MB7-01435

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. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB7-01435 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject(s) of the appeal XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Montréal, QC Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision November 27, 2018 Date de la décision Panel Me Miriam McLeod Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal Me Claude Whalen Conseil(s) (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION INTRODUCTION [1] XXXX XXXX, a citizen of India, is appealing against the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) dated January 27, 2017, determining that he was neither a "Convention refugee" nor a "person in need of protection" within the meaning of sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). The appellant is not presenting new evidence under subsection 110(4) of the IRPA and he is not asking the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) to hold a hearing. The Minister did not intervene on appeal. DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL [2] The appeal is allowed. Pursuant to subsection 111(1) of the IRPA, the RAD sets aside the determination of the RPD and substitutes the determination that, in its opinion, should have been made, namely, that the appellant is a Convention refugee. OVERVIEW AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF THE APPEAL a. Basis of Claim Form (BOC Form) [3] The appellant alleges that he fears the police, the Khap Panchayat, his girlfriend's father, and unknown henchmen. The appellant met his girlfriend in April 2014 and they fell in love. They wanted to get married, but they are from the same "Virk" clan or gotra, and marriages between members of the same clan are not permitted under the rules of the "Khap Panchayat" in Haryana, where they are from. On XXXX XXXX, 2015, the girlfriend's aunt found the appellant and his girlfriend together on the roof of her house. The aunt informed the appellant's parents as well as his girlfriend's father, who lived in Delhi. Then, on XXXX XXXX, 2015, the girlfriend's father came to get his daughter to take her to Delhi. When the daughter refused to go with her father, the father went to the appellant's home with henchmen and they beat the appellant. After being beaten, the appellant went to hospital, where he was treated for two days. The girl's father then forced her to go to Delhi. The appellant was informed by his girlfriend that she had refused to marry a man to whom her parents had introduced her and that they were furious as a result. Around the end of XXXX, the girl called the appellant to tell him that her father intended to bring them before the Khap Panchayat to be judged and she strongly recommended that he flee his home. The appellant therefore relocated to Chennai in XXXX 2015 with the help of an agent, and he began taking steps to leave India for good. In XXXX 2015, the appellant's parents told him that five members of the Khap Panchayat had been to their home looking for him and demanded that they turn over their son as soon as possible. Then, in XXXX 2015, the girlfriend's father and the Khap Panchayat members again went to the home of the appellant's parents. They searched the entire house. When they did not find the appellant, the girl's father declared that he was going to kill the appellant, and the Khap Panchayat members demanded that the appellant's parents bring him before them within one month, otherwise the Khap Panchayat would render a decision on the matter in his absence. The appellant's parents then informed him that his girlfriend's father had gone to the police for help in finding the appellant and that the police had visited his parents' home to find out when he would be returning. [4] The appellant arrived in the United States in XXXX 2016 with the help of an agent, who had obtained a study permit for him. He then came to Canada in XXXX 2016 and made a claim for refugee protection in November 2016. b. RPD decision [5] The appellant's refugee protection claim was heard on January 6, 2017, and was rejected on January 27, 2017. The RPD decided that the determinative issue was credibility. The RPD found that the appellant had not established his membership in the "Virk" gotra. The RPD noted that the appellant had contradicted his BOC Form with respect to the events in XXXX 2015. The RPD also concluded that the appellant had omitted, from his BOC Form, that he had had sex with his girlfriend, a very important fact in this case. Consequently, the RPD found that the appellant's allegations were not credible. [6] Lastly, the RPD determined that the appellant did not act like someone with a fear of persecution because he had not claimed asylum in the United States and because he waited three months before claiming refugee protection in Canada. The RPD did not accept the explanations provided by