TB9-12379

Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel des réfugiés RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB9-12379 TB9-12380 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered at Montreal, Quebec Appel instruit à Date of decision July 29, 2020 Date de la décision Panel Me Patricia O'Connor Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal John Salam Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre

REASONS FOR DECISION I. INTRODUCTION [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX (Principal Appellant/PA) and his spouse XXXX XXXX XXXX are citizens of India. They appeal a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rendered on April 18, 2019, denying their claim for refugee protection. The Appellants are Tamil Muslims who claim to fear Hindu extremists after the PA provided shelter and support to two Hindu converts to Islam. They allege a prospective risk as a result of their Muslim faith and the female Appellant's gender. They submit that the RPD erred in dismissing their claim based on overriding concerns with their credibility and that the RPD erred in finding they do not have a prospective risk in India. [2] I dismiss the appeal. After conducting my own analysis of the record1, I find that the RPD was correct in finding overriding concerns with the credibility of the evidence and that the Appellants did not establish a prospective risk in India. I conclude that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection. II. BACKGROUND [3] The Appellants are Tamil Muslims from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. [4] According to their Basis of Claim (BOC),2 the PA worked for the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. He was arrested and beaten for helping Hindus and accused of forcing them to convert to Islam. In 2002, the Muslim community was targeted by the

police and XXXX XXXX XXXX activists were arrested. The PA was XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. [5] Given the problems towards the Muslim community, the PA XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX where he made a failed refugee claim. He returned to India XXXX XXXX XXXX. Upon his return to India, the PA was detained by the police XXXX XXXX XXXX. [6] The Appellants got married XXXX XXXX XXXX and remained living in their village. The police continued to harass the PA whenever an incident happened in the community. [7] In XXXX XXXX, members of the Hindu Munnani organization along with members of the right-wing Hindu nationalist organization Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and two local policemen came to the house to arrest the PA based on a police report against him for assaulting two local members of the Hindu Munnani organization. The PA was physically assaulted at the police station. [8] XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX without status. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX where he lived peacefully for the next year although he received some threatening phone calls from right-wing Hindu nationalists. [9] XXXX XXXX, the PA joined the Naam Manidhar Katchi which became a registered political party in XXXX XXXX and accepted the Party's XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX

XXXX XXXX, the PA was informed that the right-wing Hindu Munnani group discovered XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. As such, the two XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, to live with their own relatives. [10] XXXX XXXX XXXX, Hindu Munnani members presented at the Appellants' home asking about XXXX XXXX. The PA was accused and threatened for trying to convert Hindus to Islam. The PA was advised by his party to be cautious. [11] When the Appellants XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, they were required to bribe an airport official to facilitate their departure and re-entry. [12] XXXX XXXX XXXX, he was stopped by six RSS members who beat him XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. [13] XXXX XXXX XXXX, the Appellants went into hiding XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. While in hiding, the PA received threatening calls. XXXX XXXX XXXX, members of the Hindu Front approached the Appellants and harassed them. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX they came to Canada with the assistance of an agent and made a refugee claim. [14] Following their departure from India, members of the Hindu Munnani presented at their home in India making inquiries about their whereabouts. [15] The RPD found overriding concerns with the Appellants' credibility and rejected the claim based on omissions and inconsistencies in the evidence and the PA's lack of effort to obtain

requested information regarding his failed XXXX refugee claim. Documentary evidence provided by the Appellants could not in itself, lead to a positive disposition of the claim. The RPD also determined that the Appellants' profile as Tamil Muslims living XXXX XXXX XXXX as well as the female Appellant's gender, did not establish a prospective risk in India. III. DETERMINATIVE ISSUE [16] The Appellants submit that the RPD made overriding errors in the assessment of their credibility and prospective risk in India. IV. SCOPE OF THE RAD APPEAL [17] The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) reviews decisions on a standard of correctness after conducting an independent assessment of the evidence before it.3 Deference may be required when the RPD enjoys a meaningful advantage in the assessment of the credibility of oral evidence.4 I have applied the correctness standard in the present case. V. ANALYSIS 1. Credibility [18] The RPD found that the Appellants did not credibly establish that they are targeted by Hindu extremists based on their religious beliefs. [19] First, the RPD considered the PA's evidence about his risk from local right-wing Hindu militants and the police stemming from his alleged involvement in political activities prior to his XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. In this regard, the RPD found that the evidence lacked credibility based on the following: - The RPD reached a negative

