VC0-00462

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : VC0-00462 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision April 26, 2021 Date de la décision Panel C. Lindberg Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Devinderjit S. Purewal Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister Jennifer Mensink Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX (Respondent) is a citizen of Namibia who made a claim for refugee protection. She alleges a history of physical and sexual abuse by her father and her boyfriend and a fear of ongoing abuse from these men. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness intervened at the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) hearing on the issue of credibility.1 [2] The RPD found the Respondent to be a Convention refugee, based on her well-founded fear of persecution as a woman fearing sexual and physical abuse by her father and her boyfriend. The RPD found that adequate state protection is not available and she does not have a viable internal flight alternative (IFA).2 [3] The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship (hereinafter, "Minister") have appealed the decision to the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD). The Minister argues that the RPD erred in assessing credibility and in finding that the Respondent does not have a viable IFA.3 The Respondent argues that the RPD's decision is correct.4 DECISION [4] I dismiss the appeal. I find that the RPD correctly decided that the Respondent is a Convention refugee. NEW EVIDENCE [5] The Minister has submitted six documents as new evidence.5 These documents provide information about laws and procedures in Namibia pertaining to the registration of births, parental responsibilities, domestic violence, and the availability of legal assistance. The Minister has the right to submit documentary evidence at any time before the RAD makes a decision.6 I accept this evidence and have considered it in my analysis. [6] The Respondent has submitted five documents as new evidence.7 These documents describe country conditions in Namibia, including human rights abuses, harmful cultural practices, and social assistance and welfare for children. Two of these documents are in the RPD Record at Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Namibia, March 29, 2019 so I do not need to admit them as new evidence. The only difference between Exhibit 3 and the current NDP for Namibia, March 31, 2020, is the updated version of item 2.1, which the Respondent has submitted as new evidence.8 The Respondent has the right to submit documentary evidence in response to evidence presented by the Minister.9 The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) publication submitted by the Respondent,10 which is not in the NDP, is relevant in addressing the Minister's evidence regarding maintenance grants for children in Namibia. The Freedom House report is an updated version of a document in Exhibit 3 and refers to gender-based violence and discrimination against women under traditional practices. The updated version of item 2.1 is the United States Department of State Namibia Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 2019 and includes information about sexual assault and domestic violence. The Minister has presented evidence about laws aimed at combating domestic violence. All three documents are, therefore, admissible. I accept this evidence and have considered it in my analysis. [7] Neither the Minister nor the Respondent has requested an oral hearing.11 The new evidence does not raise a serious issue with respect to the Respondent's credibility that is central to the decision and would be determinative of the claim. Therefore, it does not meet the requirements for an oral hearing.12 I will not hold a hearing. ROLE OF THE REFUGEE APPEAL DIVISION [8] The role of the RAD is to look at all the evidence and decide whether the RPD made the correct decision.13 The Respondent argues that the RAD has a duty of deference regarding the RPD's credibility findings because the RPD had the opportunity to hear the witness.14 I do not agree. [9] The RAD owes deference to the RPD's credibility findings only when the RPD had a meaningful advantage in assessing the credibility of oral evidence.15 This will rarely be the case, although it could occur if the RPD made a credibility finding on the basis of an event or circumstance in the hearing room that is not captured in the record. The Federal Court has rejected the proposition that hearing oral testimony in and of itself confers a meaningful advantage.16 [10] On reviewing the RPD's reasons for decision and the record of proceedings, I find the RPD had no meaningful advantage in assessing the credibility of oral evidence. Therefore, the standard of review is correctness. ANALYSIS [11] The Minister has raised two issues on this appeal. The Minister argues that the RPD erred in finding that the Respondent established her allegation that her father arranged for other men to pose as the fathers of her two oldest children when the births were registered. The Minister argues that this erroneous finding goes to the core of the