the appellant in that regard. c. Grounds of appeal [7] In his appeal memorandum, the appellant argues that the RPD's findings regarding his credibility are erroneous. The appellant alleges that the RPD did not confront the appellant about the evidence on his membership in the "Virk" gotra. The appellant maintains that, in his BOC Form, he clearly discloses the fact that he had had sex with his girlfriend and that there was no omission in that regard. The appellant claims that there were no contradictions concerning the events in XXXX 2015. Regarding the fact that he failed to claim asylum in the United States and that he waited three months before claiming refugee protection in Canada, the appellant argues that he provided reasonable explanations and that those delays cannot be determinative. SCOPE OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE RAD [8] The role of the RAD in an appeal against an RPD decision is defined by the Federal Court of Appeal in Huruglica.1 The RAD must conduct a probing, thorough, comprehensive and independent review of the evidence submitted. [9] The RAD must apply the standard of correctness with respect to questions of fact, of mixed fact and law, and of law.2 Exceptionally, the RAD may show deference in some circumstances,3 but it must expressly indicate that it is doing so and explain why it owes deference. ANALYSIS [10] The RAD listened to the recording of the hearing and reviewed all the evidence on the record in order to conduct an independent analysis of the RPD decision in light of the appellant's submissions. Clan / Gotra [11] At the end of the hearing, the RPD asked whether the appellant had evidence that he and his girlfriend were members of the same gotra, given that he alleged that that was the main reason why the Khap Panchayat had refused to authorize their marriage in 2015. The appellant replied that it was indicated on his girlfriend's identity card, which he had submitted as evidence, and that proof of his membership consisted of a tattoo of the name "Virk" on his hand. After analyzing the girlfriend's identity card, the RPD noted that it was not clearly indicated on the card and found that the fact of having a tattoo of the name "Virk" was not sufficient to establish that he was truly from the same gotra as his girlfriend. The RPD also asked how the Khap Panchayat could have determined, without documentation, who belonged to which gotra. The RPD found that the appellant had not established an element central to his refugee protection claim-his membership in the "Virk" gotra.4 [12] The appellant acknowledges that the clan's name is not indicated on the girlfriend's identification card, but argues that the Khap Panchayat is aware of those details. The appellant submits that, other than at the very end of the hearing, the panel expressed very little interest in this, and that the RPD did not confront the appellant about the evidence. Moreover, the appellant asserts that the panel speculated in finding that the Khap Panchayat could not have determined who came from which clan.5 [13] The RAD agrees with the appellant that the RPD erred. The RAD notes that the error is not a breach of the duty of procedural fairness. The RAD is of the opinion that the RPD erred by failing to take into account the evidence before it. Listening to the recording of the hearing, the RAD notes that the RPD asked only one question about the evidence on their membership in the "Virk" gotra. The question was the following: "How do I know you are from the same gotra?"6 The appellant responded that the family name of the girlfriend's father was "Virk," and that was what was indicated on his girlfriend's identity card, which he had submitted as evidence. For his part, the appellant explained that the name "Virk" was tattooed on his hand. He also explained that the gotra name was often used as a middle name, but that the middle name was often omitted from identity cards, alleging that that was the case of his parents. Although it is true that the gotra name is not listed on the girlfriend's identity card, her father's family name, "Virk," is.7 Furthermore, the RAD notes that the appellant provided an affidavit from his parents, in which they state that they are members of the same Virk gotra as the girlfriend's family.8 Therefore, the RAD notes that the RPD also erred by failing to take into account all the evidence on the record. Omissions and inconsistencies [14] The RPD found that the appellant did not clearly state in his BOC Form that his girlfriend's father was angry with him because the appellant had had sexual relations with his daughter. The RPD noted that what he wrote in his BOC Form did not afford a basis for inferring other reasons why the father wanted to harm him, other than the fact that Khap Panchayat rules prohibit marriages between members of the same gotra and the fact that his daughter refused to go to Delhi with her parents. The