inference based on the PA's failure to provide documents related to his failed refugee claim XXXX XXXX which was not reasonably explained; - The PA states that he initially fled XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX after he was mistreated and falsely charged with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. He decided XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX because he thought his persecutors forgot about him with the passage of time and he missed his wife. This being said, he also testified that he needed to bribe officials upon his return given the outstanding charge related to communal violence against him. The RPD noted that the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was omitted from the Appellants' twice-amended BOC. Considering that the omission was not reasonably explained, the RPD found that the PA's testimony that he paid a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX lacked credibility. - The RPD further noted that while the PA states that he felt the need to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, this is incompatible with his statement that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX because he missed his wife and thought it was safe to return based on the passage of time. The RPD found that the PA was likely embellishing his claim when he testified about bribing the official which seriously undermined his credibility. - The Panel member noted that her finding that the PA was not actually wanted by anyone XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

XXXX is consistent with the PA's own evidence that he was able to live peacefully with his wife XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The RPD noted that if local Hindu extremists had wished to harm the Appellant and if the authorities had wished to arrest him due to events that occurred XXXX XXXX, it is unlikely that the Appellants would have been able to live and work peacefully in India as alleged. - Given the identified credibility concerns, the RPD found that the Appellants' fear of harm related to alleged events prior to the PA's XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is not well-founded and that there is insufficient credible evidence of a forward-facing risk related to these issues. [20] Next, the RPD considered the credibility of the evidence following the PA's return to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. In this regard, the RPD found that the Appellants did not credibility establish that they are at risk from politically connected Hindu extremist groups after they hosted and supported Hindu converts in their home. The RPD noted the following: - The PA's evidence is inconsistent. While he states he joined the XXXX XXXX XXXX when it became an official party in XXXX and that it is his involvement in this group that has caused him to face harm in India, the PA mentioned at the Port of Entry (POE) that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. - The PA provided insistent evidence about when the XXXX XXXX

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. He testified that they came in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. It was this role in supporting XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to flee India and make a refugee claim. In contrast, the PA stated at the CBSA interview that in XXXX XXXX members of the party XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX converting to Islam XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX during which period he taught them about the Muslim faith. This significant discrepancy seriously undermines their allegation that they hosted the converts, as alleged. - Finding that the Appellants' evidence is generally not credible, the RPD also found that documentary evidence, including a membership card for the political party, a medical certificate and letter of support, is not capable of leading to a positive disposition of the claim. - The RPD also reached a negative inference from the Appellants' lack of effort to obtain any evidence from the political party in India to support the allegations at the heart of the claim. While the PA stated that the party could not help him and provide a letter as they are scared, the RPD noted that it is unlikely that the party would not provide a letter given that the mission of the party is to help people and in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. - Finally, the RPD noted a significant discrepancy in the evidence.

The PA states that he was assisted by a smuggler to obtain his visa to Canada. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and the Appellants' passports were returned when they departed for Canada XXXX XXXX XXXX. However, the RPD noted that this version of events lacks credibility since their passports were XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX which means that he could not have provided it to the smuggler, as alleged. The RPD found that the Appellants' allegation that they used a smuggler to flee the country based on their risk from politically connected extremists lacked credibility. [21] On appeal, Counsel argues that the RPD engaged in an overzealous and microscopic analysis of the Appellants' testimony and made overriding errors in the assessment of credibility. I will address each issue in turn. The RPD did not err in asking the PA to supply information about his past refugee claim XXXX XXXX [22] The RPD reached a negative inference from the PA's failure to provide documents regarding his failed 2008 refugee XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to request a copy of the information was not reasonably explained. [23] Counsel submits that the RPD erred. To the contrary, the PA reasonably explained that he no longer had contacts XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

