MC0-06129

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MC0-06129 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered at Montreal, QC Appel instruit à Date of decision April 30,2021 Date de la décision Panel Michel Colin Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Arghavan Gerami 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] XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the Appellant) is a citizen of Jordan. [2] She is married to a stateless Palestinian with whom she lived along with their children in Saudi Arabia. Her husband and children were accepted as convention refuges. She never lived in Jordan but fears gender discrimination essentially because she would be unable to sponsor her husband and children to join her there, as well as broader gender-based discrimination. [3] The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) found that the harm that she fears because of discriminatory laws does not rise to the level of a violation of a basic human right. It noted that the Federal Court has repeatedly held that Canadian refugee law does not recognize any fundamental right for refugee claimants to live together. Despite the high level of violence against women described in the documentary evidence, mostly family violence and honour crimes, the RPD noted that in the Appellant's personal circumstances she recognized that she would be able to live with her mother and two younger brothers in the capital, Amman. It concluded that she benefits from a fairly extensive education and familial support. [4] Before the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD), the Appellant essentially submits that the RPD failed to consider or did not intelligibly assess the consequences of Jordan's discriminatory laws which stop her from sponsoring her husband and children to join her in that country. She argues that the consequences of this law as well as social norms cumulatively amount to persecution, given the conditions which women face in that country. Amongst these consequences, she notes an increased vulnerability as a woman without male protection, to what is already a very high level of gender-based violence. She also fears walking in the street without a male guardian. She fears her extended family, and that as a married woman without her husband, her actions, including innocent interactions with males, may be perceived as dishonourable and honour crimes. She contests the finding of the RPD that she has a fairly extensive education and familial support, and notes that she would have difficulty finding employment since she did not finish her schooling and has not worked for over 14 years. Furthermore, the Appellant submits that the RPD erred by failing to consider that she faced discrimination on a previous visit to Jordan when she was insulted by the police officer because she is married to a Palestinian. [5] I find that the RPD correctly concluded that Jordan's discriminatory laws which stop the Appellant from sponsoring her husband and children do not amount to persecution. It correctly concluded that despite objective evidence of gender-based violence, the Appellant's personal situation must be considered. She never alleged having any fear of domestic violence and she would be able to live with her mother and two brothers in the capital city of Amman, which, in my opinion, makes it most unlikely that her extended family, which lives in a remote area, would be cognizant of her "innocent interactions with males" giving rise to honour crimes. The vaguely described difficulties that the Appellant would face in Amman because of the absence of a "male presence", do not meet the threshold to be considered as persecution. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that there would be a "male presence" in the home, given the age of her brother. The evidence supports the finding of the RPD that the Appellant has familial support. There is no evidence that similarly situated persons suffer cumulative discrimination. The RPD correctly considered the Appellant's education and employment prospects and it did not err by failing to consider that she faced discrimination because she is married to a Palestinian. The Appellant failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution based on her gender, because she is married to a Palestinian, or based on cumulative discrimination. The RPD decision is correct. DECISION [6] I dismiss the appeal. The RPD was correct in finding that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. ANALYSIS [7] My role is to look at all the evidence and decide if the RPD made the correct decision.1 [8] In doing so, I considered and applied the Chairperson's Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution2 (Gender Guidelines). Preliminary notes regarding the structure of this decision. [9] Many of the arguments of the Appellant, which I have summarized above, are repeatedly revisited by her in the memorandum, often with little more than a minor shift in the lens through which they are described. As to avoid repetition, I have regrouped similar or identical arguments by category rather than address them in the order that they were presented in the memorandum. The RPD correctly concluded that Jordan's discriminatory laws, which stop the Appellant from sponsoring her husband and children to join her in that country, do not amount to persecution. [10] The RPD correctly found that Jordan's law which stops the Appellant from passing on citizenship to her children and apparently stops her from sponsoring her husband and children to join her in that country is clearly discriminatory against women since men do not face similar restrictions. [11] Despite this, the RPD also correctly found that such discriminatory laws do not rise to the level of a violation of a basic human right. Indeed, I agree with the RPD that Canadian law and jurisprudence do not recognize any fundamental right for refugee claimants to live together. Therefore, such discriminatory laws by themselves do not amount to persecution, although they may contribute to the cumulative effect of several discriminations which sometimes amount to persecution. The RPD correctly concluded that despite objective evidence of gender-based violence, the Appellant's personal situation must be considered. [12] The argument of the Appellant is essentially that the consequences of this law and social norms combine to amount to persecution. She alleges that as a woman without male protection, she would be vulnerable to the very high level of gender-based violence that women face in that country, which the