RPD also found that the appellant stated that he was beaten in XXXX 2015 because his girlfriend refused to go to Delhi with her father, but that he testified that his girlfriend had gone to Delhi when her father came to Haryana looking for him and that the story about him being beaten on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2015, was therefore not consistent because the girlfriend would have already left for Delhi with her father. The RPD then noted that the appellant indicated that he had refused to marry his girlfriend because he was under the required legal age of 21, despite the fact she insisted they get married in a civil ceremony. The RPD therefore asked why the girlfriend's father would still be angry with him, and the appellant explained that the father wanted to bring them before the Khap Panchayat for their punishment to be determined. The RPD concluded that there was no evidence that the appellant was claiming refugee protection on the basis that the Khap Panchayat had to decide on their fate because the appellant and his girlfriend had had pre-marital sex. The RPD found that the appellant had added that element during the hearing when the RPD confronted him with the fact that they did not get married and there was therefore no reason to fear the Khap Panchayat anymore. The RPD concluded that, because no marriage was celebrated after XXXX 2015, there was no reason for the girlfriend's father to pursue the appellant after he had gone to Delhi with his daughter. The RPD also concluded that the Khap Panchayat opposed the marriage, but since there was no marriage, there was no evidence that the Khap Panchayat had to decide on their punishment.9 [15] The appellant argues that he states in his BOC Form that his girlfriend's aunt had caught them together on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2015, "where XXXX and I were in love." The appellant claims that one can reasonably infer that they were making love at the time, as corroborated by his testimony. As for the RPD's finding that the appellant's written account was not consistent with his testimony regarding the confrontation on XXXX XXXX, 2015, the appellant claims that there were no contradictions. He states having been beaten by the father in XXXX 2015 because his girlfriend refused to go to Delhi. He explains that she refused to go with him, that the father and some henchmen went to beat him, and that she was then taken to Delhi by force by her father. In addition to the foregoing, the appellant maintains that his BOC Form indicates that his girlfriend's father had several reasons to go after the appellant, such as the sexual intercourse, his girlfriend's wanting to marry him, his girlfriend's refusal to go with her father in XXXX 2015 until she was forced to, and her refusal to then marry the man her family had chosen, for which the appellant was blamed. The appellant maintains that the RPD erred in finding that the fact that there had been no marriage and the fact that the Khap Panchayat had refused to marry them meant that the father had no reason to persecute the appellant after he returned to Delhi with his daughter, because the RPD failed to consider the various reasons given by the appellant justifying why the father wanted to go after the appellant. The appellant argues that, in short, the bottom line is that the father wants to avenge his honour.10 [16] The RAD is of the opinion that, in his BOC Form, the appellant alludes to the fact that he had sexual intercourse with his girlfriend. In his BOC Form, the appellant states, "our friendship remained unknown until her aunt caught us at the roof top on the night of XXXX XXXX 2015, where XXXX and I were in love."11 In listening to the recording, the RAD noted that the appellant sometimes had trouble making himself understood because he has not yet mastered the language and because he used many words to explain fairly simple concepts due to a lack of vocabulary. During his testimony, while explaining what had happened on the roof with his girlfriend, the appellant stated, "When we got on XXXX XXXX 2015 on roof top we are being physical on roof top. We were in physical relation and all of them blame me."12 The RPD asked him, "You were physical with her? You made love with her? You had sex with her?"13 The appellant did not respond until the RPD mentioned the word "sex" and then the appellant immediately replied, "Yes, on the roof."14 The RAD finds that the appellant was trying to be discreet. The appellant knows that having sex outside of marriage is considered a serious breach in Indian society. The statement in the BOC Form may lead one to believe that he was referring to sexual intercourse and that that was corroborated by his testimony. The RAD is sensitive to the cultural context in which the alleged events occurred and is therefore prepared to give the appellant the benefit of the doubt, and it accepts that