MB6-06809

Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel des réfugiés RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : MB6-06809 MB6-06810 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision - Motifs et decision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered at Montreal, Quebec Appel instruit à Date of decision August 2, 2018 Date de la décision Panel Me Patricia O'Connor Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Me Harry Judah Levinson Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION I. INTRODUCTION [1] XXXX XXXX and her spouse XXXX XXXX, citizens of Albania, appeal a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) dated August 25, 2016 rejecting their claim for refugee protection. [2] They fear the female Appellant's father who disproves of their inter-faith marriage. They submit that the RPD erred in rejecting their claim on the basis that they failed to rebut the presumption that adequate state protection is available to them in Albania. The Appellants request that the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) set aside the determination of the RPD and find that they are "Convention refugees" according to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) or "persons in need of protection" according to section 97. [3] After considering the Appellants' submissions and all of the evidence, I conclude that adequate state protection is available to the Appellants in Albania, which is determinative of the appeal. II. DETERMINATION [4] Pursuant to ss. 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, I confirm the decision of the RPD that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection. The appeals are dismissed. III. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF APPEAL [5] The female Appellant was raised in a conservative Christian Orthodox family in Sarande, Albania. Her father was controlling and abusive throughout her childhood. [6] The male Appellant is a Muslim who hails from Vlore, Albania. [7] The female Appellant met her spouse in XXXX 2014 when they were XXXX and XXXX years old, respectively. Initially, they concealed their relationship from the female Appellant's father, knowing he would not accept their inter-faith relationship. [8] When the female Appellant's father came to know of their relationship in XXXX 2015, he accused his daughter of betraying their family honour and beat her. [9] In XXXX 2015, the Appellants decided to get married. However, the female Appellant's father refused the proposal, stating that his daughter was better off dead than marrying a Muslim man. He threatened to kill the male Appellant if he ever saw him with his daughter. He also confined his daughter to her room. [10] In XXXX 2015, the Appellants got married. Following their marriage, they lived in hiding, borrowing an apartment belonging to a relative, in the outskirts of Vlore. [11] In XXXX 2015, the male Appellant was approached by two men at a local store who demanded to know the whereabouts of the female Appellant. The men beat the male Appellant and stabbed his leg. They also threatened to kill the Appellants as a result of the shame their inter-religious marriage brought to the family. When the male Appellant registered a police complaint, the officer reproached him for dishonoring his wife's family. [12] At the end of XXXX 2015, the female Appellant learned that she was pregnant. [13] The Appellants left Albania in XXXX XXXX XXXX 2015, transiting through Greece, Spain and the United States. They arrived in Canada on November 13, 2015 and made their refugee claim 4 months later. Their daughter was born in XXXX 2016. [14] The Minister intervened before the RPD, arguing that there are overriding concerns with respect to the Appellants' credibility. [15] While noting concerns about the Appellants' subjective fear, the RPD found that they established the credibility of their evidence on a balance of probabilities. The RPD rejected the claim on the basis that adequate state protection is available to the Appellants in Albania. IV. DETERMINATIVE ISSUE [16] The Appellants submit that the RPD erred in the assessment of their subjective fear and erred in the assessment of state protection. [17] The Minister did not intervene in the present appeal. [18] I consider that state protection is the determinative issue in the present case. V. SCOPE OF THE RAD APPEAL [19] The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) reviews decisions on a standard of correctness after conducting an independent assessment of the evidence before it.1 Deference may be required when the RPD enjoys a meaningful advantage in the assessment of the credibility of oral evidence.2 Unless specifically stated below, I have applied the correctness standard in the present case. VI. ANALYSIS Preliminary comments [20] The RPD assessed the adequacy of state protection based on the available documentary evidence found in the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Albania dated May 13, 2016. [21] The issue of state protection is a forward looking analysis. In a letter dated June 15, 2018, I gave notice to Appellants' counsel that I was relying on the updated NDP for Albania dated April 30, 2018. In response, I received supplementary written submissions from the Appellants' counsel on June 26, 2018 which were considered along with all of the evidence forming part of the record. Statement of the law concerning state protection [22] A state is presumed to be capable of protecting their citizens, except when there is evidence that the state is in a complete situation of