimant went to the XXXX XXXX police department of the city of Tver and submitted a statement about the situation. The police investigator sneered and told him that he did not understand the complaint, and that these people likely came to him with a legitimate commercial offer which he did not like. The claimant believed, and I accept, on a balance of probabilities, that the investigator likely knew what was going on and was protecting or complicit with the men. [9] The claimant testified, and I accept, that he communicated with his suppliers and other directors of other companies about his situation, and he described XXXX and his men, and these people told him that he was dealing with XXXX XXXX’s guys, who are known criminals in the region who engage in business racketeering, including extortion of a roof for protection of businesses. I find on a balance of probabilities that again, on XXXX XXXX, 2022, XXXX came to the office and told the claimant that his time was up and that they should be signing an agreement soon on the sale of the company. The claimant did not respond, deferring the decision in order to buy time to allow his wife to obtain a visa to Canada. [10] I accept that in XXXX of 2022 XXXX and his men came to the office several times and inquired about his whereabouts. The claimant was in Armenia at that time, attending to vaccination requirements for travel to Canada. I find on a balance of probabilities that on XXXX XXXX, 2022, the claimant was getting out of his car when two (2) unknown persons attacked him from behind. They hit him on his head and he lost consciousness. When he regained consciousness, the claimant saw a horrible sight at the back seat of his car. His dog lay dead. They killed his dog. He understood this to be his final warning and that the next time he would be killed. After receiving hospital treatment, the claimant and his wife packed two (2) suitcases, left their residence, and moved to his nephew’s place in the village of XXXX , [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] XXXX XXXX. On the way to the XXXX, they passed by a village where the claimant and his wife buried his dog. They stayed in XXXX until the claimant flew to Canada. [11] I accept on a balance of probabilities that on XXXX XXXX, 2022, the claimant spoke with a prosecutor’s office in the city of XXXX, [REDACTED] [REDACTED] XXXX. The prosecutor interviewed him and told him that they would contact him. After two (2) weeks, the claimant had not heard from anyone, and so the claimant went to the prosecutor’s office again. He was told that they had no information and the prosecutor asked him to leave his office and not to disturb him again. At that point, the claimant decided it was time to leave. [12] Since leaving for Canada, the claimant has heard from his neighbour that unknown people of muscular build have repeatedly come to his apartment building looking for him. The neighbour also advised that in the claimant’s mailbox he found summons from the military enlistment office issued to the claimant’s name with a demand to appear at the military registration and enlistment office at the place of registration. The claimant is opposed to military service and opposed to the — what he calls the criminal war in Ukraine. He does not want to fight in this illegal war. Particularized Risk [13] I find that the claimant’s fear or risk arises from his ownership, and XXXX, and XXXX of a multimillion XXXX enterprise in Russia which has been targeted by a crime organization protected and supported by the state security apparatus. I find that this risk is particularized and personal to the claimant, and it is distinct from the generalized risk faced by the rest of the population in Russia. Forward-Looking Risk [14] The objective evidence reveals links between organized crime and Russian state powers. Item 1.4 of the National Documentation Package for Russia, which is Exhibit 3 at page 192, describes the most dangerous types of police corruption in Russia, referring to high-order activities related to invisible, well-coordinated services which the police provide to organized crime groups, along with business racketeering. I note that Item 1.4 specifically identifies shakedowns, forced takeovers, selling assets, and the so-called roofing. [15] Exhibit 7 is a March 23, 2018, article entitled, Gangster’s Paradise: how organized crime took over Russia, by Mark Galeotti, published in The Guardian. It describes the following, and I quote. “A key characteristic of organized crime in today’s Russia is the depth of its interconnectedness with the legitimate economy. Unpicking dirty from clean money in Russia is a hopeless task, not least because in the 1990s it was next to impossible to make serious amounts of money without engaging in practices that were ethically questionable at best, and downright illegal at worst. [16] ‘Raiding’ – the seizure of assets and companies through physical or legal coercion remains a serious problem, but it depends less on violence than it did in the past. One (1) British-based businessmen told me” — the author — that in 2009 he had to fly to Moscow at a moment’s notice on two (2) separate occasions because of attempts to steal one (1) of his properties. The first time, thugs appeared at the door and marched their way past the security guard. The businessmen had to call in favours from the local police on order to have them thrown out. The second time, though, the raiders came in the form of lawyers and bailiffs, bearing documents alleging the property had been signed into their possession in order to discharge a (non-existent) debt. Whereas getting rid of the thugs took a few hours and, I suspect, a moderate bribe to the police chief, dealing with the legal challenge took weeks, and large amounts paid out in legal fees and illegal inducements. [17] This does not make the new gangster-businessmen champions of the rule of law. They appreciate a degree of predictability within the system, and also – now that they are rich – a state apparatus dedicated to preserving property rights. However, they are also well aware that an honest, well-functioning police force and a dedicated, incorruptible judiciary would be a serious threat to them. As a result, they have a strong interest in preserving the current, compromised status quo.” [18] Exhibit 6 is an October 12, 2012, article entitled, The Russian Mafia and organized crime: how can this global force be tamed?, published by openDemocracy. It states the following: “Russian organized crime enjoys significant levels of state protection. In Russia and other countries of the Former Soviet Union, it is not just a question of organized crime being big business. Big business is organized crime. And, given that no big business in Russia can operate without government approval (just ask the numerous exiles who left Russia in 2003 after the arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky) it follows that the state and organized crime are inextricably linked. Russian Transnational Organized Crime has other features which are less familiar to Western law enforcement agencies operating in countries where the rule of law is paramount. It has connections. There are close, almost seamless, links with the ‘deep state’ kleptocracy of government, parliament, civil service, law enforcement and business at all levels, as well as the military and, above all, the security services.” [19] Item 7.5 of the NDP, which is Exhibit 3, indicates that some elected Russian officials have been found guilty of associating with organized crime groups or those with criminal records. In some cases, they form organized and persistent criminal enterprises which engage in a range of criminal activities and are largely dependent on their specific positions in government. As a result, gangs within the security agencies are particularly powerful. It indicates that virtually every major illicit market is controlled by mid to high-level members of the security forces under the tacit supervision and control of higher-level political elites, both at the local and federal level. Additionally, the state deals with large and violent criminal groups by allowing some crime bosses to operate both on the black market and in legitimate businesses on the condition of not drawing public attention through violence. Many past criminal leaders went into legitimate business or politics in the period following the fall of the Soviet Union, and those who still try to operate independently are typically outgunned by the law enforcement protection bracket. [20] I find that organized crime in Russia has an entrenched links to Russian state powers and, above all, to law enforcement and state security officers on a balance of probabilities. I find on a balance of probabilities that organized crime groups engage in, among others, business racketeering, including business seizure and raiding, and forced takeovers of business, and this a serious problem in Russia. While the article suggests that raiding depends less on violence in today’s Russia, the article does not rule out violence. I find credible the claimant’s evidence that he was attacked and rendered unconscious, and his dog killed, certainly showing what the crime groups are capable of doing, and sending a warning of violence if he were to refuse their demands. State Protection [21] Given the links between organized crime in Russian security apparatus, I find that state protection will not be available on a balance of probabilities to the claimant. I note that the claimant tried to report the threats and the attack to the police and the prosecutor of XXXX, and they did not take his statement or extend any protection, or even start any investigation on his behalf. [22] I also note that according to Item 1.4 there is a performance evaluation system in place for Russian police which creates an incentive that undermines the integrity of police work. Item 1.4 describes the high pressure on police officers to produce acceptable statistics, which results in a tendency for officers to only open cases that they know can be solved. This apparently is most prevalent in the area of criminal investigations. When a criminal case has been filed, the decision to open a formal investigation depends not only on the prospect of finding and apprehending a suspect, but also on the evaluation of the officers, whether the case will lead to official charges. If a case is passed on it without leading to official charges, none of the time spent by the frontline officer on the initial investigation tends to be credited to him personally or to his department as a whole. Therefore, the performance evaluation rewards the decrease in the number of complaints and penalizes the termination of a case for rehabilitation or acquittal of the suspect. A cited study concludes that utter refusals by police officers to initiate criminal investigations, up to 90 percent intended to hide crimes that are difficult to solve. Refusals can be made by convincing the crime victim not to report or by officially refusing to start a criminal investigation, and I note that this is what happened to the claimant. [23] I find that on a balance of probabilities this was also at play when the Tver police and the XXXX prosecutor refused to start an investigation or to even accept this report. I find on a balance of probabilities that the presumption of state protection has been rebutted, and that the claimant will not be able to avail of state protection in Russia. Internal Flight Alternative [24] The Panel suggested Saint Petersburg as a possible internal flight alternative location. I have considered the nexus between the organized crime and state security apparatus. I have considered the size and profile of the claimant’s XXXX business. I have considered the evidence of continuing inquiries about the claimant’s whereabouts, even as he arrived — or moved to Canada. I find that there is motivation on the part of his agents of harm to pursue him and locate him wherever he may relocate. I also accept, based on the objective evidence, that the claimant will be required to register his personal information with the Russian authorities upon return to the country. Per Item 14.one of the NDP, according to the law on the rights of the citizens of the Russian Federation to the freedom of movement, citizens of the Russian Federation are obliged to register their place of permanent or temporary residence with the authorities. I find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant can therefore be tracked by his agents of harm and will, on a balance of probabilities, be pressured and harmed to legally transfer his business. Or, if the business has in the meanwhile been already transferred illegally, he will be pressured and harmed to coerce his validation of such transfer and/or he will be eliminated to preclude any legal challenge from him. [25] I also find on the balance of probabilities that, with his residence being registered, he will be subject to summons to be mobilized to the war in Ukraine. The claimant, being opposed to the war, will refuse to be mobilised. And according to Item 8.2 and 8.4 of the NDP, he will be subject to prosecution for draft evasion or for desertion under article 328, 337, and 338 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. I therefore find that there is no safe and viable internal flight alternative location for the claimant anywhere in Russia. CONCLUSION [26] I therefore find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant faces a serious risk to life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if he were to return to Russia. I find that the claimant, XXXX XXXX, is a person in need of protection under section 97(1)(b) of the IRPA. The claim is therefore accepted. ——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———