in stating "where XXXX and I were in love," he meant that they were having sex on the roof when her aunt found them. Consequently, the RAD notes that the RPD erred in finding that the appellant omitted that information from his BOC Form. [17] The RAD considers that the RPD also erred in finding a contradiction when there was none. Indeed, as submitted by the appellant, he clearly explained, both in his BOC Form and during his testimony, that his girlfriend was taken to Delhi by force by her father in XXXX 2015. He explained that his girlfriend's father went to get her to take her to Delhi in XXXX 2015, but that she refused to go with him. As a result, the father and two henchmen went to his home to beat him on XXXX XXXX, 2015, and then, the father took his girlfriend to Delhi by force. The RAD finds no inconsistency between his BOC Form and his testimony on this matter.15 Furthermore, the same sequence of events is also corroborated by the appellant's parents in their affidavit.16 [18] The RAD considers that the RPD misinterpreted the appellant's testimony in its decision regarding the reasons why the appellant is targeted by his girlfriend's father and the Khap Panchayat. At the outset, the RPD concluded that the appellant had refused to marry his girlfriend because he was under the age required to enter into a civil marriage, and because the marriage went against Khap Panchayat rules in that they were members of the same gotra. That was not at all what the appellant stated during his testimony or in his BOC Form. The appellant reiterated several times that he wanted to marry his girlfriend, but that he could not until he reached 21 years of age because of the Indian legal requirements governing civil marriage.17 That is significant because that understanding had an impact on the RPD's analysis of the appellant's refugee protection claim. Indeed, the appellant testified that his girlfriend's father targeted him because of the humiliation he felt as a result of his daughter's (1) relationship with him, a man from the same gotra, (2) the fact that they had had pre-martial sex, and (3) the fact that their relationship had not been arranged or authorized by their parents. The RPD kept repeating the same question, namely why would the father still be angry with him if they had not married. It is clear to the RAD that the RPD did not clearly understand the appellant's testimony, namely, that the marriage was not an essential element, because the father and the Khap Panchayat had several reasons to go after the appellant and his girlfriend. The key to this case is that the appellant and his girlfriend broke with cultural traditions governing relationships between men and women in India in several respects. Being in a relationship with someone who is a member of the same gotra is one of the traditions they violated, which would have been worse if they had ended up marrying. The fact that they had sex outside of marriage was another tradition they violated and is very much frowned upon in Indian society, as the RPD itself recognized in its decision.18 Third, the fact that the appellant and his girlfriend were in a romantic relationship that was not authorized by their parents also violated cultural traditions. Furthermore, the appellant testified that the Khap Panchayat was the organization responsible for ensuring that cultural traditions pertaining to relationships between men and women were respected, and that the Khap Panchayat wanted to judge him for having violated several of those traditions. The RAD also noted that the documentary evidence corroborates that the Khap Panchayat is responsible for protecting those traditions in society, which will be discussed in detail below. Consequently, the RAD finds that the RPD erred in analyzing the basis for the appellant's fear because it misinterpreted his central allegations. Subjective fear [19] The RPD found that the appellant did not act like someone who was afraid because he had not claimed asylum in the United States, despite his having been there eight months, between XXXX and XXXX 2016. The RPD did not accept the appellant's explanation that he had entered into an agreement with an agent who would bring him to Canada. When the RPD asked the appellant what he had done during the eight months he spent in the United States, he explained that he had lived in California without providing further details. The RPD found that if the appellant, an educated young man, truly feared being the target of an honour crime, he would have looked into options available to him to obtain a status in the United States. The RPD also found that the appellant had not acted like someone who was afraid because he waited three months before claiming refugee protection in Canada. He arrived in British Columbia in XXXX 2016, and then went to Calgary to join his brother who lived there. He then arrived in Montréal in XXXX 2016. When the RPD asked