breakdown. In Ward, the Supreme Court explains that while this presumption increases the burden on the claimant, it "reinforces the underlying rationale of international protection as a surrogate, coming into play where no alternative remains to the claimant."3 [23] To rebut this presumption, a claimant must "adduce relevant, reliable and convincing evidence which satisfies the trier of fact on a balance of probabilities that state protection is inadequate."4 [24] This requires an assessment of the operational adequacy of state protection. As noted by the Federal Court in Garcia Bautista, "regard must be given to what is actually happening and not what the state is endeavouring to put in place."5 [25] A contextual approach is required when assessing whether a refugee claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection. This means that different factors must be considered, including the nature of the human rights violation, the profile of the agent of harm, the efforts of the victim to seek protection from the authorities, the response from the authorities to requests for assistance, and the available documentary evidence.6 The IRB Gender Guidelines7 also provide guidance when assessing the adequacy of state protection with respect to gender-related claims. In the present case, I am mindful of the female Appellant's social, cultural, religious and economic context when considering whether it was objectively unreasonable for her not to have sought state protection. The RPD decision [26] After reviewing the available objective evidence for Albania, the RPD found that most sources maintain that corruption and impunity are still problems in Albania and that the country has much work ahead in terms of its reform measures. Crime, including honour-related crime, continues to occur and much of it is unreported as public trust is still relatively low.8 [27] This being said, the RPD concluded that the Appellants did not rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Albania based on the following: - The Appellants did not take all reasonable steps to obtain state protection and still have recourses available to them. The female Appellant did not make a police complaint after she fled her parents' home. The male Appellant did not follow up with his police complaint and did not clarify what investigative steps, if any, had been taken by the police. - If the Appellants were dissatisfied with the service they received from the police, they did not report these concerns to the police, the ombudsman, the prosecutor's office or the service for Internal Affairs and Complaints. Hearing about police failures on the news does not reasonably explain the Appellants' failure to pursue their matter further with the authorities. State protection cannot be said to have failed when it was not reasonably engaged. - After reviewing the objective evidence, the RPD determined that there is insufficient "clear and convincing" evidence of inadequate state protection so as to relieve the Appellants of any further efforts to seek it. While state protection in Albania is not overly robust, it is not at a level that relieves the Appellants of the duty to continue to pursue it. [28] On appeal, Counsel argues that the RPD erred by failing to consider that the female Appellant's decision not to report her fear of an honour crime to the police is compatible with documentary evidence indicating that honour crimes of women in Albanian society are not addressed or specifically recognized by civil society or state institutions.9 [29] Moreover, Counsel also faults the RPD for engaging in a selective review of the objective evidence and erred by placing the present claim on the same footing as a blood feud. Finally, it is argued that the Appellants should not be faulted for leaving Albania at the first opportunity, instead of risking their life seeking ineffective state protection merely to demonstrate it is ineffective. The male Appellant's failure to follow through with the police is not fatal given a lack of operational adequacy in state protection in Albania. [30] After considering the Appellants' evidence and submissions, I find that they failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection. In order to explain this finding, I begin by summarizing information gleaned from the objective evidence with respect to domestic violence and state protection in Albania. I will then consider the objective evidence in light of the Appellants' particular circumstances. Objective evidence regarding domestic violence and state protection in Albania [31] I will state at the outset that I agree with Counsel who submits that the RPD's reliance on objective evidence related to Albania's efforts to combat blood feuds is misplaced in the present case.10 [32] While the notion of blood feud is difficult to define, one source explains that the "narrowest understanding" of blood feud is "a premeditated familial avenging of lost blood; that is, where the family of a murdered victim kills a member of the perpetrator's family to restore the honour and blood lost as a result of the initial murder." Since the notion of blood feud has evolved in contemporary Albania, a broader definition classifies blood feuds as "any revenge killing between families ...regardless of any reference to the need to restore blood and honour or of guidance by any kanun-related considerations.11 [33] Clearly, this does not correspond to the factual presentation of the present case which involves the female Appellant's own father who is the aggressor and no other family is involved. I agree with Counsel