RPD acknowledged but failed to adequately consider. [13] I find that the RPD did not err in this regard. Indeed, the RPD gave a representative account of the documentary evidence concerning gender-based violence. This evidence speaks about family and domestic violence as well as honour crimes. [14] As correctly noted by the RPD, it is necessary to consider the personal situation of the Appellant. I note that she has never alleged in her BOC form that she fears either her husband or any other domestic violence. She confirmed at the hearing that she does not fear her siblings who live in Jordan. [15] In her memorandum, she explains that she fears her extended family, because, without her husband present, her actions, including innocent interactions with males, may be perceived as dishonourable and lead to honour crimes against them. At the hearing she stated that this is a concern for all single women in the Arab world. Single women avoid interaction with male colleagues and schoolgirls avoid having male friends because they fear honour crimes. [16] Again, as correctly noted by the RPD, it is necessary to consider the personal situation of the Appellant, specifically that, according to her testimony, she would be able to live with her mother and two younger brothers in the capital city of Amman, and that the extended family lives in a remote village. At paragraph 25 of the memorandum, the Appellant suggests that the RPD decision is not clear as to how this would be significant. I would add for further clarification that, this distance makes it rather unlikely that this extended family would be cognizant of these "innocent interactions with males" that the Appellant may have, and that could give rise to honour killings. The evidence supports the finding of the RPD that the Appellant has familial support. There is no evidence to support that similarly situated persons suffer cumulative discrimination. [17] After a break in the hearing, the Appellant was questioned by her counsel about any security concerns that she might have if she were to live with her mother and siblings in Amman without her husband. The Appellant added that it would be difficult to live with her mother and that without any male protection or male head of the household, it will not be easy to go on the streets, try to find a job, or to get anything accomplished. The nature of these difficulties was not specified until later where she briefly described them as "harassment, be it verbal or other kinds." [18] In my opinion, words such as "it would be difficult" or "it will not be easy" are quite vague. These vague difficulties simply described as "harassment" do not meet the threshold to be considered as persecution of themselves. [19] I would also add that, although the Appellant believes that her brothers are too young to protect her, her eldest brother was nevertheless 20 years old at the time of the hearing and would thus be of age to constitute a "male presence" within the home or when accompanied by him outside the home. [20] It is my opinion that the evidence supports the finding of the RPD that the Appellant has familial support, given that she testified that she could live with her mother and siblings in Amman and the age of her eldest brother to act as a "male presence" in the home. Since the Appellant never actually lived in Jordan, she never suffered a significant cumulation of discrimination in the past, save for one incident where a police officer insulted her, which I will address further. One can only compare her to people who would have similar circumstances as her in Jordan to evaluate her prospective fear. In this case, there is no evidence to suggest that her mother with whom she could live in Amman, and who has no "male presence" in the home other than the Appellant's siblings, ever suffered cumulative discrimination amounting to persecution. The RPD correctly considered the Appellant's education and employment prospects. [21] The Appellant also contests the finding of the RPD that she has fairly extensive education and notes that she would have difficulty finding employment since she did not finish her schooling and has not worked for over 14 years. [22] With regard to her education, the Appellant declared in her Schedule A form that she has a total of 14 years of education, nine years of primary school, three years of secondary school where she obtained a secondary school diploma, and two years of trade school where she obtained a diploma in XXXX XXXX. In my opinion, the RPD correctly described this as fairly extensive education despite the fact that she did not finish her schooling. [23] Even though has not worked for over 14 years, this is, in my opinion, insufficient to suggest that she would be unable to find work. The RPD did not err by failing to consider that she faced discrimination because she is married to a Palestinian. [24] Finally, the Appellant submits that the RPD erred by failing to consider that she faced discrimination on a previous visit to Jordan when she was insulted by the police officer because she is married to a Palestinian. [25] I would start by noting that the RPD is presumed to have considered all the evidence. [26] Furthermore, I find it useful to give some context based on her testimony. She was at the police station to pay a fine because the children had overstayed the one-month period that is allowed for them. The police asked her "is this the best you could do" referring to having married a Palestinian, and also stated, "you got yourself in this position by marrying a Palestinian." She then adds that the policeman gave her "trouble." [27] Given the absence of any specific details as to what this "trouble" was, along with the fact that the Appellant herself did not find it significant enough to mention in her BOC form any discrimination in Jordan because of her husband's Palestinian origin, let alone this specific incident, I find no error in the failure of the RPD to specifically consider this incident in its decision. Preliminary conclusion [28] For all or these reasons, I find that Appellant failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution based on her gender, because she is married to a Palestinian, or based on cumulative discrimination. The RPD decision is correct. CONCLUSION [29] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. (signed) Michel Colin Michel Colin April 30, 2021 Date MC/lp 1 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145 2 Chairperson's Guideline 4. Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : MC0-06129 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