Response:
## Analysis of Refugee Decision: 2023 RLLR 101

### Key Issues
practices that were ethically questionable at best, and downright illegal at worst. [16] ‘Raiding’ – the seizure of assets and companies through physical or legal coercion remains

### Legal Analysis
The decision analyzes refugee protection criteria by examining: claimant anywhere in Russia. CONCLUSION [26] I therefore find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant faces a serious risk to life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if he were to return to Russia. I find that the claimant, XXXX XXXX, is a person in need of protection under section 97(1)(b) of the IR

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

Immigration and Refugee Board Refugee Protection Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié Section de la protection des réfugiés RPD File No. / No de dossier de la SPR : MA7-07299 MA7-07300 MA7-07301 MA7-07302 Private Proceeding Huis clos Claimant(s) Demandeur(e)s d'asile XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX Date(s) of Hearing Date(s) de l'audience July 30, 2009 Place of Hearing Lieu de l'audience Montréal, Quebec Date of Decision Date de la décision August 27, 2009 Panel Tribunal Youssoupha Diop Claimant's Counsel Conseil du demandeur d'asile Me Carlos Hoyos-Tello Tribunal Officer Agent du tribunal Michel Colin (Filing of Documents) Designated Representative Représentant désigné XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX Minister's Counsel Conseil du ministre N/A [1] The claimants, XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX, the principal claimant, his spouse, XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX, and their minor children, XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX and XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX, citizens of Mexico, allege a well-founded fear of persecution in Mexico for reasons of membership in a particular social group. [2] They also are seeking protection from Canada as "persons in need of protection" due to a danger of torture and a risk to their lives or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. [3] At the start of the hearing, the principal claimant, XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX, was confirmed as the designated representative for his minor children, XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX and XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX. ALLEGED FACTS [4] The claimants stated that a criminal named XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX -whose illicit activities were reported by the principal claimant's spouse-had persecuted them. He had attacked and threatened them explicitly on a number of occasions, forcing them to decide to leave Mexico. They arrived in Canada with their respective passports and other identity documents. DETERMINATION [5] The panel determines that the claimants are neither "refugees" nor "persons in need of protection" for the reasons set out below. ANALYSIS [6] The claimants' identity was established to the panel's satisfaction. [7] On arriving in Canada, they presented their Mexican passports and, in the case of the parents, their voter registration cards. Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) seized the documents and copies were entered on the record. [8] The claimants presented testimony, primarily through the principal claimant, that clearly outlined all the details of their account. The panel noted no contradictions. The principal claimant answered all questions without evasion or scheming. Substantial documentation that supported certain aspects of their testimony was provided for the panel's review. [9] Power and telephone bills displaying their address were submitted to the panel.1 The bills provided persuasive confirmation of the information in the press clippings attached to the claimants' file2 and undeniably established that they lived near the criminal. [10] The press clippings further establish that Mr. XXXXX is a notorious gangster who committed numerous crimes and who, on the occasion of some of his offences in particular, had assistance from people close to the municipal authorities, including the father of a city's mayor. [11] The claimants undeniably made significant efforts to gather consistent documentation that definitely backs up their allegations in order to support of their claim for refugee protection. In light of the quality of their testimony, the panel found them to be credible as to the truthfulness of the alleged events. [12] However, though the panel believes their allegations, they did not provide "clear and convincing" evidence that the State was unwilling or unable to protect them, as they had the right to expect in such circumstances. The claimants testified that they lodged a complaint after they were attacked on XXXXX, 2007. They testified that on that day, which was a national holiday, the police department suggested that they come back or write down their complaint, because they had insufficient staff. The principal claimant testified that he did so, accompanied by his lawyer. The lawyer prepared a complaint in due form3 and they returned to file it the same day at about 7:00 p.m. The claimant testified that the complaint was accepted and logged and that the police told him that an investigation would be conducted. He specified that he noted from the police officers' expressions on seeing the name XXXXX that they were not very willing to follow up. According to him, he was right to believe this, because when his spouse had tried to report Mr. XXXXX actions to the police, Mr. XXXXX found out, even though the call was made anonymously. He nonetheless acknowledged that his wife had to give personal information when she called, such as her name, address and date of birth.4 That clearly negated the anonymous nature of the call. As a result, XXXXX XXXXX was informed of the call and was able to determine who had lodged the complaint. He began harassing them. In light of that, the claimant, noting that the police had not arrested Mr. XXXXX and that he had not received adequate protection, drew the conclusion that his life was in danger and, on the advice of his lawyer, decided to leave the country. The panel is of the opinion that, by acting as he did, the claimant deliberately relinquished the opportunity to pursue the case that he had initiated, without waiting for developments or explicit or tacit notification of an unwillingness or inability to protect him. The panel is of the opinion that the police accepted his complaint. He was given a number confirming that the complaint had been logged. According to his testimony, he was told that an investigation would be opened. [13] The documentary evidence5 showed that Mr. XXXXX was a notorious criminal but it did not indicate, despite his alleged connections to the father of a city mayor in the region, that he was under police protection or that because of his crimes he had police protection or impunity. It specifically stated that the criminal was wanted for gun smuggling and unlawful possession of weapons,6 that he had not been located, and that investigations were under way against the owner of the house for weapons possession.7 However, the principal claimant supported his personal suppositions by saying that he believed that Mr. XXXXX was a contract killer for the government. When asked how he knew this, he stated that it was because he conducted his business in broad daylight in full view of everyone and because many people came to his home. Based on this information, which he stated that he had received afterwards from his other neighbours, the claimant concluded that he had to leave the country, as he claims his lawyer advised him to do. [14] The panel therefore infers that the claimants, in behaving as they did, did not show on a balance of probabilities that they took all reasonable steps in the circumstances to solicit state protection. According to their testimony, they filed a complaint and a case was opened. They chose to believe personal suppositions and abandon the steps and proceedings that they had initiated against an individual who, though recognized as a notorious criminal, was being investigated and was wanted by the police. The claimants also did not show that the state protection available in Mexico was inadequate. In fact, there is substantial documentary evidence on Mexico regarding the efforts made by the various governments to protect people.8 The situation may not be perfect, but there is no doubt that the State is not in complete decay and that there are institutions and organizations in the country that operate normally.9 Furthermore, the failures that have been noted in maintaining order do not illustrate a broader pattern of the State's unwillingness or refusal to protect people.10 [15] Additionally, the panel examined whether the claimants had an internal flight alternative in Mexico. [16] From that standpoint, the principal claimant was asked whether he had considered settling elsewhere, for instance in the national capital, where he could live a normal life-find employment, lodgings, even medical assistance. The claimant stated that he would have had no problem doing so. However, in his view, it would have been unreasonable, because Mr. XXXXX could have located them. When asked how he could have done so, the claimant stated through his voter registration card and social security card if he ever had to find work. The panel therefore asked him whether Mr. XXXXX acted alone or was a member of a criminal organization. The principal claimant testified that he certainly did business with many people, but he did not know whether they were his partners or not. He further stated that he would be able to locate them through his contacts with the police and the government. [17] The panel is of the opinion that the documentary evidence shows that it is not conceivable for a person to be located solely through his voter registration card, even though the residential address on the card must be changed if the voter moves, which makes sense for the voter registration lists. . . . the IEEM official noted that, according to Article 135 of the Federal Code of Institutions and Electoral Procedures, documents, data and information provided by Mexican citizens to the Federal Registry of Voters is strictly confidential and cannot be divulged to anyone except authorized users within the organization (Mexico 12 May 2006). No reports of police, government authorities or individuals using the Voter Registration Card to access the information in the official computer system in order to locate an individual within Mexico could be found among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate.11 [18] As for social security, the documentary evidence indicates the following: The information contained in the main CURP database includes the information needed to assign the CURP code (name, birth date, birth place and sex) as well as the registry office and the registry book where the person registered his or her CURP code (Mexico 12 June 2003). The address of the person and any other information is not contained in the CURP database (ibid. 18 June 2003a). . . . A person does not need to provide local authorities with the CURP code when he or she moves: the only time the authorities require seeing the CURP code is when a person is registering official documents (ibid.). There is no obligation to provide the employer with the CURP code, but the employer does need the code to register the employee in the Social Security system and for most other official documentation.12 [19] The principal claimant already has a CURP code, which is indicated on his passport, a copy of which is attached. He therefore does not need to seek a new one. If he were to move, he would not have to provide it. Even if he did so, no information in the CURP code should enable the criminal, acting alone and wanted by the police, according to the documentary evidence provided by the claimant, to discover their place of residence. [20] Apart from their fear of being located by Mr. XXXXX, the claimants did not show that their lives and safety would be at risk if they moved to the national capital, for instance. The panel is of the opinion that the claimants erred in making no effort to seek an internal flight alternative and in offering no evidence that they were personally and genuinely at risk everywhere in Mexico. CONCLUSION [21] Having examined all of the evidence, the panel is of the opinion that the claimants did not discharge their burden of proving that, in the circumstances, the Mexican State was unwilling or unable to protect them, as they were entitled to expect. Further, they made no effort to find an internal flight alternative elsewhere in Mexico. That said, it is established that refugee protection must be an ultimate solution to which claimants may resort only upon examining all of the options available to them before deciding to leave their country. [22] For these reasons, the panel is of the opinion that it cannot accept the claim for refugee protection filed by XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX, the principal claimant, his spouse, XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX, and their minor children, XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX and XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX, and determines that they are not "Convention refugees" or "persons in need of protection". [23] Accordingly, their claim for refugee protection is rejected. Youssoupha Diop Youssoupha Diop August 27, 2009 Date REFUGEE PROTECTION DIVISION / DENUNCIATION / VENDETTA / STATE PROTECTION / INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE / MALE / SPOUSE / CHILDREN / NEGATIVE / MEXICO 1 Exhibit P-17: Proof of addresses. 2 Exhibits P-13 a) and b): Articles in XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX respectively. 3 Exhibit P-12: Complaint before the Public Ministry. 4 Exhibit P-1: Personal Information Form (PIF), question 31, paragraph 4, in fine. 5 Exhibits P-13 a), b), c) and d): Articles in XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX respectively. 6 Exhibit P-13 c). 7 Exhibit P-13 a). 8 Exhibit A-1: National Documentation Package on Mexico, March 18, 2009, tab 9.2, Canada. May 2005. Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB). Mexico: State Protection (December 2003 - March 5). 9 Zalzali v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1991), 3 F.C. 605 (F.C.A.); (1991), 14 Imm. L.R. (2d) 81; 126 N.R. 126 (F.C.A.). 10 Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Kadenko (1996), 143 D.L.R. (4th) 532 (F.C.A.). 11 Exhibit A-1: National Documentation Package on Mexico, March 18, 2009. Tab 3.4 : MEX101353.E. June 2, 2006. Voter's Registration Card (Credencial para votar); whether a cardholder must make notification of a change of address; whether it can be used as an identification document; whether the card is punched in some manner once a person has voted; whether the card indicates when a secondary or replacement card has been issued; whether the police, government authorities or individuals can use the Voter Registration Card to access information in the official computer system in order to locate an individual within Mexico; voter card falsification and government responses to this problem (May 2006). 12 Exhibit A-1: National Documentation Package on Mexico, March 18, 2009. Tab 3.6: MEX41642.E. June 24, 2003. Information on the Clave Única de Registro de Población (CURP); whether Mexicans are required to provide a CURP to their employer; what the employer does with the information; whether there is a tracking system that records each time the CURP is used; what information the CURP records; who has access to that information; whether the police or the general public track down a person by their CURP; whether a person can work without a CURP; whether a Mexican has to provide local authorities with the CURP when he/she changes his place of residency; who has access to that information. --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- RPD File No. / No de dossier de la SPR : MA7-07299 MA7-07300 MA7-07301 MA7-07302 7