that the present case is properly characterized as one of domestic violence and that objective evidence about blood feuds has little bearing on the analysis in the present case. [34] It is well documented that Albania's transition to a parliamentary democracy (1990s) has been challenging, given high unemployment, widespread corruption, dilapidated infrastructure, powerful organized crime networks and combative political opponents. Albania, with the assistance of international monitoring and supervision, has engaged in an ongoing process to strengthen weak state institutions and stabilize its political infrastructure and implement reforms. [35] In June 2014, Albania was accepted as a candidate for EU membership. In 2016, the European Commission assessed Albania's progress towards fulfilling all the priorities required for the opening of accession negotiations. Subject to credible and tangible progress in the implementation of justice reform, the EU recommended opening accession negotiations with Albania. [36] In July 2016, the Albanian parliament adopted a set of constitutional amendments aimed at reforming the justice system in a unanimous vote of all 140 members. The amendments address corruption and political meddling in the judiciary and strengthen its independence from organized crime. Moreover, the amendments focus on the reorganization of the justice system, as well as the process for vetting judges and prosecutors.12 [37] The UK July 2017 Country Policy and Information Note on Albania states that there is a fully functioning police and judicial system. Civilian authorities generally maintain effective control over the police but there are instances of corruption and of the police having committed abuses. The government has internal mechanisms to investigate and punish police abuse and corruption and are reported to carry out investigations and issue sanctions. Moreover, Albania has an independent Ombudsman (the People's Advocate) who processes complaints, including complaints against police officers. While there is an established independent judicial system, it is affected by politicisation, intimidation, limited accountability, insufficient resources, lengthy proceedings and backlogs.13 [38] The United States Department of State provides the following recent update on the police in Albania: "Civilian authorities generally maintained effective control over police, the Guard of the Republic, the armed forces, and the SIS, although officials periodically used state resources for personal gain and members of the security forces committed abuses. Police did not always enforce the law equitably. Personal associations, political or criminal connections, poor infrastructure, lack of equipment or inadequate supervision often influenced law enforcement. Poor leadership and a lack of diversity in the workforce contributed to continued corruption and unprofessional behavior. Authorities continued to make efforts to address these problems by renovating police facilities, upgrading vehicles, and publicly highlighting anticorruption measures. Impunity remained a serious problem, although the government made greater efforts to address it, in particular by increasing the use of camera evidence to document and prosecute police misconduct. While the government had mechanisms to investigate and punish abuse and corruption, police corruption remained a problem. The Service for Internal Affairs and Complaints received 3,811 telephone complaints via the anticorruption ""green line" through July 31. The majority of the complaints involved "inaction of police officers," "unjust fine/ticket," or "violation of standard operating procedures." The office filed 43 administrative violations, recommending 57 police officers for disciplinary proceedings. The cases of five officers were forwarded to the Prosecution Office. During the year, the ombudsman also processed complaints against police officers, mainly concerning problems with arrests and detention."14 [Emphasis added] [39] The European Asylum Support Office (EASO) report also cites sources indicating that "citizens may submit complaints about the police to the Internal Control Service, which operates under the authority of the Ministry of the Interior or to the Professional Standards Department, an office within the Albanian police. Complaints can be made in person or by telephone. There is also an anti-corruption web portal where citizens can report misconduct, including misconduct by the police."15 One source indicates that complaints made against police officers are routinely investigated.16 [40] Turning to the issue of domestic violence, a 2014 Response to Information Request (RIR) prepared by the IRB17 explains that domestic violence is widespread and most prevalent with spousal or intimate partner violence and is deeply rooted in patriarchal traditions and customs. Domestic violence is regarded as a private issue in Albanian society. The majority who sought help turned to their own family, their husband's/partner's family and/or friends. Only 17 percent sought help from the police. This being said, some progress was noted: in 2013, there were 3020 reported incidents of domestic violence which was an increase from 2012 (2526 reported incidents). [41] In 2016, the UK Home Office found that domestic violence in Albania remains a serious and widespread problem perpetrated by partners, parents, brothers, sister-in-law and other relatives.18 The UK report states that there exists legal provisions to address gender-based violence and appropriate sanctions are issued by the courts.19 It is now