Respondent's claim that these children were born as a result of her father sexually abusing her. The second issue raised by the Minister is the viability of an IFA. The Minister argues that the RPD erred in finding that the Respondent does not have a viable IFA because it would be unreasonable for her to relocate within Namibia. I am not persuaded by the Minister's arguments. My reasons follow. The RPD correctly found that the Respondent established, on a balance of probabilities, her allegations of sexual abuse [12] The Respondent's evidence is that her father has sexually abused her since she was nine years old and that he is the father of her two oldest children.17 She testified that, to conceal his paternity, he arranged to have two other men pose as the fathers when the births were registered.18 The RPD found that, while this seemed unusual, it was not implausible or unreasonable as an explanation for why their names appeared as the fathers on the children's birth certificates.19 The Minister argues that this is an error of law, and that the RPD accepted the Respondent's testimony on a question of law, made an inference as to the law in Namibia, and demonstrated bias and stereotypical thinking in making a finding without factual evidence.20 The Respondent argues that the RPD did not make a finding as to the law in Namibia or engage in stereotypical thinking but, rather, concluded, on considering the totality of the evidence, that the Respondent did not lack credibility. I am not persuaded by the Minister's arguments. I find that the RPD did not err in assessing the Respondent's testimony about the birth registrations. On an independent assessment, I find that the Respondent has established, on a balance of probabilities, that her father arranged for the men named on the birth certificates of her two oldest children to pose as the fathers for the purpose of giving the children their surnames. My reasons follow. The RPD correctly considered it a question of fact whether the Respondent's father arranged for men to be named on the birth certificates [13] The Minister's argument that the RPD erred in law conflates the determination of foreign law with a question of law. A finding made by the RPD, or the RAD, about the law of another country is a finding of fact. However, in this instance, the RPD made no finding as to the law of Namibia. On the contrary, the RPD stated that it is unknown whether there are legal or other consequences in Namibia for being identified as a father on a child's birth certificate.21 Evidently, the RPD was not making assumptions about Namibian law. Nor was the RPD accepting the Respondent's testimony on a question of law since the effect of Namibian law is a question of fact. The RPD assessed the Respondent's testimony in the context of all the evidence and accepted that, on a balance of probabilities, she established the fact that her father arranged for other men to be named as the fathers of her two oldest children. The evidence does not establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the men named as fathers assume the legal responsibility of fathers under Namibian law [14] The Minister argues that, in finding the Respondent's testimony credible, the RPD assumed that there were no legal or financial responsibilities consequent on being named as the father of a child.22 The Minister's argument does not distinguish between the legal consequences of being a father and being named as father on registration of a birth. I find there is a distinction and I will explain why. [15] First, I will address the evidence dealing with the process of birth registration. I have considered the evidence submitted by the Minister in the fact sheet on registering the birth of a child born outside marriage in Namibia.23 I have also considered evidence in the World Bank Group's Namibia Identity Management System Analysis Report.24 The information in both documents is consistent, although the Report provides more details. Although the Report is of a later date, the applicable law is the same and the evidence is that it was the law in effect at the time the Respondent's two oldest children were born.25 The Minister argues that the evidence demonstrates that the mother must consent to the naming of the father on the birth certificate. I agree. The documentary evidence also indicates that the primary duty to register the birth of a child falls on the father.26 The evidence indicates that the father will be listed on the birth certificate if he has acknowledged paternity in person or in a sworn statement.27 The Report states that the law is confusing on what is required to register a man as the father of a child born outside marriage. There is evidence that registration procedures are unclear and, as a result, the law is inconsistently applied.28 The Report indicates that the information required for birth registration includes the declaration of one person as to the truth of the information.29 I find no inconsistency between the documentary evidence and the Respondent's evidence that the men were brought to her in the hospital and then went with her father to register the births.30 [16] As I have already