him why he had not claimed refugee protection in Calgary, he replied that his brother did not know what to do and a man told him to come to Montréal because rents were lower here. The RPD found that if the appellant feared returning to India, he would have been more vigilant in obtaining his status in Canada. Consequently, the RPD found that the appellant had not established that he had a subjective fear of persecution in India.19 [20] The appellant maintains that his explanations for his delay in claiming refugee protection were consistent with his BOC Form. He argues that the delays alone cannot be determinative in assessing credibility. [21] The RAD notes that the RPD erred by simplifying the appellant's explanations for his delay in claiming asylum in the United States and refugee protection in Canada. In fact, at the hearing, the appellant explained that he had not claimed asylum in the United States because he had had an agreement with an agent, who was going to bring him to Canada, and he had not known it was possible to claim asylum there. He also explained that the agent had taken his passport upon his arrival in the United States to start the process of getting him a visa for Canada. When the agent later disappeared, the appellant explained that he met two young men who tried to help him find the agent. When they did not manage to find the agent, the appellant crossed the Canadian border on foot.20 With respect to the appellant's explanation for his delay in claiming refugee protection in Canada, he testified that his brother knew nothing about refugee protection, as he was in Canada on a work permit. Consequently, his brother took him to a Gurdwara, where they began talking with the people there. The appellant explained that they eventually met an elderly man who knew what steps to take to claim refugee protection, and he advised the appellant to go to Montréal to claim refugee protection because it was less expensive. The RAD finds that the appellant's explanations concerning the delays in claiming refugee protection are acceptable in the circumstances. Given that the RAD considers the RPD's above-noted findings regarding the appellant's credibility to be erroneous, the RAD agrees that the delay in claiming refugee protection cannot be determinative in itself with respect to a refugee protection claim and, in any case, the RAD accepts the appellant's justifications on this subject. SUBSTITUTION OF THE DECISION Credibility [22] The RAD finds that the appellant testified in a spontaneous and detailed manner. He did not omit important information concerning the facts central to his fear of retuning to India. The RAD noted no inconsistencies between his BOC Form and his testimony at the hearing. Consequently, the Maldonado principle fully applies in this case. The RAD also finds that the appellant's allegations were plausible and believable. Furthermore, the appellant's allegations were corroborated by the documentation he submitted in support of his claim and by the objective documentation on conditions in the country. Consequently, the RAD notes that the appellant's allegations were credible. Subjective fear [23] The appellant established that he is targeted by his girlfriend's father and by the Khap Panchayat, which is looking for him to punish him for violating cultural traditions governing relationships between men and women in India. The appellant fears being killed by his girlfriend's father with the support of the Khap Panchayat because (i) he was in a relationship with a girl from the same gotra, (ii) he had non-marital sexual relations with her, and (iii) he was in a relationship with this girl despite the fact that the parents had not arranged it or given their authorization for them to date. In addition, the girlfriend later refused to marry the man to whom her parents had introduced her and they blamed the appellant. His girlfriend's father is out to get the appellant to protect his family's honour and to avoid the humiliation stemming from the fact that his daughter and the appellant violated the sociocultural traditions governing relationships between men and women. The appellant testified in a persuasive manner that his girlfriend's father had beaten him on XXXX XXXX, 2015, for his relationship with his daughter and the fact that she refused to go to Delhi for the same reason, which is corroborated by his parents' affidavit; he also provided a medical certificate in support of that allegation attesting to the injuries he suffered that day.21 He testified that the father decided to bring him before the Khap Panchayat so that the organization could decide on his punishment and that, as a result, the Khap Panchayat was looking for him because the appellant violated the traditions that the organization is authorized by Indian society to defend. The appellant explained that the Khap Panchayat takes those violations seriously because they do