easier to present a petition to the court and no fees are required to the petitioner. The victim can request a protection order or an emergency protection order. The standard of proof in cases of domestic violence is lower than other standard civil cases, meaning that there must be a sufficient basis to believe that the defendant has committed or threatened to commit an act of violence. [42] The 2016 UK report notes that the main challenge is not the absence of legal rules against domestic violence, but rather the lack of efficient application given a weak role of the prosecution office and the local authorities in the implementation of this law. The report further notes that there are improvements on this front with more people filing police reports and receiving police protection following training courses delivered to the police. Despite good practices in place to provide services to victims of domestic violence, work still needs to be done to coordinate efforts amongst government, civil society organisations and international partners.20 [43] The US Country Report on Human Rights (2017) notes that domestic violence against women remains a serious problem and that police often did not have the training or capacity to deal effectively with the cases. The government operated three shelters to protect survivors of domestic violence and NGOs operated 6 others.21 [44] The Albanian Women Empowerment Network22 notes that gender-based violence still remains an important issue in Albania as it is under-reported, mechanisms of redress are not well known and there is a fear of bringing shame to the family and fear of reprisal by perpetrators. This underscores that the extent to which legal changes are successful depends on how such changes are received by the population. [45] A 2017 report from Freedom House23 states that "while domestic violence is believed to be widespread, Parliament has adopted some measures to combat the problem in recent years." [46] The United Nations Human Rights Council issued a mid-term report on Albania in 2017,24 noting that significant improvements have taken place over the years with respect to the legal framework related to the fight against domestic violence. It is also mentioned that further improvements are expected to take place in the context of the justice reform in both criminal and civil legislation to bring the Albanian legislation in full compliance with the Council of Europe's Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention). There are improved resources available to victims with a number of state authorities addressing gender-based and domestic violence: "At the central level, they include the Ministry of Social Welfare and Youth, the Ministry of Interior; the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Justice, and the Ministry of Education. At the local level, municipalities are in charge of identifying cases of gender-based violence and providing assistance to the victims of violence through the referral of cases to the institutions offering social, educational, employment, health and other services, according to the needs of the victims. An important inter-agency collaboration at the local level is the National Referral Mechanism comprised of representatives from the Police, the Prosecutor's Office, the Court, the legal representative/lawyer; NGOs specialized in such issues; the Coordinator for Domestic Violence at the local government; the specialist in the Children Protection Unit at the municipality; and the school psychologist. An Electronic Online System for registration of cases of domestic violence has been established in 2014, and it currently operates in 29 out of 61 municipalities of the country. This system contains data on the perpetrators, and follows up the cases of domestic violence from the moment a case is reported until it finds final solution. Data shows a marked increase in reporting and case management."25 [Emphasis added] [47] The 2017 UN report further notes that there have been a number of national and local campaigns and media awareness activities which have been organized in collaboration with international organizations and civil society, in order to raise awareness against domestic violence which has resulted in changes in traditional attitudes and increased reporting to the law enforcement institutions of cases of violence against women and domestic violence.26 [48] Most notably, the UN 2017 report also provides statistics on reported cases of domestic violence. For example, in 2014, the police identified 4,121 cases of violence and other crimes committed in family relations. 1,699 cases of domestic violence and other domestic crimes were referred to the Prosecution Services for criminal prosecution. In 2,422 cases, the Police filed applications for immediate protection order/protection order. There were 17 domestic homicides, with 22 women as victims. There were 1215 registered proceedings, with 1189 defendants accused of domestic violence. [49] In 2015, 3,866 cases of violence and other domestic criminal offences were identified, (6.1% less than in 2014). An application for an immediate protection order was filed in 2,148 cases. Moreover, 1,719 cases of domestic violence and other domestic crimes were referred to the Prosecution Services. There were 18 cases of domestic homicide, with 20 victims. In 2015, there were 1206 penal proceedings with 1197 defendants. In 2015, the total judicial orders granting protection were exclusively women. 