XXXX and he was not able to reach his previous lawyer. Moreover, given that the PA XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the RPD placed unreasonable expectations on the PA to contact government authorities to obtain information about his refugee claim. [24] I disagree. First of all, it bears noting that the PA states XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX because he was persecuted in India by Hindu extremists who targeted Muslims. For this reason, he made a failed refugee claim XXXX XXXX. According to the PA, he has continued being the target of communal violence and anti-Muslim sentiment following XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and this is a significant issue underpinning his refugee claim. [25] The PA had XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX claim to the RPD. I cannot agree with Counsel who asserts that his client XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. [26] According to information supplied by the PA, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. He speaks Tamil and English and has spent extensive periods living in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.5 While he testified that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, there is no evidence on the record about the actual nature and scope of this

business. He also provided a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX." XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.6 [27] The evidence provided by the PA himself, points to the fact XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; speaks English; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The Appellants have also been represented by Counsel throughout the proceedings. Moreover, Rule 11 of the RPD Rules states that all refugee claimants must provide acceptable documents establishing elements of their claim. Finally, the information requested by the RPD was tied to one of the issues to be determined in this claim - namely the PA's targeting by Hindu militants as a result of his Muslim faith.7 In this context, the RPD did not err in reaching a negative inference based on the PA's failure to take reasonable steps to provide information regarding his failed refugee claim XXXX XXXX. The RPD did not impugn the PA's credibility on the basis that he failed to mention in his BOC XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX because he missed his wife [28] As noted

above, the PA states that he went XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to flee communal violence and Hindu militants targeting Muslims. He stated that he decided to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX because he thought that his agents of persecution would have forgotten about him with the passage of time. Moreover, he wanted to return because he missed his wife who had stayed behind in India. [29] Counsel faults the RPD for impugning the PA's credibility on the basis that he failed to mention in his BOC that one of the reasons he returned to India was because he missed his wife. Counsel argues that this clearly illustrates the extent to which the RPD conducted a microscopic search for inconsistencies aimed at impugning the Appellants' credibility. [30] With respect, I find that Counsel has misconstrued this aspect of the RPD decision. [31] The RPD did not reach an adverse credibility finding because the PA failed to mention in his BOC that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX because he missed his wife. Rather, when asked to explain why he XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX even though he had an unresolved police complaint against him under the XXXX XXXX XXXX, the PA responded that he thought it was OK XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to be with his wife. [32] To be clear, the RPD did not impugn the PA's credibility because he said he wanted to return to India

to be with his wife. Rather, after noting his explanation XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the RPD continued its analysis and reached an adverse credibility finding as a result of an omission in the BOC: while the PA testified that he was required XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, this information is not mentioned in his BOC or his twice-amended BOC. The RPD found that this is a significant omission because the PA specifically amended his BOC to provide additional information about the fact that he was required to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. [33] When challenged to explain this omission, the PA simply stated that "he forgot." The RPD concluded that the PA having "omitted this XXXX XXXX in these circumstances undermines the credibility of his allegation that he was required XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and undermines his general credibility."8 [34] All things considered, the RPD did not err in reaching a negative credibility finding as a result of the PA's omission to mention in his twice-amended BOC that he XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

XXXX. This is a significant omission considering that the crux of the refugee claim concerns his fear as a Muslim who is targeted by Hindu militants in India.9 The RPD did not conflate the importance of inconsistencies between the PA's interview with the CBSA officer and his testimony at the RPD hearing [35] Upon his arrival in Canada, the PA was interviewed by a CBSA officer and mentioned that he joined the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and that this party is aimed at looking after the rights of all minorities in India including Muslims and people in lower caste.10 In contrast, he indicated in his BOC that he joined the party XXXX XXXX- the same year it became an official party although the group had existed since 2001. He states that his involvement in the party resulted in him being targeted by Hindu extremist organizations. [36] When challenged to explain this inconsistency at the RPD hearing, he stated that he had been fasting for Ramadan and was fatigued when he arrived in Canada. While it is noted in the RPD decision that it is reasonable to conclude that the PA had difficulty with the interview if he was fatigued and fasting, the Panel member did not accept this explanation given the other identified credibility concerns which render his testimony unreliable. The RPD also noted that "2015" is a significant date since it is when the party got official status. [37] I note