not want them to be repeated among the population so as to prevent respect for those traditions from being undermined. The appellant testified that khap panchayats have considerable power in Indian society and that even the police work with them to ensure that the traditions they uphold are respected. He alleged that, in his case, the Khap Panchayat and his girlfriend's father sought the police's help to find him and that since then, the police often visit his parents to inquire about his return, which is also corroborated by his parents' affidavit.22 The RAD therefore concludes that the appellant established his subjective fear of persecution in India. Objective fear [24] The objective documentation leads the RAD to find that the appellant has an objectively well-founded fear. Honour crimes in India are prevalent and widespread.23 Honour crimes are defined as violence motivated by "the belief that the victim has brought dishonour upon the family or community."24 Although women are more often the targets of honour crimes, men are also targeted by the female's relatives.25 The Department of State of the United States confirms that the phenomenon of [translation] "honour killings" is widespread in India, especially in the northern part of the country, in Pradesh, Pendjab and Haryana.26 The report prepared by the United Kingdom's Home Office confirms that honour crimes are perpetrated by family members, often with the complicity of the community because the community's honour is also at risk.27 An Information Request prepared by the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) states that honour crimes may occur as a result of marrying within the same gotra or pre-marital affairs.28 According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, honour crimes may also occur when Indians enter into romantic relationships without the consent of their families or "village elders".29 Furthermore, the documentation indicates that the perpetrators of honour crimes are often supported by members of the community and are sometimes motivated because the victim went against the will of the community as well as the family.30 [25] The objective documentation also confirms that the Khap Panchayat plays a role in honour crimes. The IRB Information Request states the following with respect to the Khap Panchayat: * Khap panchayats are unelected caste councils that have a lot of local authority in villages. * [T]he khaps issue the orders to "protect the honour of their communities" (The New York Times 8 Oct. 2012) or for "bringing dishonour on the village." * [K]hap panchayats...assume to themselves the power and authority to declare on and deal with "objectionable" matrimonies and exhibit least regard for life and liberty and are not deterred by the processes of administration of justice. The penal law lacks direct application to the illegal acts of such cast assemblies. Innocent youth are harassed and victimized while such assemblies continue to wield unhindered authority and also seem to resist any suggestion of being subjected to any social control. * [K]haps are a "particular problem" in Haryana. * [K]haps have issued several proclamations against couples, but they have not been taken to court because they are very "powerful and influential."31 [26] The documents submitted by the appellant also confirm that khap panchayats are involved in honour crimes, indicating that they order them and encourage them.32 The same document indicates that khaps often deliberate on social issues to try to respond to social problems and that they exert considerable social influence on the communities they represent.33 The same document reports that khaps are accused of having initiated death threats against couples who violate the traditions they protect.34 [27] Consequently, the RAD finds that the appellant has an objectively well-founded fear. State protection [28] The documentation before the RAD reports that khaps panchayats wield power that the state authorities in India are still unable to control. For example, "The Law Commission of India similarly notes that the caste assemblies are domineering and have the strength to 'silence or stifle investigating and prosecuting agencies'."35 Although there has been debate about passing laws against honour crimes, there is no legislation specifically addressing the issue of honour crimes in India. [29] The IRB Information Request included in the National Documentation Package (NDP) on India reports the following regarding the police: Several sources describe the police as ineffective in protecting people who fear becoming victims of honour crimes (AHRC 19 Apr. 2013; Professor 9 Apr. 2013; VFF 12 Apr. 2013). Sources indicate that the police are reluctant to register the complaints (AHRC 19 Apr. 2013; VFF 12 Apr. 2013) or carry out investigations (Human Rights Watch 18 July 2010). According to Shakti Vahini, the police do not enforce the laws and