TB9-24826

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR: TB9-24826 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Ottawa, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision August 28, 2020 Date de la décision Panel Charles A. McDermott Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Max Berger 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 OVERVIEW [1] I dismiss this appeal. [2] XXXX XXXX (the Appellant) is a citizen of Italy and Nigeria. The Appellant was born in Nigeria but fled to Italy to avoid an arranged marriage. The Appellant married in Italy but separated in 2013. Since the separation, the Appellant's former husband has threatened the Appellant on four separate occasions. Following the latest occasion in XXXX 2015, the Appellant departed for Canada and claimed refugee status. [3] The RPD accepted the Appellant's allegations, but determined that she had not taken all reasonable steps to avail herself of State protection in Italy. The Appellant argues that State protection is not available to her in Italy. [4] The Appellant has not submitted any new evidence and has not requested an oral hearing. DECISION [5] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the decision of the RPD, for other reasons, that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. ANALYSIS [6] My role is to look at all the evidence and decide if the RPD made the correct decision.1 The RPD erred in its analysis of State protection in Italy for the Appellant [7] The RPD found that the Appellant did not test the State protection available in Italy prior to seeking protection in Canada. The Appellant argues that she did test the State protection, but it was inadequate. [8] The Appellant's argument has merit. The Appellant's testimony, which is consistent with the report2 she made to the Italian police, is that her former husband threatened her four times. The last threat was that if she did not go back to him by the end of the month, he would kill her. The police response was to advise her of a women's shelter and to call them before meeting with the former husband again. This is not adequate State protection. The police should have followed up the complaint with at least a visit to the former husband, if not to arrest him, then to tell him to keep away from the Appellant. The Appellant is not a sophisticated or highly educated person and received the same advice from two separate police officers in two separate stations. It was reasonable for her to conclude that the police would not do anything until her former husband contacted her again. [9] I find that the Appellant has demonstrated that adequate State protection would not be available to her in Italy. The Appellant has internal flight alternatives (IFAs) in Italy [10] The RPD raised the issue of Rome as an IFA for the Appellant but did not address it in its decision. I therefore requested submissions from the Appellant on the suitability of both Rome and Naples as IFAs for her. Her submissions were received on August 21, 2020 and I have entered them as Exhibit P-3. [11] There are two prongs to the analysis of whether an IFA is suitable. First prong: No serious possibility of persecution or on a balance of probabilities to a risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or danger of torture [12] The Appellant argues that she and her ex-husband have many mutual friends and acquaintances. If sent back to Italy, the Appellant would like to reconnect with some of these friends, but there is a danger that her location could be revealed to her ex-husband either by one of her friends or by one of those friends mentioning the location to another acquaintance of the ex-husband. The Appellant also argues that when she did relocate, she encountered a good friend of her ex-husband and was afraid that person would report back to her ex-husband. [13] The Appellant's argument must fail. The Appellant relies on Zamora Huerta,3 where the Federal Court held that not being able to share whereabouts with family or friends is tantamount to requiring someone to go into hiding. However, in Zamora Huerta, the agent of persecution was a trained police interrogator employed by the Federal Investigative Agency of the Mexican police, whereas in the case at bar, the agent of persecution was employed as a clerk.4 The chance encounter that the Appellant had with the friend of her ex-husband in Modena was just that, a chance encounter. There is no evidence that this friend did report back to the Appellant's ex-husband. The Appellant has not made any argument that her ex-husband has friends or acquaintances in either Rome or Naples. There is nothing before me that indicates the ex-husband has the means to intimidate any of the Appellant's family to obtain the Appellant's whereabouts. Regarding mutual friends, the Appellant may need to be selective in which friends she chooses to re-engage with, and will need to rely on those friends' discretion; however I find that this does not amount to going into hiding. [14] I find that the Appellant has not demonstrated that she would face a serious risk of persecution in either Rome or Naples or would face, on a balance of probabilities, a risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or danger of torture in either Rome or Naples. Second prong: The reasonableness of the IFA [15] The second prong is whether the IFA is objectively reasonable, in all the circumstances. The Federal Court of Appeal5 has held that there is a very high threshold for finding that an IFA is unreasonable. It is not enough that the Appellant would face hardship. The conditions must be such that her life and safety would be in jeopardy. [16] The Appellant argues that her current medical conditions render both Rome and Naples unreasonable as IFAs. [17] The Appellant's argument must fail. The Appellant relies on Okafor,6 where the Federal Court held that the IRB did not take into account the applicant's personal particular situation. Okafor, in turn, referred to Cartagena,7 which found that the panel failed to thoroughly assess the reasonableness of the IFA location in the context of the person's situation and vulnerable mindset. The Appellant also relies on Olalere,8 where the Federal Court found that the RAD made no attempt to engage with a psychological report in its analysis of the reasonableness of an IFA. [18] In Okafor and Olalere, the IFAs were in Nigeria and in Cartagena, the IFAs were in El Salvador. I distinguish the case at bar from these cases in that the proposed IFAs are in Italy, which has a social support network,9 unlike either Nigeria or El Salvador. The Appellant is fluent in both English and Italian and does have some experience in the XXXX sector. [19] I appreciate the significant health issues that the Appellant faces, and no doubt the Appellant would face hardship in either Rome or Naples. However, the objective evidence10 is that, as a citizen of Italy, the Appellant would have access to sickness benefits and medical treatment similar to those available in Canada. The Appellant has not presented any evidence that her mental health conditions or her hypertension could not be treated in either Rome or Naples. [20] I find that it would be reasonable for the Appellant to relocate to either Rome or Naples. CONCLUSION [21] I find that the Appellant has viable IFAs in Rome and Naples. [22] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the decision of the RPD, for other reasons, that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. (signed) "Charles A. McDermott" Charles A. McDermott August 28, 2020 Date 1 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145. 2 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, pp 153-156. 3 Zamora Huerta v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 586. 4 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, page 172. 5 Ranganathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] 2 F.C. 164 (C.A.). 6 Okafor v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 1002. 7 Cartagena v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 289. 8 Olalere v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 385. 9 Exhibit RAD-1, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Italy, May 29, 2020 version, item 1.5, Italy, Social Security Programs Throughout the World: Europe, 2018, United States Social Security Administration, September 2018. 10 Ibid. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-24826 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