explained, the RPD explicitly made no assumptions or findings about Namibian law. The RPD stated that, in a Canadian context, a man would be unlikely to agree to being falsely named as a father, given the legal and financial obligations involved.31 The Minister argues that the documentary evidence demonstrates that Namibian law imposes similar obligations, particularly in relation to financial support. Therefore, the Minister argues, the RPD's finding cannot stand, since it is implausible and not credible that men, unknown to the Respondent, agreed to be named as the fathers of her two oldest children.32 I agree with the Minister that Namibian law imposes significant legal and financial obligations on both parents, that there are legal steps one parent can take to enforce the other parent's child support obligations, that it is a crime to try to stop a person from seeking child support by threatening or intimidating them, and that there are legal procedures for victims of domestic violence to seek protection orders. However, I am not persuaded that the inference to be drawn is that the Respondent's testimony is not credible. This is because of other provisions in Namibian law, evidence as to how the law is applied, and the Respondent's personal circumstances. [17] The evidence is that the source of parental support obligations and mechanisms to enforce them is Namibia's Maintenance Act.33 The Act does not include a legal presumption of parentage based on birth registration. There is no evidence that Namibian law includes a provision similar to that which is found in Canadian provinces, creating a presumption of parentage.34 The evidence is that, in Namibia, a man who is asked to pay maintenance can ask for a paternity test if he denies that he is the father. The test is expensive and the mother may be asked to contribute towards the cost of the test.35 Although tests can be ordered in Canada, the presumption of parentage based on birth registration creates legal responsibilities, unless the presumption is rebutted. [18] Namibia's Maintenance Act also creates a number of offences, all punishable by a fine or imprisonment of up to 12 months, for making false statements in proceedings under the Act.36 [19] On an independent assessment, I find that the evidence about Namibian law does not support the Minister's argument that there are legal and financial responsibilities when named as the father of a child.37 The evidence indicates that those responsibilities flow from being the father of a child. Should the Respondent attempt to pursue the men named as fathers for child support, they could ask that paternity tests be done. In addition, the Respondent would be open to prosecution for making false statements if the men accused her of pursuing them despite knowing that they are not the fathers. In this context, I find that the RPD was correct to conclude that the Respondent's explanation is neither implausible nor unreasonable. The evidence is that the men whose names appear as the fathers on the children's birth registrations were not taking on financial or other responsibility for the children. [20] The Minister's evidence includes a brief guide to protection orders for victims of domestic violence.38 The Minister relies on this evidence in support of the argument that the Respondent would have recourse if there was an attempt to intimidate or threaten her to stop her from seeking child support.39 As I have already explained, if these men are not the fathers, the Respondent would not have a right to child support from them. Moreover, there is documentary evidence that protection orders are not effective or enforced, police are slow to respond in case of violations, and there are no procedures for what to do if an order is breached.40 The RPD correctly applied Guideline 4 in assessing the Respondent's evidence [21] I am mindful also that the Respondent's evidence must be assessed in light of Chairperson's Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution (Guideline 4).41 She alleges that her father abused her sexually, beginning when she was nine years old, and continued to abuse her physically and sexually. She testified consistently that her father controlled her life, she was dependent on him financially, and she had lived in his house all her life before coming to Canada. Her evidence is that she did not complete high school, and she worked as a singer and dancer in Namibia. The documentary evidence indicates that although a child can be registered without a father and can be given the mother's surname, there is great social stigma associated with this and it is counter to cultural beliefs and practices.42 I find it neither implausible nor unreasonable that in the social, cultural, and economic context of her life, the Respondent's father would take care of the birth registrations and arrange for other men to be named as the fathers. The RPD did not err in assessing the Respondent's credibility [22] The Minister argues that the Respondent's credibility had been called into question because of allegations made to the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) by a member of the community.43 The