Supreme Court guidelines to protect runaway couples (n.d., Sec. 5) and "remain a mute witness to the crimes and seldom act against the offender" (Shakti Vahini 2013, 9). Describing the police in India as "riddled with corruption and nepotism," the interim executive director of the AHRC explained that the complaint will only be registered if the complainant is influential or has money (19 Apr. 2013). The Professor similarly stated that the police are influenced by money and power, and are "recalcitrant to take action against powerful families" (9 Apr. 2013). She noted that powerful families who are perpetrators of honour crimes are often released a couple of days after being arrested (Professor 9 Apr. 2013)... According to the VFF legal researcher, many of the police officers are "biased" and have "traditional patriarchal values" (12 Apr. 2013). In interviews with 300 police officers in Haryana, Punjab and Western Uttar Pradesh, Shakti Vahini found that 85 percent are against same-Gotra marriages, 70 percent are against inter-caste marriages, and 62 percent said they would "react strongly" if an inter-caste marriage occurred in their family (n.d., Sec. 5). Human Rights Watch states that some local officials have been "sympathetic" to khap panchayat orders, "implicitly supporting the violence" (18 July 2010). One media source reports of an honour killing in which a Delhi police officer was one of the perpetrators; he was reportedly sentenced to life imprisonment and fined (The Pioneer 14 June 2011; The Times of India 14 June 2011; Dailybhaskar.com 14 June 2011). According to Shakti Vahini and Human Rights Watch, family members of a runaway couple sometimes file false charges of kidnapping against the groom, and the police play a role in tracking down the couple (Shakti Vahini n.d., Sec. 5; Human Rights Watch 18 July 2010). Shakti Vahini provides several examples in which law enforcement authorities failed to protect honour crime victims (Shakti Vahini n.d., Sec. 5).36 [30] Consequently, the RAD finds that state protection would not be available to the appellant in India. The family of the appellant's girlfriend has significant financial resources and the girlfriend's father has the support of the Khap Panchayat in his quest to see the appellant punished by an honour crime. The Khap Panchayat also continues to search for the appellant, as part of its role as a defender of the cultural traditions governing relationships between men and women, as it is stated in the affidavit from the appellant's parents, who explain that the Khap is demanding that they turn their son over to it. Furthermore, in their affidavit, the parents state that the girlfriend's father and the Khap Panchayat both sought the help of the police to find him and that since then, the police have been visiting them to inquire about their son's return. In the specific case of the appellant, the RAD finds that state protection would not be available to him. Internal flight alternative (IFA) [31] The RAD will not apply the Jurisprudential Guide - Decision MB6-01059/60 which covers IFAs in India because the facts in this appeal are completely different. In the Guide, the appellants are citizens of the Punjab, whereas in this appeal, the appellant is a citizen of Haryana. In the Guide, the appellants are targeted by the Punjab police because they are suspected of supporting militant Sikhs; however, in this appeal, the appellant is targeted by his girlfriend's father, the Khap Panchayat and the police for having violated the sociocultural traditions governing relationships between men and women in India. [32] The RAD examined whether the appellant has a viable IFA in India. The RAD finds that the appellant faces a serious possibility of persecution throughout India and that state protection would not be available to him. He testified that the police have been looking for him since his girlfriend's father and the Khap Panchayat sought the help of the police to find him, thereby making him a person of interest for the Haryana police, especially considering the influence that the Khap Panchayat has over the police. The documentary evidence before the RAD confirms that the police could play a role in searching for persons targeted in the name of honour. [33] The appellant testified that he could not move to another city in India because of the tenant registration system. The RAD accepts that there is a tenant registration system in India, which is mandatory in several Indian cities and requires landlords to provide the police with information about tenants and the police to conduct background checks on tenants.37 There is documentation before the RAD showing that police forces in India are increasingly communicating with each other,38 and that the motivations for an inter-state search "could be anything."39 Given that the appellant's testimony and the documentation show that the Khap Panchayat has a great deal