106 orders were registered for execution, entirely within procedural deadlines. [50] In 2014, 516 perpetrators were punished. This increased in 2015 with 821 perpetrators being punished. The punishment varied from fines to five years imprisonment.27 [51] In January 2016, the Office of Assistance for the Victims of Gender-based violence was established. One focus of this office is to address factors which may still prevent women from filing complaints regarding domestic violence. A number of initiatives have taken place to support women in submitting complaints related to gender-based and domestic violence, including improvement in the legislation for the protection of victims, adoption of mechanisms for coordinated community support and facilitation of reporting procedures through a 24-hour hotline. There were 3777 registered calls for domestic violence in 2014 and 3827 in 2015. [52] Concrete measures were also taken to ensure adequate training of law enforcement officials (including lawyers and judges) of the serious nature of domestic and gender-based violence.28 In 2014, 224 police officers received training on how to respond to domestic violence. In 2015, 50 police officers were trained about specific legislation and relevant procedures on handling cases of domestic violence. [53] During 2013-2014, the School of Magistrates, which is the authority in charge of organizing and providing professional trainings for the members of the judiciary, organized a series of trainings where 238 judges, prosecutors and judicial police officers were trained on amendments of the Criminal Code on gender-based and domestic violence. In 2015, the School of Magistrates provided trainings on different aspects of the legislation on domestic violence and gender-based violence for around 120 members of the judiciary. [54] Moreover, the Albanian legal framework also guarantees a wide range of services for victims/survivors of domestic violence such as appropriate shelters and social services for victims of domestic violence, as well as a system of victim compensation, rehabilitation and reintegration. [55] In practice, some of these services are provided by public institutions, but NGOs remain primary actors in the delivery of services in support of the victims of domestic violence and gender- based violence. The local government provides some financial support to three non-public shelters.29 [56] The Albanian Helsinki Committee (AHC) issued a report in April 201730 noting that reported cases of domestic violence increased over the past year (2015). The report mentions that the use of violence towards women still appears very disturbing, with some cases leading to the death of the victim. Often times, women do not report the violence used on them to competent authorities or withdraw their referrals due to the "economic insufficiency to make a living or due to social mentality." The AHC noted that reported cases of domestic violence increased over the past year but that services for domestic violence needed improvement in terms of quality, quantity and access in order to increase efficiency and combat the problem. [57] The AHC monitored 97 criminal and civil judicial hearings on domestic violence, issuance of protection orders and issuance of immediate protection orders during the period of July-October 2016. 70% of the cases were female victims. Divorce, use of alcohol, grave economic conditions and property conflicts were the main causes for the use of violence; 37% of the cases were dropped because women failed to present themselves in the first trial hearing, after deciding to not appear or declare that the conflict does not exist anymore. Some of the domestic violence cases that escalated to serious consequences highlighted police negligence in the initial phases when the victim appeared to seek help from these bodies. In light of the objective evidence, did the RPD err in finding that the Appellants did not rebut the presumption of adequate state protection? [58] In the present case, Counsel concedes that there are laws in Albania aimed at addressing the phenomena of domestic violence. However, relying on the Federal Court case of Flores31, Counsel submits that despite Albania's efforts to implement legislative reform regarding domestic violence in Albania, the objective evidence reveals that there remains a lack of operational adequacy. Simply put, while there exists a legislative and procedural framework for protection, the state lacks the capacity and the will to effectively implement that framework. As such, the Appellants should not be faulted for failing to obtain it. [59] In considering the merits of the Appellants' reluctance to ask the state for assistance, I note that this issue was considered by the Supreme Court in Ward. The following excerpt is instructive: "[O]nly in situations in which state protection "might reasonably have been forthcoming", will the claimant's failure to approach the state for protection defeat his claim. Put another way, the claimant will not meet the definition of "Convention refugee" where it is objectively unreasonable for the claimant not to have sought the protection of his home authorities; otherwise, the claimant need not literally approach the state."32 [60] I agree that there are certainly some instances where the operational adequacy is so deficient that a refugee claimant is not required to approach the state for protection. This being said, my review of the evidence leads to the conclusion that this is not one of those cases. I reach this conclusion based on a contextual analysis of the adequacy of state protection in the present case. [61] First of all, I retain from the evidence that the Appellants fear