MB9-29626

RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : MB9-29626 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision - Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Montréal, QC Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision November 16, 2020 Date de la décision Panel Me Bianca Eleonora Suciu Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Jean-Marie Hercules 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 INTRODUCTION [1] The appellant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, a citizen of Haiti, is appealing the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) dated October 30, 2019, rejecting her refugee protection claim under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). [2] The RPD concluded that the appellant failed to establish a prospective risk in Haiti. The appellant argues that the RPD erred in the analyses of the prospective risk and of her credibility. She is asking the Refugee Appel Division (RAD) to allow the appeal or refer the matter to the RPD for redetermination. OVERVIEW [3] The appellant states that she married XXXX XXXX, a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for the commune of XXXX, in Haiti. In late 2017, her husband began receiving death threats by telephone after issuing arrest warrants for a number of people in relation to the homicide of a commune citizen. On XXXX XXXX, 2018, a group of angry armed individuals allegedly went to her husband's office and then to their home, hurling insults at them and making threats. The appellant and her husband left their home and hid at the home of friends. [4] She left the country on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, for Canada, where she claimed refugee protection. [5] She fears returning to Haiti because of the criminals who are targeting her husband and because she is vulnerable as a woman. DETERMINATION [6] After conducting an independent analysis of all the evidence on the record, including the recording of the hearing, I am of the opinion that the RPD did not err in determining that the appellant is not a refugee or a person in need of protection. [7] The appeal is dismissed. NEW EVIDENCE [8] The appellant submitted two documents before the RAD as new evidence: 1) An affidavit by the appellant stating that she separated from her husband in late XXXX 2018, that she is no longer in contact with him or her children, and that her husband changed his Facebook profile to indicate that he is separated. 2) A photocopy of her husband's Facebook profile dated XXXX XXXX XXXX2018, that indicates that he is separated. [9] Subsection 110(4) of the IRPA sets out that the person who is the subject of the appeal may present only evidence that arose after the rejection of their claim or that was not reasonably available, or that the person could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection. To be admissible, the evidence must also be credible, relevant and new.1 [10] I am of the opinion that this evidence is relevant to the analysis of the appellant's risk as a single woman in Haiti. This evidence was not available before the claim was rejected. As a result, I accept these documents in evidence. ROLE OF THE REFUGEE APPEAL DIVISION [11] The RAD is required to conduct its own analysis of the evidence, in light of the appellant's arguments, to assess whether the RPD acted correctly with respect to every alleged error of law, error of fact, or error of mixed fact and law. While the RAD might show deference to the RPD's assessment in certain exceptional cases, the applicable standard of review in this case is correctness.2 ANALYSIS The appellant argues in general that the RPD erred by being overzealous by conducting a microscopic examination of her testimony, by attributing undue importance to items that were unimportant, and by speculating.3 For the reasons provided below, I consider these arguments unfounded. Risk relating to her husband's activities [12] The appellant argues that the RPD erred in fact by concluding that there is no prospective risk given that she has not been in contact with her ex-husband since XXXX 2018, that he already lives with another woman in the family home, that the risk of vengeance exists even if she is no longer in a relationship with her husband, and that the appellant cannot rely on her family if she returns to Haiti, as the RPD states.4 [13] I cannot retain the appellant's arguments. Although vengeance is a real phenomenon in Haitian society and that it is possible to find someone through word of mouth, I agree with the RPD that the appellant failed to demonstrate that the criminals have had an interest in her or her husband since the incident on XXXX XXXX, 2018. [14] Even though her husband is the main target by reason of his activities as a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, he still lives with their children in the same home where the incident occurred and has continued his work as a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX without any other incidents or harm since 2018. [15] I am of the opinion, similar to the RPD, that the appellant was unable to provide sufficient details to support her allegations that her husband continued to receive threats following her departure, or the videos that she states she received after coming to Canada pertaining to the demonstrations in front of her husband's home. Therefore, similar to the RPD, I do not attribute any weight to these allegations. The RPD did not err in this regard. [16] In short, I am of the opinion that the RPD correctly concluded that the appellant failed to establish on a balance of credible evidence, that if she returned to Haiti, she would be subjected to a risk to her life or to cruel and unusual treatment or punishment from the criminals who are targeting her husband. Risk relating to the fact that she is a woman [17] With respect to the appellant's gender-based fear, I agree with the RPD that she failed to establish that she has a profile that would subject her to a serious possibility of persecution in Haiti. The documentary evidence [18] Violence against women is a "widespread" problem in Haiti, and is part of a culture of discrimination. Gender-based violence can take many forms, including domestic violence, but these crimes are frequently not reported in Haiti.5 Sexual violence is used as a weapon of war, among other things, by armed gangs, which