Response:
## Analysis of Refugee Decision: MA7-07299

### Key Issues
incipal claimant answered all questions without evasion or scheming. Substantial documentation that supported certain aspects of their testimony was provided for the panel's review

### Legal Analysis
The decision analyzes refugee protection criteria by examining: or the reasons set out below. ANALYSIS [6] The claimants' identity was established to the panel's satisfaction. [7] On arriving in Canada, they presented their Mexican passports and, in the case of the parents, their voter registration cards. Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) seized the documents and copies were entered 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 standard of review does this Federal Court of Canada decision apply to immigration decisions?

Onyibor v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2023-07-21 Neutral citation 2023 FC 1005 File numbers IMM-5633-22 Decision Content Date: 20230721 Docket: IMM-5633-22 Citation: 2023 FC 1005 Ottawa, Ontario, July 21, 2023 PRESENT: Madam Justice McDonald BETWEEN: JOSEPH ONYIBOR Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent JUDGMENT AND REASONS [1] This is an Application for judicial review of the decision of an Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada officer [Officer], dated June 8, 2022 [Decision], denying the Applicant’s permanent residence application under the Spouse or Common-Law Partner in Canada class. The Officer was not satisfied that the Applicant was in a genuine relationship. For the reasons that follow, this judicial review is granted as the Officer’s Decision is not reasonable. I. Background [2] The Applicant is a 58-year-old citizen of Nigeria. His wife (sponsor) is a 63-year-old Canadian. The Applicant arrived in Canada on a temporary resident visa in March 2020. He met the sponsor shortly after arriving in Canada and they married in April 2021. A spousal sponsorship application was made in July 2021. [3] The couple were interviewed separately by the Officer on May 11, 2022. A. Decision Under Review [4] The Officer was not satisfied that the marriage was genuine within the meaning of subsection 4(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227. [5] In the Global Case Management System notes, the Officer notes inconsistencies between the Applicant’s answers and his sponsor’s answers during their interviews. The inconsistencies included the nicknames the couple used for each other, if they travelled to the interview together, and how, when, and where they met. The Officer also concluded that their answers suggested the couple were not living together. II. Issue and Standard of Review [6] The Applicant argues that the Decision was reached in a manner that was not procedurally fair and is unreasonable. As the reasonableness issue is dispositive of the judicial review, I decline to address the procedural fairness issues. [7] The standard of review for the Decision itself is reasonableness, per Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65. III. Analysis [8] The Applicant argues the Officer’s conclusion that there were a sufficient number of inconsistent answers to justify an overall finding that the marriage was not genuine is not reasonable. The Applicant submits that when the interview questions and answers are considered in the context they were given, there are no true inconsistencies. Further, the Applicant argues any discrepancies are of a minute nature and not sufficient to support a finding that the marriage was not genuine. [9] One inconsistency identified by the Officer is the location of the Costco where the couple first met. Both the Applicant and the sponsor answered that they met at a Costco in Vaughan. However, the sponsor referenced a cross street that was not the correct address for the Costco in Vaughan. The Officer determined this incorrect street address was a contradiction from the sponsorship paperwork. In my view, an incorrect street address was an inconsequential dicrepancy as the parties were both consistent that they meet at the Costco in Vaughan. [10] Another inconsistency relied upon by the Officer was the couple’s answers to the question if they had nicknames for each other. The sponsor stated the couple used short forms of their first names, Joe and Ophi, whereas the Applicant stated they use terms like ‘darling’ and ‘baby’. Neither party indicated a specific term or name that was used. In my view, the Officer’s question was vague, thus it was not reasonable for the Officer to classify their answers as inconsistent. [11] The Officer also questioned if the parties lived together as the Officer found the sponsor did not name her husband when asked who she lived with. This response was given following the sponsor’s previous answer that she and the Applicant were living together. The Officer’s follow up question “[w]ho do you live with?” could have been interpreted by the sponsor as ‘who do you and your husband live with’, given she had just stated they live together. Her answer to the next question, “[h]ow many people total?”, is also consistent with her husband living with her: she answered six people and named her daughter and her husband, a grandson, and her son. The other two people were presumably her and her husband. In my view, it is not reasonable for the Officer to find an inconsistency on this factor based upon the sequence of the questions. [12] The Officer also asked the Applicant a question about when his “wife” first arrived in Canada. The Applicant responded by asking if the Officer meant his first wife or his current wife. The Officer concluded that someone in a genuine relationship would not be confused about which wife was being referred to when asked about his spouse. [13] However, the Applicant asserts that the confusion about which wife the Officer was referring to arose directly from the context in which the questions were asked. Specifically, the previous question was about when his son first arrived in Canada. The next question was when his “wife” first arrived in Canada. The Applicant says that he understood the Officer to be asking a follow-up question about his son’s arrival in Canada, and in fact, his son was accompanied by his first wife when he arrived in Canada. In my view, the fact that he asked for clarification on the Officer’s question was not unreasonable or inconsistent when the order of the questions posed by the Officer is considered. [14] Further, although the Officer relies upon inconsistent answers on how the couple travelled to the interview, the record discloses no such inconsistency in their answers. Rather, the record suggests that it was the Officer who confused their answers. [15] While I do agree that the Applicant provided unclear answers to questions on his sponsor’s hours of work and whether she had a car at some point in their relationship, in my view these answers are not sufficient to support the Officer’s conclusion. I say this as the Officer made a “cumulative” finding of inconsistent answers. In my view these unclear answers would not be sufficient to support the Officer’s overall conclusion that the marriage was not genuine. [16] I acknowledge that the Officer was not required to seek clarification or documentation from the Applicant to clarify answers; however the Officer was obligated to reasonably consider the answers provided by the couple in relation to the questions the Officer posed. In this regard, the context of the questions posed by the Officer is relevant. Having reviewed the transcripts which detail the questions and answers, the conclusions reached by the Officer are not reasonable when considered against the answers provided by the Applicant and his spouse. IV. Conclusion [17] The Officer’s Decision was based upon a finding that there were a series of inconsistent responses given by the Applicant and his sponsor. As noted above, a number of the “inconsistencies” identified by the Officer are not inconsistencies at all. Furthermore, any discrepancies in the answers were microscopic or did not go to the issue of whether the relationship was bona fide. In my view, the Officer here engaged in an overzealous assessment of the alleged discrepancies. Finally, as it is not clear which, if any, of these inconsistencies were determinative for the Officer, the Decision as a whole is unreasonable. JUDGMENT IN IMM-5633-22 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that: This Application for judicial review is granted, the decision is set aside, and the matter is remitted for redetermination by a different Officer; and There is no question for certification. "Ann Marie McDonald" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-5633-22 STYLE OF CAUSE: ONYIBOR v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, ON DATE OF HEARING: June 7, 2023 JUDGMENT AND REASONS: MCDONALD J. DATED: July 21, 2023 APPEARANCES: Adetayo G. Akinyemi For The Applicant Aida Kalaj For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Adetayo G. Akinyemi Barrister and Solicitor North York, ON For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Toronto, ON For The Respondent