an honour crime if they return to Albania which is a severe violation of their basic human rights. [62] The agent of harm is a family member. He is the female Appellant's father. He is described as an Orthodox Christian who opposes his daughter's inter-faith marriage. He has threatened to kill or harm the Appellants if they marry each other. When the female Appellant lived in the family home, her father exercised unfettered control over his daughter and was abusive. [63] While objective evidence reveals that there is a significant level of corruption amongst law enforcement in Albania, there is no evidence to suggest that the female Appellant's father (as a non-state agent of persecution) would use it. To be clear, there is no evidence before me that he wields any particular power or is linked to the state. [64] As a minor living with her family, the female Appellant did not seek the assistance of the authorities when she was victimized by her father. Conducting an age-sensitive approach and mindful of the Gender Guidelines, the RPD accepted that the female Appellant's failure to seek assistance from the police while living in her parents' home was reasonably explained by the fact that she was a dependent minor, controlled by her father. I agree, finding that her failure to approach the state while dependent on her parents does not detract from her refugee claim. [65] This being said, the Appellants are now a married couple who are supportive of each other. The male Appellant's family is also supportive of their marriage. They live separately from the agent of harm and are not in a relationship of dependency with him. [66] The female Appellant's father threatened to harm the Appellants following their inter-faith marriage. Prior to leaving Albania, two men located the male Appellant and physically harmed him on the basis that he brought shame to the female Appellant's family. [67] Despite the severity of the threats to her life, the female Appellant made no effort to seek protection from the authorities after she was married. While mindful of the fact that the female Appellant has a grade 8 education and grew up in an abusive home, her present reluctance to approach the state for help is difficult to reconcile with the fact that she had the wherewithal to leave her home and live independently from her father, marry a supportive husband and navigate the complexities of fleeing Albania and making a refugee claim. [68] I note that the female Appellant says that she was advised by her neighbours that the state does not do anything to protect victims of domestic violence. In assessing the merits of this statement, I have considered whether there is any evidence of similarly situated individuals whose efforts in seeking such protection may explain and justify the lack of effort demonstrated by the female Appellant.33 [69] While I agree that the preponderance of the documentary evidence leads to the conclusion that state protection in cases of domestic violence is a work in progress, the female Appellant's reluctance to engage with the authorities is unreasonable, considering that the police did register a complaint made by her husband regarding threats of an honour crime stemming from his inter-faith marriage. Moreover, a legal framework exists in Albania to investigate and prosecute perpetrators of domestic violence. As noted above, there are concrete examples of the state holding perpetrators to account. [70] This leads to the conclusion that the RPD did not err in finding that it was unreasonable for the female Appellant not to seek state protection against her fear of an honour crime in Albania. [71] With respect to the male Appellant, he made a police report XXXX XXXX, 2015 and failed to follow up on the process. While discontent with the demeaning attitude of the officer who took the complaint at the local level, the fact remains that the officer did take the complaint and said that an investigation would ensue. The male Appellant did not exercise his right to lodge a complaint against the police officer even though this option existed. The aftermath of that complaint is unknown and unresolved given that the Appellants left the country, did not leave any contact information and did not follow up. [72] Here, my assessment of the evidence is compatible with the RPD: If the Appellants truly felt that they were not properly served by the police during the weeks following their police complaint, it is noteworthy that they did not report these concerns to the police, the ombudsman, the prosecutor's office or the Service for Internal Affairs and Complaints. The Appellants still had viable resources available to them and they did not exhaust all efforts for state protection in Albania. Under the circumstances, I cannot give any weight to the male Appellant's assertion that he failed to follow through on his complaint as he heard from others that the police are ineffective. [73] Finally, in finding that the Appellants' subjective reluctance to approach the state for protection is unreasonable, I also note the following additional factors: - As married adults living independently from the agent of persecution, there is no evidence to suggest that they are vulnerable to the extent that they are not in a position to seek out the assistance of the state for protection (as was the case when the female Appellant was a minor living under the control of her father). - There is no evidence to suggest that the father (agent of persecution) wields unfettered or unrestricted power to the extent that the police have no control over his actions. - While