of influence over the police, and the fact that the appellant became a person of interest for the Haryana police after the Khap Panchayat and his girlfriend's father involved the police in the search to find him, the RAD finds that if the appellant tried to settle elsewhere in India, it is likely that the police station conducting the background check on the appellant would contact the Haryana police, and that the Haryana police would require that the appellant be returned to the same state to facilitate the task of the Khap Panchayat and the girlfriend's father. The RAD is therefore of the opinion that no valid IFA is available to the appellant in India. CONCLUSION [34] The appeal is allowed. Under subsection 111(1) of the IRPA, the RAD sets aside the determination of the RPD and substitutes the determination that, in its opinion, should have been made, namely, that the appellant is a Convention refugee. Miriam McLeod Me Miriam McLeod November 27, 2018 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93. 2 Ibid., paras. 78 and 103. 3 Rozas Del Solar v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2018 FC 1145. 4 Appellant's record, RPD decision, pages 4-5, at paragraphs 15-18 (entire paragraph). 5 Appellant's record, appellant's memorandum, page 11 at paragraphs 21-26. 6 Recording of the RPD hearing, at 2:18:26 (January 6, 2017). 7 RPD record, page 141. 8 RPD record, page 135. 9 Appellant's record, RPD decision, pages 5-6 at paragraphs 19-29. 10 Appellant's record, appellant's memorandum, pages 12-13 at paragraphs 27-39. 11 RPD record, page 16. 12 Recording of the RPD hearing at 45:00 (January 6, 2017). 13 Recording of the RPD hearing at 45:20 (January 6, 2017). 14 Recording of the RPD hearing at 45:27 (January 6, 2017). 15 Please see (a) RPD record, pages 16-17 and (b) recording of the RPD hearing at 55:31-56:42 (January 6, 2017). 16 RPD record, pages 136-137. 17 Recording of the RPD hearing at 37:50-38:15 and 41:39-42:20 (January 6, 2017). 18 Appellant's record, RPD decision, page 7 at paragraph 30. 19 Appellant's record, RPD record, RPD decision, pages 7-8 at paragraphs 31-38 (entire paragraph). 20 Recording of the RPD hearing at 1:31:28-1:37:42 (January 6, 2017). 21 RPD record, pages 136-137 (affidavit) and page 140 (medical certificate). 22 RPD record, pages 136-138. 23 National Documentation Package on India dated July 31, 2018, Tab 5.10, Honour crimes, including their prevalence in both rural and urban areas; government protection and services offered to victims of honour crimes (2009-April 2013), IND104370.E, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, May 9, 2013. 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid. 26 National Documentation Package on India dated July 31, 2018, Tab 2.1, India. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2017, United States. Department of State, April 20, 2018. 27 National Documentation Package on India dated July 31, 2018, Tab 1.13, Country Information and Guidance. India: Background information, including actors of protection, and internal relocation, United Kingdom. Home Office, February 2015. 28 National Documentation Package on India dated July 31, 2018, Tab 5.10, see footnote 24. 29 National Documentation Package on India dated July 31, 2018, Tab 5.6, India. Social Institutions and Gender Index 2014, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, November 28, 2014. 30 National Documentation Package on India dated July 31, 2018, Tab 5.10, see footnote 24. 31 National Documentation Package on India dated July 31, 2018, Tab 5.10, see footnote 24 (all points). 32 RPD record, pages 150, 156-157. 33 Ibid. 34 Ibid. 35 National Documentation Package on India dated July 31, 2018, Tab 5.10, see footnote 24. 36 Ibid. 37 National Documentation Package on India dated July 31, 2018, Tab 16.1, Communication between police offices across the country; whether police across India can locate an individual, particularly as a result of registration requirements for employment..., IND104065.E, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, February 28, 2013; and National Documentation Package on India dated July 31, 2018, Tab 10.6, Surveillance by state authorities; communication between police offices across the country, including use of the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems..., IND106120.E, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, June 25, 2018. 38 National Documentation Package on India dated July 31, 2018, Tab 10.6, see footnote 39. 39 National Documentation Package on India dated July 31, 2018, Tab 16.2, Police communication and collaboration between stations; police communications technology; reasons for a state-wide or national search, inter-state arrests..., IND104371.E, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, May 31, 2013. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB7-01435 16 RAD.25.02 (March 7, 2018) Disponible en français