RPD gave little weight to these allegations and the Minister has not elaborated on this argument or addressed the RPD's assessment of this evidence. I find no error in the RPD's conclusion. As the RPD noted, the community member is not in a position to assess the credibility of the Respondent's allegations as to events that occurred in Namibia and are of a very private nature. On an independent assessment, I find that the allegations made to CBSA have not, on a balance of probabilities, been established. Therefore, they do not undermine the Respondent's credibility. The RPD did not demonstrate bias [23] The Minister argues that the RPD demonstrated bias in concluding that the laws of Namibia are fundamentally different than those of Canada.44 As I have already pointed out, the RPD did not make a finding as to the laws of Namibia. As well, the RAD is required to conduct an independent assessment and I have done so. This would remedy the error, had there been one. Nonetheless, I will briefly address the Minister's argument because an allegation of bias is a serious one, given that it challenges the integrity of the tribunal. An allegation of bias cannot rest on suspicion, conjecture, or mere impression of counsel or claimants.45 The threshold for establishing bias is high.46 The Minister may disagree with the RPD's conclusions but to argue that the RPD showed bias is to argue that the RPD did not approach the evidence with an open mind and was not open to persuasion.47 On an independent assessment, I find no basis in the record for the Minister's argument. On a balance of probabilities, the Respondent established her allegations of sexual abuse [24] The RPD found that the Respondent's evidence on her core allegations of sexual violence was overall credible.48 Accordingly, the RPD found that, on a balance of probabilities, the Respondent established her allegations of sexual abuse by her father and her boyfriend.49 I have addressed the arguments made by the Minister regarding the credibility of the Respondent's evidence. I have reviewed the Respondent's testimony and other evidence on the record and I find no material issues with the credibility of the Respondent's core allegations in support of her claim. The RPD did not identify any material inconsistencies or contradictions, nor do I. On an independent assessment, having regard to the presumption of truthfulness,50 I accept the Respondent's allegations, on a balance of probabilities. The RPD correctly found that, on a balance of probabilities, it would be unreasonable for the Respondent to relocate in Namibia [25] There are two prongs to the legal test for a viable internal flight alternative (IFA). First, it must be determined that, in the IFA location, there is no serious possibility of persecution and, on a balance of probabilities, no risk under subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act,51 meaning no danger of torture, risk to life, or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. Secondly, it must not be unreasonable in all the circumstances, including those personal to the claimant, to relocate there. The standard is high and requires proof of adverse conditions that would jeopardize the life and safety of the claimant in travelling to and living in the IFA location. Both prongs must be satisfied for a finding that there is an IFA.52 The RPD did not err in assessing the viability of the IFA [26] The RPD identified Windhoek and Walvis Bay as potential IFAs. The RPD found that the Respondent would have limited employment prospects given her educational and employment background and found that an IFA was not viable because, in the Respondent's circumstances, it would be unreasonable.53 The Minister argues that this is incorrect and that the Respondent has not demonstrated that relocation would jeopardize her life or safety.54 The Minister argues that the RPD erred by assessing the viability of the IFA largely as a test of the Respondent's ability to support her children financially, and that it is speculative that she would be unable to find shelter or support herself in Windhoek.55 [27] I am not persuaded that the RPD's conclusion was incorrect. While the RPD's analysis is brief, the panel considered the evidence of country conditions and of the Respondent's ability to provide for herself as well as her children. On an independent assessment, I agree with the RPD. I find that, on a balance of probabilities, it would be unreasonable for the Respondent to relocate to one of the IFA locations. Therefore, I do not find it necessary to assess the evidence in relation to the first prong of the test for an IFA. [28] In conducting my independent assessment, I have accepted the Respondent's evidence that, on a balance of probabilities, she is a single mother of one teenager and three children under the age of 11, is a survivor of incest and family violence, was supported financially by her father in Namibia, has less than a high school education, and has very limited work experience. I have considered a range of factors that affect the viability of the IFA, both personal to the Respondent and indicative of conditions in Namibia. Child support [29] The Minister argues that the Respondent would be able to seek financial support from the named fathers of her four children.56 I have already explained why I do not accept the argument that she could obtain financial support from the named fathers of her two oldest children. The Respondent's evidence is that her boyfriend is the father of her fourth child and that, during the course of their relationship, she became pregnant by another man, who is the father of her third child.57 I agree with the Minister that the Respondent has a right to child support from the fathers of her two youngest children. The existence of a statutory right is not determinative of whether the Respondent would likely benefit from it. The Minister submits that the documentary evidence provided with the Appellant's Record reveals that legal assistance and guidance are available from an organization in Windhoek.58 The evidence includes fact sheets and guides to the law produced by the Legal Assistance Centre in Windhoek.59 The overview of the Centre describes their services as including information and advice, with representation being limited to public interest cases.60 The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has noted that, despite Namibia's Legal Aid Act, women's access to justice is limited, owing in part to lack of funding for legal aid services.61 Of even greater concern is the evidence that the Maintenance Act is not effective. Research conducted by the Legal Assistance Centre shows that "a maintenance complaint is simple as long as the absent parent wants to pay" and about 50% of people living in Namibia do not have regular salaries per month (resulting in many men having difficulty paying).62 Difficulties, such as an inability to locate an absent parent, are likely to cause delays or may result in no order being made.63 The average payment is typically less than adequate to meet the needs of a child and there are no maintenance investigators so it is difficult to investigate the situation of the parent who is supposed to pay.64 Options such as ordering payment directly to the complainant are seldom used and enforcement mechanisms are rarely used.65 The Respondent testified that her boyfriend did not work, he lived with his mother, and she did not know how he supported himself.66 She testified that she supports her children financially, by sending money to her sister in Namibia.67 [30] Considering the totality of the evidence, I find it unlikely that the Respondent would be able to successfully pursue and collect child support for her two youngest children from their fathers. Moreover, child support would be for the benefit of the children, not the Respondent, whose life and safety in the IFA is the issue. This is equally true in relation to the child maintenance grants from the state which are described in the Minister's evidence as small amounts of money.68 I have considered these potential resources, nonetheless, because I agree that the availability of financial support for her children is relevant to the reasonableness of an IFA for the Respondent, given her duty to support her children. The Respondent has presented more recent evidence on maintenance grants for children in Namibia.69 This evidence indicates that the value of the grant has dropped substantially over time, and that social welfare is not a major government priority.70 In considering the Respondent's circumstances, I accept that she could receive these grants for her children but it does not seem that they would be adequate to support the children and they would not, in any event, be a means of support for the Respondent. Employment and housing [31] The Respondent is 39 years old and her educational level, according to the evidence, is equivalent to XXXX XXXX.71 She testified that, until she came to Canada, she and her children lived with and were financially supported by her father.72 The evidence of her employment experience is that in Namibia she worked as a singer and dancer, performing occasionally, with all the money going to her father, and in Canada she has been working as a cleaner.73 The Minister submits that it is speculative to suggest that the Respondent will not find shelter or work in Windhoek, where she has family and that there is no information to indicate what work the Respondent may have done in Namibia other than performing.74 The evidence is that the Respondent did not do any other work in Namibia.75 Her evidence is that she has a sister in Windhoek who is unemployed, lives with her boyfriend, and takes care of the Respondent's children, with the money the Respondent sends her.76 [32] The World Factbook information on Namibia states that about half of Namibia's people are unemployed and gives an unemployment rate estimated at 34% for 2016.77 Other evidence indicates an unemployment rate in 2018 of over 33%.78 There is evidence of persistent discrimination against women in employment and housing.79 The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has expressed concern about the high rates of unemployment among women and has also noted that women in de facto unions regularly face economic hardship upon the dissolution