are rampant in the slums of Port-au-Prince and in disadvantaged metropolitan areas.6 Factors that increase the risk of violence toward women [19] According to the evidence, the risk of violence increases considerably for women living in precarious conditions, without proper housing, in areas of dire poverty, such as camps of displaced persons or the slums where criminality is pervasive.7 Statistics [20] While it is difficult to obtain reliable statistics, according to the evidence, "one in eight women (12%) reported that they have experienced sexual violence at some point in their life; during the last 12 months, this percentage has been 5%..."8 Furthermore, 29% of Haitian women have experienced physical violence since the age of 15.9 Sexual violence against women is higher in urban areas and, "it affects women who are separated (21 percent) or in non-cohabiting relationships (18 percent) more than those who are in a relationship (15 percent) or who are single (7 percent)."10 [21] Sexual violence decreases with an increased level of education (15% among women with no education compared with 11% among those who have completed high school).11 The rates for physical violence indicate that 42% of women are separated or in non-cohabitating relationships, 30% are in cohabitating relationships and 24 percent are single.12 Perpetrators of violence [22] Data on the perpetrators of sexual violence indicates that: ...in 58 percent of cases, the perpetrator of the violence is the victim's current husband or partner, and in 37 percent of cases, it is the former husband or partner; among victims who are single, in 34 percent of cases it is a boyfriend, in 20 percent of cases it is a friend of the family and in 17 percent of cases it is an unknown individual...13 Victims by age [23] According to Doctors Without Borders, half of sexual violence victims are minors and 77% of victims treated at the NGO clinic between May 2015 and March 2017 were youths under the age of 25. The Kay Fanm NGO states that, "89% of sexual violence is perpetrated against girls and 11% against women..."14 Appellant's profile [24] The appellant is a 43-year-old woman. She has two children who are supported by their father in Haiti. She is not alleging that she has to support them financially. She has a high school education, a university degree in XXXX and has completed one year of XXXX XXXX. She has worked as a XXXX and XXXX XXXX for a number of years. [25] The documentary evidence shows that women are disadvantaged in the labour market and in terms of access to property. However, 40.6% of households are headed by women.15 I consider that the appellant, who is university-educated and has work experience, would find herself in a well-paid position in Haiti. [26] Given the new evidence on appeal, I accept the appellant's allegations that she is no longer in a relationship with her husband and that she would return to Haiti as a single woman. [27] However, although the appellant is single and has testified that her family members do not have stable work, I am of the opinion that she failed to demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that she would be unable to rely on the support of her mother, her two sisters and her two brothers in terms of temporary housing, or that she would be unable to find housing and a job and restart her life in Haiti. [28] As a result, I consider that the appellant would not be subjected to a profoundly precarious situation of dire poverty, without housing, or have to live in a slum or with an abusive spouse if she returned to Haiti, factors that considerably increase the risk of being subjected to gender-based violence. Furthermore, the appellant is not part of the group of young women who are the most frequently targeted by sexual violence. [29] I am of the opinion that the RPD correctly considered the appellant's testimony and her profile in light of the objective evidence, and did not rely on conjecture in coming to its conclusion. [30] In light of the above, I conclude that the appellant failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution by reason of being a woman in Haiti. CONCLUSION [31] Under subsection 111(1) of the IRPA, I confirm the RPD's determination that the appellant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, failed to establish that she is a refugee or a person in need of protection under sections 96 or 97 of the IRPA. [32] The appeal is dismissed. (signed) Bianca E. Suciu Me Bianca Eleonora Suciu November 16, 2020 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, [2016] 4 FCR 230, 2016 FCA 96. 2 Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145, at paras. 90-91; Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93, at paras. 70-74. 3 P-2, Appellant's record, appellant's memorandum, at paras. 11-14. 4 P-2, Appellant's record, appellant's memorandum, at paras. 6, 10, 14 and 18. 5 SAR-1, National Documentation Package (NDP) on Haiti (September 1, 2020), Tab 5.3: Violence, including sexual violence, against women; state protection and support services (2017-June 2019) Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) June 14, 2019. HTI106291.FE, at pp. 1 and 8; Tab 5.12: Haïti : Les violences faites aux femmes [Haiti: Violence against women]. France. French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons. January 9, 2017, at pp. 5-6. 6 Ibid. NDP on Haiti, Tab 5.3, at p. 3. 7 SAR-1, NPD on Haiti (September 1, 2020), Tab 5.12: Haïti : Les violences faites aux femmes. France. French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons. January 9, 2017, at p. 6; Tab 7.1: The security situation, including crime and kidnappings; measures taken by the government and other stakeholders to fight crime (2014-June 2018), IRB, June 19, 2018, at pp. 6-7. 8 Supra, endnote 4, NDP on Haiti, Tab 5.3, at p. 3. 9 Ibid. at p. 2. 10 Ibid. at p. 3. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid, at p. 2. 13 Ibid. at pp. 3-4. 14 Ibid. at pp. 4-5. 15 SAR-1, NDP on Haiti (September 1, 2020), Tab 5.4: The situation of women who live alone, including those who are not in precarious situations; whether they can access employment and housing; support services available to them (2017-June 2020). IRB. August 17, 2020. HTI200278.E. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : MB9-29626 RAD.25.02 (January 2020) Disponible en français 8 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