Response:
## Analysis of Court Decision: Onyibor v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

### Key Issues
dress the procedural fairness issues. [7] The standard of review for the Decision itself is reasonableness, per Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC

### Standard of Review
iving together. II. Issue and Standard of Review [6] The Applicant argues that the Decision was reached in a manner that was not procedurally fair and is unreasonable. As the reaso

### Legal Analysis
The court's analysis focuses on: v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65. III. Analysis [8] The Applicant argues the Officer’s conclusion that there were a sufficient number of inconsistent answers to justify an overall finding that the marriage was not genuine is not reasonable. The Applicant submits that when the interview questions and answers are considered in the context

### Precedential Value
This Federal Court decision has persuasive value for similar cases before the court and provides guidance to the Immigration and Refugee Board on the proper interpretation of law and procedural requirements. While not binding on other Federal Court judges, it establishes a precedent that will often be followed for consistency.


Prompt:
Explain the credibility assessment in this Refugee Protection Division decision from the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada:

RPD File No. / No de dossier de SPR : VA7-02852 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Claimant(s) XXXXX XXXXX Demandeur(e)(s) d'asile Date(s) of Hearing 30 July 2008 Date(s) de l'audience Place of Hearing Lieu de l'audience Date of Decision 09 October 2008 Date de la décision Panel Tribunal Counsel for the Nil Conseil(s) du / de la / des Claimant(s) demandeur(e)(s) d'asile Tribunal Officer Mumtaz Rana Agent(e) des tribunaux Designated Nil Représentant(e)(s) Representative(s) Désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister Nil Conseil du ministre Reasons and Decision [1] This is the decision and the reasons for the decision on the claim for protection by XXXXX XXXXX, an alleged citizen of India. ALLEGATIONS [2] The claimant alleges that he cannot return to India because the police will arrest him and torture him because they believe he is associated with Muslim extremists. DETERMINATION [3] I find the claimant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need or protection for the following reasons. There is insufficient credible and trustworthy evidence to establish on a balance of probabilities that the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution in India or that there is a serious reason to believe that his life is at risk or that he will face torture or cruel and unusual punishment should he return to India. ANALYSIS Identity [4] The claimant's identity was established on a balance of probabilities by the evidence; there is an uncontested Indian Passport that has a Canadian visitor visa in it and there is a Punjab driver's licence. He is on a balance of probabilities who he says he is and he is a citizen of India. Nexus [5] The nexus to a Convention ground, it is argued, is perceived political opinion. While I find that if the claimant is really believed to be a terrorist the nexus would more appropriately be perceived member of a particular social group, 'terrorist'. I am not, however, pursuing this avenue of thought. The issue of prosecution versus persecution would need to be raised and it was not. Credibility [6] The claimant alleges that he hired a young Muslim man (a XXXXX) of 19 who was taken into custody by police under the excuse of their having to interview all new employees from out of province. He alleges the XXXXX was released the next day but he could hardly walk; the XXXXX said he had been robbed and tortured overnight by members of the police. The claimant encouraged the XXXXX to keep on in his employ. The young man stayed and the claimant compensated him for the money the police had robbed him of while in detention. It is alleged that when police returned six months later to the fields where the claimant and his XXXXX were working the young man ran away and police were unable to catch him. [7] The police accused the claimant of aiding and abetting and accused him of being aligned with the XXXXX. The claimant alleges that the police detained him and while he was in detention he was treated with contempt and he was tortured. While the claimant was in prison on one occasion the police told the claimant they had found a gun secreted away in the XXXXX XXXXX and demanded that the claimant sign a statement that he had witnessed this. The claimant alleged that he was detained three times and each time he was brutally tortured. He is afraid of returning to India because he believes this police behaviour will continue and eventually he will be fatally wounded during his interrogations. [8] I find these allegations implausible. [9] The documentary evidence adduced does acknowledge police brutality and impunity for having violated human rights of some suspects and criminals in the past. Torture, although against the law, has routinely been a part of police investigative procedures at times when insurgents or criminals are being interrogated however I do not believe the claimant was arrested. [10] As noted in Amnesty International's (AI) 2003 report 'India, Break the Cycle of Impunity and Torture in Punjab' AI states that torture continued in police custody Torture and custodial violence continue to be regularly reported in Punjab, despite the end of the militancy period. But also that the majority of the armed opposition groups were inactive in Punjab today.1 [11] This is consistent with other information that states things in Punjab are quiet right now: AI had received no reports of acts of torture perpetrated by their members after the end of the militancy period. The report notes that: "most of the members of these groups in the state were arrested or killed by security forces in counter insurgency operations in the early 1990s."2 [12] The country condition documents submitted by the claimant were all quite dated. Even the National Standard Package, March 18 2008 relies on old information and does not reflect changes that have occurred between 2003 and 2008. Nevertheless one can surmise from the following: In its 2002 assessment of Punjab state, South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP) concluded that Punjab state "remains largely free from terrorist violence for the ninth consecutive year," explaining that "the ideology of [an independent state of] Khalistan has lost appeal among the people of Punjab, and even public calls to revive secession and terrorist violence have faded out" (SATP n.d.b). This general atmosphere is reflected in SATP's South Asia Conflict Maps for 2003 and 2004, which do not include Punjab state as an area of "conflict" (SATP n.d.c.; ibid. n.d.d.). Similarly, according to a 2003 article by a research associate with the Institute for Conflict Management (ICM) in New Delhi, India, which is "committed to the continuous evaluation and resolution of problems of internal security in South Asia" (ICM n.d.a), anti-Sikh violence in Punjab state had been "settled" (IPCS 24 June 2003). Les Nouveaux Mondes rebelles, on the other hand, reported in 2005 that the Punjab state independence conflict was "on its way to being resolved" [translation] (2005, 358). In articles focusing on the security situation in India for the time period 2002 to 2005, Jane's Intelligence Review (JIR) does not mention Punjab state. Rather, JIR articles focus on the activities of Maoist groups in northeastern and southeastern states of India, with no reference to militant groups in Punjab state (JIR Nov. 2004; ibid. June 2004; ibid. Aug. 2003). Similarly, while the World Police Encyclopedia discusses "terrorism" in India, it does not list Punjab state among those areas where terrorist groups are active in India (WPE 2006, 383)3. and that the problem areas are not in the "... north-eastern and south-eastern states of India ...." . I conclude there is insufficient evidence that establishes such practices as are being alleged by the claimant are in frequent general use in Punjab at this time. [13] The claimant alleges that prior to the detention of his XXXXX on XXXXX, 2000, he lived a wonderful trouble free life with his wife and children. I also find that it is not reasonable to accept that torture was specifically used against the claimant. [14] The claimant states that he is a XXXXX and a farmer and he had no previous encounters with police. India operates to large extend under the rule of law even if that law is sometimes ignored and abused when dealing with the human rights of prisoners and insurgents, given the background of the claimant, I find the alleged behaviour of the police to be just too extreme to be believable. [15] In support of his allegations the claimant provided a short Medical certificate which stated that the claimant was "under my treatment ..." and that he was advised to have complete bed rest for a week but that document makes no reference to what illness or injuries the claimant has that resulted in the recommendation. [16] Fraudulent documents are so easy to procure in India that, when one has reason to doubt the trustworthiness of the claimant's