of their relationships.80 The Namibia Non-Governmental Organisations' Forum Trust reports that despite laws that afford women a wide array of protections, Namibia remains one of the most violent and unequal societies in the world.81 Amnesty International notes that housing is inadequate and that rural to urban migration, high unemployment, low salaries, high rents and lack of available land exacerbates the housing situation, particularly in Windhoek.82 Lack of housing in urban areas has led to growth of informal settlements without access to essential services like sanitation facilities, water, and electricity.83 [33] The Respondent's testimony is that her sister lives in Windhoek. I have considered whether this would mitigate the hardship of relocation to the extent that it would make the IFA viable. I find that it would not because reliance on her sister would leave the Respondent vulnerable to being located by her father. On a balance of probabilities, relocation within Namibia is objectively unreasonable for the Respondent [34] The threshold for the objectively unreasonable standard is very high and requires, at a minimum, actual and concrete evidence of adverse conditions which would jeopardize the life and safety of the Respondent in relocating to a safe area.84 I find that, in the Respondent's circumstances, the evidence meets this threshold. The independent documentary evidence is sufficient for me to conclude that, on a balance of probabilities, the Respondent would face undue hardship in Namibia as a result of the barriers she would face in accessing the necessities of life, including food and shelter. Therefore, an IFA is objectively unreasonable for her. CONCLUSION [35] The RPD found that the Respondent is a Convention refugee because she has a well-founded fear of gender-related persecution in Namibia. There is independent documentary evidence that sexual violence against girls and women in Namibia is prevalent.85 The RPD found that there was clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption of state protection. The Minister has not challenged this finding. The documentary evidence establishes that while there are laws to protect women from sexual and physical abuse, they are not effective.86 On independently reviewing the record, I conclude that the RPD's findings are correct. I have already explained why I find that the Respondent does not have an IFA. [36] The appeal is dismissed. Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, I confirm the determination of the RPD that the Respondent is a Convention refugee. (signed) C. Lindberg C. Lindberg April 26, 2021 Date 1 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, at p. 76; Exhibit 7, at p. 161. 2 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, at pp. 3-12. 3 Exhibit M-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, at pp. 6-17. 4 Exhibit P-2, Respondent's Record, Memorandum, at pp. 6-10. 5 Exhibit M-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 4 and at pp. 18-146. 6 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, para 171(a.5). 7 Exhibit P-2, Respondent's Record, at p. 4, and at pp. 20-93. 8 Throughout these reasons, I have referred to the current version of the NDP for Namibia, which does not differ from the version in the RPD Record at Exhibit 3 with the exception of an updated version of item 2.1, which the Respondent has submitted as new evidence and which I have found admissible. 9 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, subs. 110(5). 10 Exhibit P-2, Respondent's Record, at pp. 78-93. 11 Exhibit M-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 4; Exhibit P-2, Respondent's Record, at p. 3. 12 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, subs. 110(6). 13 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145. 14 Exhibit P-2, Respondent's Record, Memorandum, at p. 6, para 1. 15 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93, at paras 69-74. 16 Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145. 17 Transcript of October 1, 2019 RPD Hearing, at p. 26, line 24 to p. 27, line 37; Transcript of October 28, 2019 RPD Hearing, at p. 12, line 1 to line 23; at p. 16, line 48 to p. 17, line 5. 18 Transcript of October 28, 2019 RPD Hearing, at p. 14, line 25 to p. 15, line 16; at p. 17, lines 7-43. 19 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, at p. 5, line 10 to p. 6, line 15. 20 Exhibit M-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, at p. 9, para 16 to p. 13, para 26. 21 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, at p. 6, lines 5-6. 22 Exhibit M-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, at pp. 10-11, para 18. 23 Exhibit M-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 18-19. 24 National Documentation Package (NDP) for Namibia (31 March 2020), item 3.2. 25 NDP for Namibia (31 March 2020), item 3.2, at p. 51. 26 NDP for Namibia (31 March 2020), item 3.2, at p. 77, section 2.2. 27 Exhibit M-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 18. 28 NDP for Namibia (31 March 2020), item 3.2, at pp. 65-66, p. 71. 29 NDP for Namibia (31 March 2020), item 3.2, at p. 78. 