that the Federal Court has cautioned against the reliability of POE notes given the conditions in which they are taken. As such, I agree with Counsel that the noted inconsistency is reasonably explained, and the discrepancy shall not be considered in the overall assessment of the credibility of the claim.11 Other discrepancies in the evidence [38] Counsel also faults the RPD for conflating the importance of the PA's inconsistent evidence about when he hosted and supported XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. While the PA testified that they came in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, he indicated during his interview with CBSA XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX during which period he supported them and taught them about Islam.12 [39] It is well-established that it is an error for the RPD to reach adverse credibility findings based on a microscopic or peripheral concern with the evidence.13 This being said, the noted discrepancy in the evidence regarding when the Appellants XXXX XXXX XXXX and associated problems stemming from their involvement with the converts is a critical part of their story, leading to the Appellants' decision to go into hiding; flee India and come to Canada. [40] The noted discrepancy is not microscopic. The Appellants have presented two very different versions of a

story underpinning the refugee claim which cannot be reconciled. It bears noting that it was the PA himself who volunteered the dates that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX when he was interviewed by the CBSA officer. That interview took place on May 20, 2018, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and not at the port of entry on the day he arrived. [41] In sum, I find that the RPD did not err in finding that this undermines the credibility of their evidence that they hosted the converts, as alleged. Documentary evidence [42] Medical certificate: The PA states that he was in the hospital for four days after being beaten by Hindu extremists as a result of his political activities. The PA provided a medical certificate indicating that he was treated for injuries XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX14 The PA stated that he obtained the medical certificate on the date that he was discharged from the hospital XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. However, when the RPD pointed out that the letter was written and signed on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the PA changed his testimony, stating that he was unsure about when the letter was received. While the RPD reached an adverse inference as a result of this inconsistency, I agree with Counsel that nothing overriding turns on this issue. [43] This being said, I have considered whether the medical certificate is capable of supporting a positive disposition of the

claim.15 Even though the medical certificate says the PA was treated for injuries, it does not establish why he was injured nor does it establish the main allegations that the Appellants fear persecution or harm as a result of being targeted by Hindu extremists given their religious beliefs. [44] Political identity cards: The PA provided two political identity cards with the first one being issued in 2015 and the second one being issued on June 2, 2017.16 While the RPD found it implausible that the PA would be issued a second card at a period which corresponds to when he says he was in hiding based on his fear of Hindu extremists XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, I agree with Counsel that nothing determinative turns on the fact that the PA was issued a renewal card that was sent to his family address while he was in hiding. This being said, the membership card in itself does not establish the political profile or allegations that he is at risk stemming from his political activities. Concluding comments about credibility [45] Up to this point in the analysis, I have addressed each issue raised by the Appellants on appeal. I have determined that it was an error for the RPD to impugn the Appellants' credibility based on discrepancies between the POE notes and the BOC. Likewise, a slight discrepancy in the date that the medical certificate was received and the fact that

the PA received a membership card while in hiding are not determinative of the Appellants' credibility. [46] This being said, my review of the evidence as a whole, leads to the conclusion that the balance of the adverse credibility findings made by the RPD is correct, strikes at the crux of the claim and is well supported by the evidence, leading to the conclusion that the Appellants did not credibly establish their fear of Hindu extremists because they are Muslim and because of the PA's political involvement XXXX XXXX XXXX to Islam.

2. The Appellants' prospective risk as Tamil Muslims and the female Appellant's prospective risk based on her gender in India [47] Counsel argues that there was ample evidence on the record to support the Appellants' prospective risk based on their profile as Tamil Muslims and the RPD failed to assess this risk. To support this contention, Counsel refers to excerpts of different news articles including a leading academic who expressed concern about the deteriorating relationship between the RSS and Indian Muslims, in a context where RSS cadres are ruling India. It is noted that the Muslim minority is treated brutally. Many have been forced to convert to Hinduism and some have been burnt alive for consuming beef.17 [48] However, the RPD did in fact consider the documentary evidence, including the news articles submitted by the Appellants. In this regard, I endorse the following comments of the RPD: The panel notes that the claimants are Tamil and lived in XXXX XXXX, where they would have been part of the ethnic majority. The counsel in written submissions provided prior to the claim, points out that there has been violence against Muslims, and links between the RSS, a group blamed for stoking or perpetrating these acts and the BJP, the current ruling party in the country. However, these citations fail to identity issues in XXXX XXXX, such that the panel could find that the