evidence, one cannot assign much weight to such supporting documents. Two news sources also report the existence of schemes used to provide false documents relating to education (The Hindu 25 Jan. 2005; ibid. 27 May 2005; The Telegraph 18 July 2004). The Telegraph indicates that police discovered a racket producing fake report cards in 2004 and seized approximately 1,000 fake report cards, around 1,000 blank report cards, admission cards, certificates, progress reports and over 100 "rubber stamps" (18 July 2004). In January 2005, the Delhi police arrested two people for allegedly selling fake school certificates including fraudulent certificates from Bundelkhand University, Punjab Education Board, Gorakhpur University and the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) (The Hindu 25 Jan. 2005; NNE 25 Jan. 2005). The Hindu also reports that the owner of a teaching institute was arrested in Shakarpur for forging school and college report cards and degrees, which he provided to his students (27 May 2005). According to The Times of India, an organized network which produces fraudulent documents, such as school certificates, operates in Gujarat, particularly in Nadiad (The Times of India 24 Sept. 2006). Some schools are believed to be involved in the production of such documents (ibid.).4 Other sources also report the use of fraudulent documents with regard to drivers licences (The Times of India 12 Dec. 2006) and voter cards (The Telegraph 12 Feb. 2007). The Times of India reports that underage Indians use fake identity documents to obtain drivers licences and quotes the manager of a driving school in Mumbai who estimates that around 25 percent of youths applying for a driver's licence are underage (12 Dec. 2006). According to The Telegraph, a scheme producing fake voter cards "may well have flooded Bengal" (12 Feb. 2007). The network also provides fake ration cards to "Bangladeshi infiltrators," which will help them to get their names on the voter list; police could not indicate how many fake voter cards were in circulation (The Telegraph 12 Feb. 2007).5 [17] The claimant submitted some affidavits from India6 from people who allege to be knowledgeable about the events testified to by the claimant. I put little weight on the affidavits. Although they are alleged to have been sent by different people it is evident that the same typewriter has been used to type each one. I come to this conclusion because of the uneven and repeated pattern of some of the letters in the affidavits. This suggested to me that there are not reliable documents. [18] The claimant alleges that the XXXXX he hired was the son of a man who the claimant had come to know. He testified that this man was Muslim who would often come to town and sell XXXXX and other XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX to the townspeople. It is alleged that when the XXXXX father heard that his son had been arrested, tortured and had run away he held the claimant responsible. The father allegedly threatened the claimant and his family. The claimant alleges he is afraid of the father as well. It was the father who suggested the claimant hire his son in the first place and if the claimant was tortured it would not make sense that the man would come to such a conclusion. I find this is another part of a fabricated claim that is added so that it becomes more complicated. [19] The claimant stated that after the XXXXX father visited the claimant's home searching for his son the police accused that the claimant is entertaining " ... some militant of Jammu and Kashmir". This does not make sense. If the police saw or knew about militants going to the claimant's home it is reasonable to expect them to have arrested them at that time; all at that instant. [20] The claimant alleges he left India using his passport. The last alleged event occurred mid XXXXX 2007. The claimant exited India on XXXXX 2007. During that time the claimant alleges he was avoiding the police and that he has knowledge that they were seeking him prior to him leaving India and since. I find that if the police were searching for the claimant since mid XXXXX there would be an alert at ports of exit. The claimant can allege that agents bribed the police at the airport but I do not accept that this would be possible. Muslim extremist terrorists have police everywhere on the alert. I do not believe that security persons would just let the claimant pass by if he were seriously expected as being associated with terrorists. [21] I conclude from the objective evidence that life in Punjab is back to normal. The militancy has abated and there does not seem to be an upsurge of popular support for the problems being experienced in Jammu, Kashmir and Gujarat in Punjab. I conclude that this story is a fabricated one and that the claimant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. [22] Should I have erred in my credibility analysis the claimant did not do all that there was to do to protect himself and he has an internal flight alternative (IFA). [23] The claimant alleges that he is afraid of the police. He states that he tried to denounce those who tortured him to the Deputy Commissioner but he would not take a complaint from him. It appears from the evidence that the claimant tried an avenue that more likely than not would fail. He would have done better to go to the High Court or the Court of Session. He had the option to go to the courts but he did not. If he were afraid that authorities would harm him while he followed up with a complaint he could have requested anticipatory bail or bail before arrest. This document prohibits any policing authority from arresting a person before a case is known against him. It is often used when a person believes she is being set up on false charges. The claimant could have applied to the High Court of the Court of Session for Anticipatory bail.7 He did not. [24] In any event, the claimant has an IFA. I concluded that even if these local events occurred the claimant left India on his own passport and could return using it with equal ease. There is a very large population of Sikh in Delhi. A lot of those people are merchants and other kinds of businessmen. The claimant is a XXXXX. It is not unreasonable to expect him to try to establish himself elsewhere before asking protection of another country. There is no evidence that those who are alleged to be persecuting the claimant would follow him outside the area for which they are responsible. In the case of the servant's father I conclude it would be too difficult for a private individual to locate a family in such a dense population as Dehli. It is pure speculation on the claimant's part that they would. A year has passed since these incidents are alleged to have taken place. Each province is responsible for its own policing in India. It is pure conjecture on the part of the claimant that those police in the town on XXXXX XXXXX, XXXXX would have the will or the ability to follow the claimant to Delhi or Mumbai especially no that time has passed. [25] I find that the claimant has an IFA in Delhi. [26] The claimant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection because he did not provide clear and convincing evidence that he could not get protection in India and in any case he has an internal flight alternative. CONCLUSION [27] Having considered all the evidence and for the reasons stated above I find XXXXX XXXXX, is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. (signed) "Susan French" 09 Octobter 2008 Date (day/month/year) REFUGEE PROTECTION DIVISION / POLITICAL OPINION / VICTIM OF CONFLICT / TERRORIST / DETENTION / TORTURE / PASSPORT / CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES IN HOME COUNTRY / INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE / MALE / NEGATIVE / INDIA 1 United Kingdom (UK). 11 May 2007. Home Office, Border and Immigration Agency. Country of Origin Information Report: India. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/india-160507.doc. 2 Ibid. 3 IND100772.E. 23 January 2006. The security situation in Punjab, including patterns of violence, the groups involved, and the government's response (2002 - 2005). 4 IND102461.E. 26 April 2007. Availability and prevalence of fraudulent identity documents (2004 - 2007). 5 Ibid. 6 Exhibit 5. 7 Exhibit 4, page 1. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RPD File No. / N° de dossier de la SPR : 8 RPD.15.7 (October 2007) Disponible en français RPD File No. /Dossier : VA7-02852 RPD File No. /Dossier : VA7-02852 1

Response:
## Analysis of Refugee Decision: VA7-02852

### Key Issues
state of] Khalistan has lost appeal among the people of Punjab, and even public calls to revive secession and terrorist violence have faded out" (SATP n.d.b). This general atmosph

### Legal Analysis
The decision analyzes refugee protection criteria by examining: nt should he return to India. ANALYSIS Identity [4] The claimant's identity was established on a balance of probabilities by the evidence; there is an uncontested Indian Passport that has a Canadian visitor visa in it and there is a Punjab driver's licence. He is on a balance of probabilities who he says he is and he is a citize

### 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 administrative law principles are applied in this Federal Court of Canada decision?