not perfect, the objective evidence related to Albania does not support the Appellants' assertion that any attempt to obtain state protection in cases of domestic violence is futile. The most recent objective evidence (canvassed above) reveals that while not perfect, victims of domestic violence have been able to obtain varying forms of concrete assistance (including emergency protective measures) through the state apparatus where a legislative framework is in place. - There is no evidence to support that approaching the state for help would pose a further risk to the Appellants. For example, nothing in the evidence suggests that the female Appellant would subject herself to additional danger or harm (such as a risk of sexual assault or physical harm) from the police if she asked them for help. - A review of the available objective evidence (current to April 2018) leads me to agree with the RPD who found that criminals are being held to account and there are operational successes in Albania in the case of domestic violence. The evidence on state protection is not sufficient to overcome the Appellants responsibility to seek it. [74] In sum, I have considered the nature of the harm feared, the profile of the agent of harm, the particular circumstances of the Appellants and the available documentary evidence regarding the adequacy of state protection in cases of domestic violence in Albania. I find that the Appellants' inaction to pursue state protection is fatal to their claim. It follows that the RPD did not err in finding that the Appellants failed to rebut the presumption that adequate state protection is available to them in the present case. VII. REMEDY [75] For all these reasons, I confirm the decision of the RPD in accordance with ss. 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, namely that XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX are neither "Convention refugees" nor "persons in need of protection". [76] The appeals are dismissed. Patricia O'Connor Me Patricia O'Connor August 2, 2018 Date PO/dd 1 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93 (CanLII), paras 78, 103. 2 Ibid., paras. 58, 59 and 70. Three member panel RAD decision TB6-03419, May 17, 2017, as amended May 23, 2017, paras 70, 71, 116(b) [RAD panel decision]; X(Re), 2017 CanLII 33034 (CA IRB). 3 Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, p. 725. 4 Flores Carrillo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [2008] 4 FCR. 636 (FCA), para. 30. 5 Garcia Bautista v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) 2010 FC 126, para. 10. 6 Gonzales Torres v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2011] 2 F.C.R. 480 (F.C.), para. 37. 7 Chairperson Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution, 13 November 1996. 8 RPD decision, para. 35. 9 Memorandum of Appeal, paras 115-116. 10 The RPD decision refers to objective evidence about blood feuds at paras 25, 29 and 30. 11 National Documentation Package (NDP) for Albania, 30 April 2018 Tab 7.15, Albania, Blood Feuds in Contemporary Albania: Characterisation, Prevalence and Response by the State, 29 June 2017, s. 2.4. 12 NDP for Albania, 30 April 2018 Tab 2.5 Albania. Nations in Transit 2017, Freedom House 2017, p. 1. 13 NDP for Albania, 30 April 2018 Tab 1.5, Country Policy and Information Note. Albania: Background information, including actors of protection, and internal relocation. Version 2.0. UK home Office, July 2017, accessed 28 September 2017, s. 2. 14 NDP for Albania, 30 April 2018 Tab 2.1, Albania, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2017, United States Department of State, 20 April 2018, pp 4-5. 15 NDP for Albania, Tab 1.10, EASO Country of Origin Information Report, Albania Country Focus, European Asylum Support Office, November 2016, accessed 31 July, 2017, p 22. 16 NDP for Albania, Tab 10.3 Institute for Democracy and Mediation, Police integrity and corruption in Albania 2.0, 2016 accessed 4 August 2017. 17 NDP for Albania, Tab 5.1, Domestic violence including legislation, state protection and support services available to victims (2011-April 2014) ALB104859.E, 30 April 2014. 18 NDP for Albania, Tab 1.3 Country Information and Guidance, Albania: Women fearing domestic violence. Version 1.0, UK Home Office, April 2016, s. 2.3.1. 19 Ibid, s. 3.1.See also Tab 5.3 Republic of Albania, Law no. 9669 on Measures Against Violence in Family Relations, 2012 and Tab 5.4 Law no 144 2013, Criminalization of Sexual violence, 2013. 20 Ibid, 7.1. 21 Supra, note 14, s. 6. 22 NDP for Albania, Tab 5.2, Report on the Implementation of the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence in Albania, Albanian Women Empowerment Network, December 2016, accessed 2 August 2017. 23 NDP for Albania, Tab 2.6, Albania, Freedom in the World 2017, Freedom House, 2017, p. 1. 24 NDP for Albania, Tab 2.7, Mid-Term report of Albania on the implementation of the recommendations received during the second cycle of Universal Periodic Review (UPR), United Nations, Human Rights Council, March 2017, p. 46. 25 Ibid, p. 46. 26 Ibid, p. 46. 27 Ibid, p. 47. 28 Ibid. 29 Ibid. 30 NDP for Albania, Tab 2.10 Report on the Situation of Respect for Human Rights and Freedoms in Albania During 2016, Albanian Helsinki Committee, April 2017, accessed 3 August 2017, p. 28. 31 Flores v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2013 FC 938 32 Ward, supra note 3. 33 Garcia v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2007 FC 79. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : MB6-06809 MB6-06810 18 RAD.25.02 (2014.09.11) Disponible en français