claimants may face a serious possibility of persecution should they return there. The panel notes that the BJP do not appear to hold significant power in XXXX XXXX, with state election results showing the AIADMK holding power there.18 [49] There is no question that religious minorities are vulnerable to the threat of communal violence in India and Muslims who make up 15% of the population, have typically been a large majority of the victims. There is also a climate of rising Hindu nationalism since the election of the BJP party in 2014.19 [50] This being said, I find it significant that the Appellants live in the State of XXXX XXXX. As noted by the RPD, the AIADMK is the ruling party in XXXX XXXX. This party "espouses no particular ideology except the protection of the interests of the Tamil population in India and in Sri Lanka."20 [51] Counsel also faults the RPD for failing to consider the female Appellant's prospective risk in India based on her gender. This is a bald assertion unsupported by any substantive submissions. [52] I note further that the Panel member did address the female Appellant's prospective risk of gender-based violence at paragraph 23 of the RPD decision. In this regard, the RPD acknowledged that there are reports of gender-based violence in India but this does not mean that women in general are at risk in India nor did Counsel provide documentary evidence

that Muslim women are at particular risk of harm amounting to persecution India. [53] In my analysis, I have considered the female Appellant's prospective risk of gender-based violence through the lens of the Gender Guidelines which require that gender-based refugee claims be assessed with understanding and sensitivity.21 I find that the RPD correctly acknowledged that women in India are at risk of gender-based violence. More specifically, objective evidence documents the risk of domestic violence, rape and workplace violence.22 [54] Against this backdrop, I have considered the factual presentation of this case. I note that the female Appellant indicated that she XXXX XXXX XXXX in India. Together with her husband, she lives in a home XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. She is not alone and can rely on her husband and family for support. Aside from her alleged difficulties with the Hindu extremists stemming from her husband's association XXXX XXXX XXXX which lacked credibility, I find nothing in the female Appellant's evidence to support the assertion that she has a well-founded fear of persecution or risk of harm based on her gender in India. As such, this aspect of the appeal is also denied. VI. REMEDY [55] For all these reasons, I confirm the decision of the RPD in accordance with ss. 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, namely that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of

protection. The appeals are dismissed. Patricia O'Connor Patricia O'Connor July 29, 2020 Date PO/lp 1 In response to the COVID-19 disruption, the RAD sent an email to Counsel on June 15, 2020, advising that he has 30 days to submit additional documentation or submissions in support of the appeal. Counsel did not provide any further information. 2 The Basis of Claim is dated June 4, 2018 which was twice amended on December 18, 2018 and February 15, 2019. 3 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93 (CanLII), paras. 78, 103. 4 Ibid., paras. 58, 59 and 70. 5 Generic Application, RPD Record, p 70. 6 Deed of Partnership, RPD Record, p 168. 7 Rizwan v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) 2017 FC 456 para 10. 8 RPD decision, para 8. 9 Cho v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration 2019 FC 398. 10 CBSA interview May 19, 2018, RPD Record, p 87. 11 Yankson v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) 2019 FC 1608. 12 CBSA interview, May 20, 2018, RPD Record, p 118. 13 Attakora v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), (1989) 99 NR 168 [1989] FCJ No. 444 (FCA). 14 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX. 15 Olanrewaju v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 679. 16 Membership card XXXX XXXX XXXX, RPD Record pp 219-220. 17 Memorandum of Appeal, para 21. 18 RPD decision, para 23. 19 NDP for India, 29 March 2019, Tab 12.10: A Narrowing Space:

Violence and discrimination against India's religious minorities, Minority Rights Group International; Center for Study of Society and Secularism, 29 June 2017, accessed 15 May 2018. I note this information is also included in the most recent NDP for India, 31 January 2020. 20 NDP for India, 29 March 2019, Tab 4.2: ?Information on the party All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), its structure, including selection of representatives and leaders; appearance, and content of membership cards, and process to obtain one (2012-May 2016). IRB. 20 May 2016. IND105525.E. I note this information is also included in the most recent NDP for India, 31 January, 2020. 21 Nour v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2012 FC 805, para. 37. 22 NDP for India, 29 March 2019, Tab 5.2: Violence against women, including domestic violence, homelessness, workplace violence; information on legislation, state protection, services, and legal recourse available to women who are victims of violence (2013-April 2015). IRB. 15 May 2015. IND105130.E. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ 2 16 RAD.25.02 (2014.09.11) Disponible en français RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB9-12379 TB9-12380