Sewak v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2023-01-03 Neutral citation 2023 FC 10 File numbers T-1691-21 Decision Content Date: 20230103 Docket: T-1691-21 Citation: 2023 FC 10 Ottawa, Ontario, January 3, 2023 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Gleeson BETWEEN: SHANEIL KUMAR SEWAK Plaintiff and HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF CANADA Defendant ORDER AND REASONS I. Overview [1] By way of motion pursuant to Rule 51 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, Mr. Shaneil Kumar Sewak, the Plaintiff, appeals the October 3, 2022 Judgment of Associate Judge Trent Horne, acting in the capacity of a Case Management Judge, striking out the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim without leave to amend. Mr. Sewak represents himself. [2] Having considered the written and oral submissions of the parties, I find there is no basis to interfere with the Judgment of the Associate Judge. My reasons follow. II. Background [3] On November 5, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a Statement of Claim [Claim] alleging various justice system participants had engaged in racist conduct, illegal conduct, and tortious conduct that had breached his rights. The vast majority of the alleged misconduct relates to the provincial courts, provincial correctional institutions, and a municipal police service in Alberta. The Plaintiff’s allegations of misconduct also include two incidents relating to the alleged arrest of the Plaintiff by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police [RCMP]. The Associate Judge refers to the two incidents involving the RCMP as the “Sylvan Lake Allegation” and the “Violation of Conditions Allegation,” labels that I also use. [4] The Claim names His Majesty the King in Right of Canada as the sole defendant. The Applicant alleges Canada has a duty to protect citizens subjected to conduct within a province that “would offend the court’s sense of decency.” The Plaintiff seeks damages under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 [Charter], special damages, and punitive and aggravated damages. [5] On September 12, 2022, the Attorney General of Canada brought a motion in writing on behalf of the Defendant seeking an Order striking the Claim. Associate Judge Horne granted the motion, without leave to amend and awarded the Defendant costs fixed at $500 payable forthwith. III. The Decision of the Associate Judge [6] The Associate Judge first described the Claim, noting that all of the events set out involve provincial courts, provincial correctional institutions and the Edmonton Police Service with the exception of the Sylvan Lake and Violation of Conditions Allegations, which allege RCMP misconduct. The Associate Judge then stated: [9] The Claim alleges that “Canada” has an obligation to protect Canadian citizens detained, arrested, charged and convicted because of their race and or color of their skin, and that Canada has failed to come to the plaintiff’s aid. The Claim also alleges that the Alberta justice system actively, knowingly, and willfully participated in harming the plaintiff. [10] The Claim alleges that the plaintiff’s Charter rights have been infringed, and also relies on international conventions, including the United Nations Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. [7] The law applicable to a strike motion was summarized and the following underlying principles were identified by the Associate Judge: To strike a claim on the basis it discloses no reasonable cause of action, it must be plain and obvious that the claim, assuming the pleadings to be true, has no reasonable prospect of success, or that the action is certain to fail due to a radical defect (R v Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd, 2011 SCC 42 at paras 17, 19); In a pleading, a plaintiff is required to plead all material facts forming the basis of the claim and relief sought. The facts pled must provide sufficient details of each cause of action or legal ground raised. The material facts must explain the “who, when, where, how and what” that gives rise to the defendant’s liability. The relief sought must be set out and that relief must be of a type the action could produce and that is within the jurisdiction of the court to grant (Rule 174 of the Federal Courts Rules; Pelletier v Canada, 2016 FC 1356 at paras 8, 10; Oleynik v Canada (Attorney General) 2014 FC 896 at para 5; Al Omani v Canada, 2017 FC 786 at para 14); The statement of claim is to be read generously with a view to understanding its real essence and the court should err on the side of permitting a novel but arguable claim to proceed (Atlantic Lottery Corp Inc v Babstock, 2020 SCC 19 at para 19; Lim v Canada (Justice), 2020 FC 628 at para 20 citingCanada (National Revenue) v JP Morgan Asset Management (Canada) Inc, 2013 FCA 250 at paras 49–50); and Allegations may be struck on the basis that they are vexatious where the material facts are so deficient a defendant is unable to know how to answer the claim, and where they raise inflammatory allegations without supporting facts (Carten v Canada, 2009 FC 1233 at paras 64, 67; Kisikawpimootewin v Canada, 2004 FC 1426 at para 8). [8] The Associate Judge then reviewed the three-part test set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in ITO-International Terminal Operators Ltd v Miida Electronics Inc, [1986] 1 SCR 752 for finding jurisdiction in the Federal Court. Citing Windsor (City) v Canadian Transit Co, 2016 SCC 54 the Associate Judge also noted that it is necessary to determine the essential nature or character of a claim before assessing whether the three-part test is met. [9] Turning to the issues raised by the Plaintiff on the motion, the Associate Judge first concluded it was appropriate to consider the motion to strike prior to any further steps being taken in the proceeding. He then found it to be plain and obvious that allegations against the Edmonton Police Service and provincial correctional institutions were not within the Court’s jurisdiction (Tonner v Lowry, 2016 FC 230 at para 27; Legere v Canada, 2003 FC 896 at para 11). In considering the allegations involving members of the Alberta judiciary, the Associate Judge cited the doctrine judicial immunity, noting that the pleading of bald allegations was insufficient to overcome the doctrine, and that in any event the allegations pled were in essence a collateral attack on judicial orders and therefore an abuse of process. The Associate Judge then considered the Plaintiff’s reliance on international instruments, holding that instruments that are not part of domestic law cannot be relied upon in a claim to create substantive rights. Similarly, he found advancing a claim of a Charter breach neither extends nor creates jurisdiction in the Federal Court where that jurisdiction does not otherwise exist. The Associate Judge noted that a court of competent jurisdiction for the purpose of section 24(1) of the Charter is one that possesses: (1) jurisdiction over the person; (2) jurisdiction over the subject matter; and (3) jurisdiction to grant a remedy (R v 974649 Ontario Inc, 2001 SCC 81 at para 15). [10] The Associate Judge acknowledged the Court might have jurisdiction in respect of the claims involving allegations of misconduct by the RCMP but found these claims did not amount to anything more than bald allegations. [11] The Associate Judge struck the whole of the Claim, first on the basis that the Plaintiff had failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action and second, on the basis that the Claim was an abuse of process. In doing so, the Associate Judge cited the Plaintiff’s filings in the Alberta Court of King’s Bench relating to the same issues and claims – all which had been struck. [12] Finally, the Associate Judge refused leave to amend, finding the absence of jurisdiction was not curable by way of amendment, and that the Plaintiff had had three opportunities to present a claim disclosing a proper cause of action against the RCMP and had failed to do so. I. Issue and Standard of Review [13] The Plaintiff’s motion raises a single issue: has the Plaintiff demonstrated that the Associate Judge committed a reviewable error in striking the Claim and denying leave to amend? [14] An Associate Judge’s decision on a motion to strike is a discretionary determination (Moore v Canada, 2020 FC 27 at para 18). An Associate Judge’s discretionary decisions