30 Transcript of October 28, 2019 RPD Hearing, at p. 16, lines 5-7 and at p. 17, lines 18-32. 31 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, at p. 5, line 37 to p. 6, line 7. 32 Exhibit M-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, at p. 11, para 19 to p. 13, para 25. 33 Exhibit M-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 118-144. 34 For example, section 7(2)(4) of Ontario's Children's Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, as amended; section 26(2)(e) of British Columbia's Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25, as amended. 35 Exhibit M-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 75 and at p. 132, section 21. 36 Exhibit M-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 139, section 35 to p. 140, section 37. 37 Exhibit M-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 11, para 21 to p. 13, para 24. 38 Exhibit M-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 145-146. 39 Exhibit M-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 12-13, para 24. 40 NDP for Namibia (31 March 2020), item 9.2, at pp. 7-11; Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, at p. 113. 41 Chairperson's Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution: Update, Guidelines issued by the Chairperson pursuant to section 65(3) of the Immigration Act, Effective date: November 13, 1996, as continued in effect by the Chairperson on June 28, 2002 under the authority found in paragraph 159(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. 42 NDP for Namibia (31 March 2020), item 3.2, at p. 20, section 3.3.5; and at p. 80. 43 Exhibit M-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, at p. 13, para 26. 44 Exhibit M-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, at p. 9, para 16. 45 Arrachch v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 999, at para 20. 46 R. v. S. (R.D.), 1997 CanLII 324 (SCC), [1997] 3 SCR 484, at para 113. 47 Kidane v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1325, at para 22. 48 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, at p. 5, lines 1-2. 49 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, at p. 4, lines 35-38. 50 Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1980] 2 F.C. 302 (C.A.); 31 N.R. 34 (F.C.A.). 51 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended. 52 Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (C.A.), p. 710; Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1993 CanLII 3011 (FCA), [1994] 1 FC 589; Ranganathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2000 CanLII 16789 (FCA), [2001] 2 FC 164. 53 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, at p. 9, line 33 to p. 10, line 29. 54 Exhibit M-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, at p. 14, para 27 to p. 16, para 31. 55 Exhibit M-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, at pp. 15-16, para 30. 56 Exhibit M-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, at p. 15, para 30 to p. 16, para 31. 57 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, at p. 24, para 15; Exhibit 5, at pp. 106-107; Exhibit 10, at p. 170. 58 Exhibit M-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, at p. 16, para 31. 59 Exhibit M-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 18-19, 22-117, and 145-146. 60 Exhibit M-2, Appellant's Record, at pp. 20-21. 61 NDP for Namibia (31 March 2020), item 5.2, at p. 3, para 14. 62 NDP for Namibia (31 March 2020), item 5.4, at p. 18. 63 NDP for Namibia (31 March 2020), item 5.4, at p. 18. 64 NDP for Namibia (31 March 2020), item 5.4, at p. 18. 65 NDP for Namibia (31 March 2020), item 5.4, at p. 18. 66 Transcript of October 28, 2019 RPD Hearing, at p. 19, lines 4-25. 67 Transcript of October 28, 2019 RPD Hearing, at p. 24, lines 13-16. 68 Exhibit M-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 95. 69 Exhibit P-2, Respondent's Record, at pp. 78-93. 70 Exhibit P-2, Respondent's Record, at pp. 80, and at p. 85. 71 Transcript of October 28, 2019 RPD Hearing, at p. 49, lines 19-37. 72 Transcript of October 28, 2019 RPD Hearing, at p. 18, lines 21-26; at p. 50, lines 4-49. 73 Transcript of October 28, 2019 RPD Hearing, at p. 24, lines 33-49; at p. 50, lines 17-27. 74 Exhibit M-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, at pp. 15-16, para 30. 75 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, at p. 25, para 19. 76 Transcript of October 28, 2019 RPD Hearing, at p. 22, lines 45-49; at p. 24, lines 4-16. 77 NDP for Namibia (31 March 2020), item 1.1. 78 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 5, at p. 112. 79 Exhibit P-2, Respondent's Record, at p. 29. 80 NDP for Namibia (31 March 2020), item 5.2. 81 NDP for Namibia (31 March 2020), item 5.1. 82 NDP for Namibia (31 March 2020), item 2.2. 83 NDP for Namibia (31 March 2020), item 2.2. 84 Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 988, at para 40. 85 NDP for Namibia (31 March 2020), item 5.1. 86 NDP for Namibia (31 March 2020), items 5.1, 9.2. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : VC0-00462 RAD.25.02 (January, 2020) Disponible en français 2 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.25.02 (January, 2020) Disponible en français