MB9-16586

RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB9-16586 MB9-16587 / MB9-16588 / MB9-16589 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Persons who are the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Appeal considered at Ottawa, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision January 16, 2020 Date de la décision Panel Me Philippe Rabot Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subject of the appeal Me Ana Mercedes Henriquez Conseil des personnes en cause Designated representative

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Représentante désignée Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre

REASONS FOR DECISION

OVERVIEW [1] The principal appellant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and her three minor children, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, are citizens of Belgium. For nearly 10 years, the principal appellant was subjected to many episodes of violence by her husband. She decided to leave for Canada with her children to get away from him. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) dismissed the appeals because it was of the opinion that the appellants could access adequate state protection in Belgium. The principal appellant is challenging this conclusion. She argues that the Belgium police did nothing to help her when she used their services. [2] The RPD's analysis of state protection is correct. The appellants did not present clear and convincing evidence that the Belgium state would not be able to provide them with adequate protection if needed. The appeals are therefore dismissed.

BACKGROUND [3] The principal appellant lived in the Democratic Republic of the Congo until 1998 before moving to Belgium with her family. She is from a very religious family, and in 2010, she was forced to marry the man with whom she had had a child. [4] The principal appellant stated that her husband had beaten her throughout their relationship. He also used to hit the children. The police intervened many times, but the appellant never wanted to file a complaint. She explained that it would have been frowned upon by her community. [5] The principal appellant explained that, in 2017, she had realized that the situation with her husband was unacceptable. After another domestic violence incident on XXXX XXXX, 2017, she called the police, and they then forced her husband to leave the family home. The police told the principal appellant that if her husband ever returned there, the children would be removed from the home. Nevertheless, the principal appellant allowed her husband to continue to see the children. This led to an incident in XXXX, in which her husband tried to jump in front of the subway with one of the children in his arms. [6] The principal appellant then concluded that the only way that she and her children could be safe was if they left the country. She received her husband's consent to allow her to come to Canada with their children by telling him that she was

planning on returning to Belgium, even though she had no intention of doing so. [7] In her testimony, the principal appellant maintained that she could not rely on the Belgium police to protect her from her husband. According to her, the police does not take the situation of black women who are victims of domestic violence seriously. Moreover, the action plan implemented by the Belgium authorities to address domestic violence is allegedly ineffective because most of the abusers have never been brought to justice. [8] In its written decision,1 the RPD concluded that the appellants would have access to adequate protection in Belgium because it is a highly democratic country with independent institutions. The RPD noted that the police intervened several times at the principal appellant's request. The fact that the principal appellant never wanted to file a complaint against her husband explains why he was never brought to justice. [9] In her appeal memorandum,2 the principal appellant submits that the RPD did not analyze all the evidence and that it did not properly assess the issue of state protection. She is of the opinion that the RPD overlooked the Belgium police's failure to act.

DETERMINATIVE ISSUE [10] The determinative issue is whether the evidence establishes in a clear and convincing manner that the appellants would not receive adequate state protection if they were to return to Belgium to avoid becoming victims of violence again at the hands of the principal appellant's husband.

SCOPE OF THE APPEALS [11] The Refugee Appeal Division reviews RPD decisions by applying the correctness standard of review after conducting its own analysis of the record. The exception to this rule concerns the RPD's findings in assessing the credibility or weight to be given to the oral evidence it hears, in situations in which it enjoyed a meaningful advantage. [12] In this case, I am of the opinion that there are no findings for which the RPD enjoyed a meaningful advantage. Therefore, I have applied only the correctness standard.

MERITS OF THE APPEALS [13] The RPD's analysis has no errors. It is both correct and complete. The documentary evidence referred to by the principal appellant identifies several gaps in terms of state protection in Belgium for victims of domestic violence.3 However, it does not mean that the protection would be inadequate for victims of domestic violence in general and specifically for the appellants. The fact that Belgium is a highly democratic state with independent institutions, especially in terms of administering justice, is a very relevant factor to consider. This creates a presumption that state protection is adequate and that the administration of justice is carried out in a fair and equitable manner. The appellants' burden of proof is significant. They must demonstrate in a clear and convincing manner that state protection is not only imperfect, but also inadequate.4 I am of the opinion that they failed to discharge this burden of proof. The fact that the principal appellant's husband has not been brought to justice so far does not mean that he could continue to act with impunity towards the appellants if they were to return to Belgium. I agree with the RPD that the principal appellant's refusal to file a complaint against her husband largely explains why he has not had to face justice yet for the actions taken against him. [14] The appellant notes that the documentary

evidence indicates that judicial administration does not respond effectively in 70% of the reported domestic violence cases. She also notes that Belgium does not even have a telephone line for women victims of violence and that, since 2014, women's shelters have not expanded their capacity and that women must pay to access them. I agree that if these shortcomings were to be addressed, it would result in better protection for victims of domestic violence. However, it does not mean that the appellants will not receive adequate protection in Belgium particularly because the principal appellant would be willing to file a complaint against her husband. [15] The principal appellant submits that the Belgium police was racist towards her. However, she never filed a complaint about it with the authorities. It is possible that a certain number of ethnic profiling factors can be taken into account in the decisions made by some police officers, but given that there is recourse to address this situation, it is up to those who claim that they experienced ethnic profiling to use it before they can argue that state protection is inadequate. [16] Overall, I trust that the appellants could rely on the support of the police and judicial administration, if necessary, if they were to return to Belgium. Neither the documentary evidence nor the experiences that they had establish otherwise.

CONCLUSION [17] The appellants failed to establish through clear and convincing evidence that they would not have access to adequate state protection if they were to return to Belgium. [18] For this reason, the four appeals are dismissed. (signed) "Philippe Rabot" Me Philippe Rabot January 16, 2020 Date 1 RPD-1, Refugee Protection Division record, pages 4 to 11. 2 P-2, Appeal Book, the appellant's memorandum, pages 13 to 29. 3 RPD-1, National Documentation Package, Document 3 - Belgium (March 29, 2019), Tab 5.5, La politique criminelle en matière de violences conjugales : une évaluation des pratiques judiciaires et de leurs effets en termes de récidive. Rapport final, Institut National de criminalistique et de criminologie, March 2016. 4 Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB9-16586 MB9-16587 / MB9-16588 / MB9-16589 RAD.25.02 (April 4, 2019) Disponible en français 6 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 (April 4, 2019) Disponible en français