are reviewed against the standard of palpable and overriding error in respect of questions of fact and mixed fact and law. Where issues of law arise or can be extracted from a matter of mixed fact and law, that issue of law is reviewable on a correctness standard (Hospira Healthcare Corporation v Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, 2016 FCA 215 at paras 28, 65, 79; Housen v Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33 at paras 8, 10, 36). [15] As recently highlighted by the Federal Court of Appeal in Bennett v Canada 2022 FCA 73, the palpable and overriding error standard is highly deferential: [7] As was explained to the appellant during the hearing, our function is not to retry his case or to re-weigh the evidence that was before the Tax Court. Quite the contrary, we can only intervene if we determine that the Tax Court either erred in law or made a palpable and overriding error of fact. The test for setting aside a decision for palpable and overriding factual error is an exacting one. An error is only palpable if it is obvious or plainly seen and only overriding if it affects the result reached. As stated by this Court in Canada v. South Yukon Forest Corporation, 2012 FCA 165, 431 N.R. 286 at para. 46: [46] Palpable and overriding error is a highly deferential standard of review: H.L. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 SCC 25, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 401; Peart v. Peel Regional Police Services (2006) 217 O.A.C. 269 (C.A.) at paragraphs 158-59; Waxman, supra. “Palpable” means an error that is obvious. “Overriding” means an error that goes to the very core of the outcome of the case. When arguing palpable and overriding error, it is not enough to pull at leaves and branches and leave the tree standing. The entire tree must fall. II. Analysis [16] The Plaintiff argues that in striking the Claim the Associate Judge: (1) failed to consider the novelty and possible validity of the tort claim; (2) improperly labeled the claim as an abuse of the Court’s process; and, (3) in refusing leave to amend, improperly focused on proposed amendments as opposed to whether the Plaintiff could successfully amend the Claim. [17] The Plaintiff has clearly and eloquently expressed his view on the novelty issue in the course of oral submissions. In this regard, the Associate Judge did not ignore or fail to recognize the nature of Canada’s alleged duty towards its citizens; it was set out at paragraph 9 (reproduced above) of the Judgment. The Associate Judge also correctly recognized that pleadings are to be read generously and not struck simply on the basis of novelty. [18] After reviewing the applicable law relating to the striking of pleadings and the Court’s jurisdiction, the Associate Judge concluded, subject to two exceptions, that the claims advanced simply failed to establish any connection to the Federal Crown. Although the Plaintiff disagrees with this conclusion, he has not highlighted any specific error in fact or law that would warrant intervention on appeal. [19] The Plaintiff further argues that the Associate Judge erred in concluding there was an absence of material facts to support the Sylvan Lake and Violation of Conditions Allegations. The Plaintiff argues that the substance of the claims is obvious, commonplace and easily understood. Again, the argument advanced reflects a disagreement with the Judgment but does not highlight any error of on the part of the Associate Judge that satisfies the palpable and overriding threshold. [20] Similarly, the Associate Judge did not err in finding the alleged Charter violations had been pled without particulars, a conclusion that the Plaintiff has not expressly taken issue with. [21] The Plaintiff argues the Associate Judge erred in striking the Claim as an abuse of process because the actions commenced in the Alberta Courts are fundamentally different in nature and focus. The Claim before this Court, he argues, names different defendants and seeks Charter relief. The Plaintiff also argues the Associate Judge erred in holding three claims had been previously struck in the Alberta Courts, because the third action was filed after the Federal Court action had been commenced. None of these arguments is persuasive. [22] I am not convinced the Associate Judge in fact misapprehended the timing of the filings of the three actions in the Alberta Courts. However, even if I were to assume this to be so, the alleged error does not undermine the Associate Judge’s finding that similar claims had been initiated and struck in the Alberta Courts. This is not palpable and overriding error. [23] Further, the Associate Judge was not unaware of the effort to distinguish this Claim from those previously struck in the Alberta Courts but found “that a few passing references to the Federal Crown and the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, RSC 1985, c C-50” were insufficient to distinguish the claims. On appeal, the Plaintiff’s broad assertion that the claims in the Alberta Courts are fundamentally different without specifics is simply insufficient to disclose any error warranting intervention. In this regard the Defendant notes that the Plaintiff’s action filed in the Alberta Court of King’s Bench on February 22, 2022, and subsequently struck (Sewak v Alberta, 2022 ABQB 257 and Sewak v Alberta, 2022 ABQB 334), named the RCMP as a defendant, alleged violations of the Charter and sought Charter damages. [24] With respect to the denial of leave to amend, the Plaintiff argues that the Associate Judge was required to consider whether the Claim was capable of amendment, not whether previous attempts had failed. The Plaintiff further submits that the refusal of leave to amend is inconsistent with the Court’s obligations when dealing with self–represented litigants, citing the Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons adopted by the Canadian Judicial Council in September 2006 and endorsed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Pintea v Johns 2017 SCC 23 at paragraph 4. [25] The refusal to grant leave to amend was reached after the Associate Judge reviewed the proposed amendments to the pleadings and found that the proposed amendments failed to rectify any deficiencies in the Claim. In addition, the Associate Judge noted that the jurisdictional deficiencies could not be cured by way of amendment. The conclusion was also reached regarding the Sylvan Lake and Violation of Conditions Allegations and the Charter claims, because the pleadings did not contain any material facts to support these claims. The Associate Judge’s finding is owed significant deference. [26] I have carefully considered the Plaintiff’s argument that the refusal of leave to amend was inconsistent with the Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons. The principles provide that, in promoting equal justice, self-represented litigants should not be denied relief on the basis of minor or easily rectified deficiencies. As noted above, this is not a situation where the Claim was suffering a technical defect, but rather it was substantially deficient on numerous grounds. [27] Finally, the Plaintiff argues that the timing of the Defendant’s motion raises concerns because it was considered after the Plaintiff had initiated a motion for default judgment. The Associate Judge addressed the timing of the motion to strike, finding that Rule 221 allows a motion to strike to be brought at any time and noting that default judgment cannot be granted in the absence of jurisdiction or disclosure of a reasonable cause of action. No error has been demonstrated. III. Conclusion [28] The Plaintiff’s Appeal is dismissed. [29] The Defendant has sought and shall be awarded costs in the fixed amount of $250. ORDER IN T-1691-21 THIS COURT ORDERS that: 1. The motion is dismissed. 2. The Plaintiff shall pay costs to the Crown in the fixed amount of $250.00 inclusive of all disbursements and taxes. Blank “Patrick Gleeson” Blank Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-1691-21 STYLE OF CAUSE: SHANEIL KUMAR SEWAK v HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF CANADA PLACE OF HEARING: held by videoconferfence DATE OF HEARING: December 12, 2022 ORDER AND REASONS: GLEESON J. DATED: jANUARY 3, 2023 APPEARANCES: Shaneil Kumar Sewak For The Plaintiff (ON HIS OWN BEHALF) Katrina Longo For The Defendant SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Defendant

Response:
## Analysis of Court Decision: Sewak v. Canada

### Key Issues
st is met. [9] Turning to the issues raised by the Plaintiff on the motion, the Associate Judge first concluded it was appropriate to consider the motion to strike prior to any fur

### Standard of Review
failed to do so. I. Issue and Standard of Review [13] The Plaintiff’s motion raises a single issue: has the Plaintiff demonstrated that the Associate Judge committed a reviewable e

### Legal Analysis
The court's analysis focuses on: he entire tree must fall. II. Analysis [16] The Plaintiff argues that in striking the Claim the Associate Judge: (1) failed to consider the novelty and possible validity of the tort claim; (2) improperly labeled the claim as an abuse of the Court’s process; and, (3) in refusing leave to amend, improperly focused on proposed amen

### Precedential Value
This Federal Court decision has persuasive value for similar cases before the court and provides guidance to the Immigration and Refugee Board on the proper interpretation of law and procedural requirements. While not binding on other Federal Court judges, it establishes a precedent that will often be followed for consistency.


Prompt:
Explain how this Refugee Protection Division decision from the Refugee Law Lab Reporter applies international refugee law:

2023 RLLR 104 Citation: 2023 RLLR 104 Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division Date of Decision: December 27, 2023 Panel: Radostina Pavlova Counsel for the Claimant(s): Murhula Jugauce Mweze Country: Haiti RPD Number: TC3-06464 Associated RPD Number(s): N/A ATIP Number: A-2024-00593 ATIP Pages: N/A DECISION [1] XXXX XXXX (hereafter, the “claimant”) is a citizen of Haiti who is claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“IRPA”, the “Act”).[1] ALLEGATIONS [2] In summary, the claimant alleges that, in Haiti, he fears vengeful acts on the part of his maternal uncle, who has been jealous for years of the claimant’s mother’s successful XXXX and XXXX activity. This uncle, according to the claimant, wanted to obtain money from the claimant’s mother, and to take possession of some family assets. When unsuccessful, he took revenge by causing the death by “mystical means” of several close family members of the claimant – his mother, in 2016; his sister, in 2022; and his father, in 2023. The claimant alleges that these three family members were in good health when they suddenly passed away from illnesses that the doctors could not diagnose. The claimant left Haiti after his mother’s death and lived in Chile from 2017 to 2021; he alleges that he was unable to obtain permanent resident status there. He claims that his uncle in Haiti continued to utter threats and to this day intends to harm the claimant as an act of revenge. DETERMINATION [3] For the reasons that follow, I find that the claimant is a person in need of protection in the meaning of section 97(1) of the IRPA. ANALYSIS The claimant’s identity is established [4] The claimant’s identity was established on a balance of probabilities through his oral testimony and the certified true copy of his Haitian passport,[2] which is on file. The claimant is not excluded Article 1E of the Convention [5] Given the claimant’s prior residence in Chile, the Tribunal notified[3] the Minister of the possibility that the claimant might be excluded under Article 1E of the Convention. The Minister responded[4] to the invitation, informing the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) that they would not intervene in the hearing of the claim. [6] Article 1E of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees stipulates: This Convention shall not apply to a person who is recognized by the competent authorities of the country in which he has taken residence as having the rights and obligations which are attached to the possession of the nationality of that country. [7] This article has been incorporated in s. 98 of the IRPA: A person referred to in Section E or F of Article 1 of the Convention is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. [8] The applicable legal test for Article 1E exclusion was established by the Federal Court of Appeal in the case of Zeng.[5] Under the Zeng framework of analysis, the first step is to establish whether, at the time of the hearing, the claimant has status in another country that is substantially similar to that of its nationals. If the answer to this question is yes, then the claimant should be excluded under Article 1E of the Convention. If the answer is no, then the Panel must consider whether the claimant previously had such status and lost it or had access to it and failed to acquire it. If the answer to this question is yes, then the following factors must be considered in deciding whether the claimant should be excluded: the reason for the loss of status (voluntary or involuntary); whether the claimant could return to the third country where he had status; the risk the claimant would face in the home country; Canada’s international obligations; and any other relevant facts. [9] In the present case, when questioned at the hearing about the nature and validity of his residence status in Chile, the claimant testified that he had obtained a temporary resident status in Chile some time after his arrival and that this status expired a long time ago. He testified that he was unable to present any document, such as a residence card, since his belonging had been stolen on the way to Canada. He further explained that he had attempted to prolong his residency rights in Chile and/or to obtain a permanent residence status, and had submitted an application to the Chilean authorities, but he never received any response, in spite of his continued checking and following up; he claimed that he had been repeatedly told to wait. I have no reason to disbelieve the claimant’s testimony on this question, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I accept on a balance of probabilities that the claimant’s status in Chile was temporary and that he did not obtain a residence status, such as permanent residence, that would accord to him rights and responsibilities essentially similar to those accorded to Chilean nationals. Therefore, the answer to the first and second questions of the Zeng test is “no”. The determinative question, therefore, is whether the claimant had access to such status, but failed to obtain it. Having found earlier that his testimony that he tried to do so but was unsuccessful in that he got no response over a long period of time, to be credible on a balance of probabilities, I find that the answer to this question is also “no”. [10] For the above reasons, applying the Zeng test to the present circumstances, I find that the claimant is not excluded under Article 1E of the Convention and proceed with examining his allegations against his country of origin, Haiti. Nexus to a Convention ground is not established [11] The claimant’s core allegations when it comes to Haiti consist of fearing for his life and physical integrity because of an extended family member’s intent to harm him, driven by jealousy and a desire to take revenge. It is not alleged, and it does not arise from the evidence before me, that the claimant fears persecution on the basis of any of the enumerated Convention grounds – race, nationality, religion, membership in a particular social group or political opinion. For this reason, I find that a connection to a Convention ground has not been established. There is also no evidence that the claimant may be exposed to a risk of torture in the meaning of section 97(1)a of the IRPA. Therefore, I have assessed the claim under s. 97(1)b of the Act. The claimant’s key allegations are credible [12] In the case of Maldonado[6] the Federal Court established the principle of presumption of truth, where a refugee claimant’s sworn testimony is presumed truthful unless there is a reason to doubt its veracity. In the present case, I found the claimant’s testimony to be direct and spontaneous, sufficiently detailed, and consistent with his Basis of Claim (BOC)[7] narrative and the documentary evidence[8] presented in support of his allegations. He submitted in evidence copies of death certificates for his mother, sister and father, as well as letter of testimony from a friend of the family, corroborating the claimant’s allegations regarding the conflict with the said uncle and the latter’s jealousy, that the death of the claimant’s mother was unexplained by medical professionals, and that the claimant left Haiti as a result of fearing his uncle. [13] I find that, on the basis of his testimony and the documentary evidence, the claimant has established the following circumstances on a balance of probabilities: [14] There was a conflict in his family stemming form jealousy on the part of an uncle, where he uttered threats and wanted to claim some assets. [15] Three family members of the claimant, his mother, his sister and his father died within a period of six years, and in the absence of a specific medical explanation, the claimant, as well as others close to the family, believe that their deaths were caused by that uncle through “mystical” means. [16] The alleged agent of harm has maintained his grudge and has an ongoing desire to exact revenge on the claimant as a member of the family. Nature of the risk of harm [17] Having found that the above circumstances have been established on a balance of probabilities, I have examined the nature of the alleged risk of harm for the claimant. I have no doubt that the claimant sincerely and strongly believes that his close family members’ deaths occurred as a result of a voodoo curse cast by his uncle or at his request. While the death certificates presented in evidence do not identify the cause of death, thus, there is no evidence contrary to the claimant’s allegations that all three were in good health and the doctors could not identify a particular medical condition that led to the loss of life, I am not prepared to accept a novel interpretation of the natural word, one where it is possible to cause someone’s death through mystical means. I have, therefore, examined the available objective evidence found in the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Haiti[9] in view of illuminating the basis of the belief that the use of voodoo can inflict actual physical harm and death. [18] According to Item 1.29 of the NDP, the official religions in Haiti are Catholicism and voodoo, where voodoo is practiced by about 2.1% of the population. Item 1.7 states that as many as 50%-80% percent of Haitians incorporate some elements of voodoo culture or practice in addition to another religion. Different sources in the NDP, such as Items 1.18, 1.41 and 12.2, indicate that, in Haiti, under the influence of voodooist beliefs, calamities, epidemics and even socio-political problems are commonly attributed to supernatural causes, such as evil spirits and curses. An ethologist cited in Section 1.2 of Item 12.2 of the NDP describes voodoo as “a general system of practices and knowledge related to illness, care and healing […]” (translation); voodoo, in addition to being an African religion, is defined in this source as a system of care with magical-religious aspects that is relied upon in a similar manner that medicine is relied upon in Western societies. [19] When it comes to the actual or perceived use of voodoo in interpersonal conflicts or as a form of revenge, Item 7.4 of the NDP mentions a 2019 report about two voodoo practitioners who were killed because they were believed to have used “occult powers” to kill their neighbours. According to Item 7.6, voodoo curses are a known form of revenge in Haiti. A report by the French refugee and stateless persons protection office – OFPRA, at Item 12.2 of the NDP, elaborates on the use of “witchcraft” for criminal purpose in Haiti, including in the context of intra-family conflict. This source describes what seems to be an elaborate system of beliefs and concepts related to the possibility of influencing the combat between the spirits responsible for the life and protection of one individual against another, where rituals and ceremonies are used to this end and turning a family member into a zombie is mentioned as form of harm inflicted in an internal familial dispute. Notably, according to the same source, such activities are penalized by law where Art. 246 of the Criminal Code specifies that using substances to produce death or a lethargic state in another person qualifies as poisoning constituting murder or attempted murder. I find that this definition of the offence is an indicator that, while some people may believe that a death was caused by purely spiritual or “mystical” means, in the context of voodoo practices in Haiti when they are used for criminal purposes, much more conventional means, such as poisoning, may be employed. Thus, I find that it is not clearly implausible, that, in the present case, the claimant’s family members’ deaths were caused by non-mystical conditions, such as poisoning, even though he strongly believes otherwise. [20] On the basis of the above, I find that the risk faced by the claimant is a risk to his life or physical integrity. I find that this risk is personal to him, as it stems from the desire of a family member to exact revenge against the claimant specifically and is not faced by the general population in Haiti. It is not a risk arising from the application of lawful sanctions, and it is not caused by the inability of the state to provide medical care. State protection [21] The NDP for Haiti contains abundant information speaking to the inability of the state to provide protection to its citizens from criminal acts, which are widespread and committed with impunity. According to Item 7.6, there is little to no protection in Haiti from acts of revenge; the Haitian police lack resources to protect targets of revenge and policemen are often themselves targeted. The judiciary, according to the same source, is also under-resourced, as it is ineffective and susceptible to corruption. Further evidence in this respect can be found at Items 7.9, and 10.2, among others. For this reason, I find that the presumption of state protection has been refuted by clear and convincing evidence and that the claimant cannot rely on such protection in Haiti. Internal Flight Alternative [22] The objective evidence similarly indicates an absence of a viable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) for the claimant in Haiti. Item 7.6 of the NDP points out that the principal means by which an assailant would locate their target in Haiti is through the use of informal networks and word-of-mouth. This is an effective means of locating victims, according to the same source, as outsiders to a particular area are easily recognized and rumours quickly spread. It is also important to consider that merely travelling to an IFA location would expose the claimant to significant risks of generalized criminality, given the evidence, at Item 14.1, that persons returning from abroad are more likely to be kidnapped for ransom, and that criminal gangs exercise control over some of the main routes. Therefore, I find that the claimant does not have a viable IFA anywhere in Haiti. CONCLUSION [23] Based on the reasons provided above, I find that the claimant is a person in need of protection under s. 97(1) of the IRPA. [24] The claim is accepted. ——— REASONS CONCLUDED ——— [1] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, sections 96 and 97(1). [2] Exhibit 1. [3] Exhibit 4. [4] Exhibit 5. [5] M.C.I. v. Zeng, Guanqiu (F.C.A., no. A-275 09); 2010 FCA 118. [6] Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1979] F.C.J. No. 248 (FCA)(QL), [1980] 2 FC 302 (CA). [7] Exhibit 2. [8] Exhibit 7. [9] Exhibit 3.1.

Response:
## Analysis of Refugee Decision: 2023 RLLR 104

### Key Issues
ionals. If the answer to this question is yes, then the claimant should be excluded under Article 1E of the Convention. If the answer is no, then the Panel must consider whether th

### Legal Analysis
The decision analyzes refugee protection criteria by examining: of section 97(1) of the IRPA. ANALYSIS The claimant’s identity is established [4] The claimant’s identity was established on a balance of probabilities through his oral testimony and the certified true copy of his Haitian passport,[2] which is on file. The claimant is not excluded Article 1E of the Convention [5] Given the claim

### 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.