TB9-30825

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-30825 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX) Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision April 26, 2021 Date de la décision Panel L. Krajcovic Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Marko Vitorovich 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 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (Appellant) is a citizen of Kuwait. She appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejecting her claim for refugee protection. DECISION [2] The appeal is allowed. I substitute my own decision that the Appellant is a Convention refugee. BACKGROUND [3] The Appellant's allegations are as follows. The Appellant fears that her family in Kuwait will kill her because she eloped and married an Iraqi Shia. The Appellant claims to be from a strict Sunni Muslim family. In 2012, the Appellant met her future husband, an Iraqi Shia who is a Canadian citizen online and began a secret relationship with him. In XXXX 2013, he travelled to Kuwait. They saw each other at a mall from afar, but only communicated by text message because the Appellant was accompanied by her family. [4] In XXXX 2013, the Appellant's future husband returned to Kuwait and the couple agreed to marry. The Appellant secretly gave him her passport to obtain a visa for her. He booked flights for them and they arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2013. One of the Appellant's brothers visited her in Canada and tried to convince her to return to Kuwait. [5] The Appellant and her husband married in a mosque after they arrived in Canada. They were legally married on XXXX XXXX, 2016. They now have three children together. The Appellant's husband applied to sponsor the Appellant in 2016, after his divorce from his previous wife, but the sponsorship application was refused based on his default of the sponsorship of his previous wife. After the sponsorship application was refused, the Appellant filed a refugee claim. [6] On September 18, 2019, the RPD heard the Appellant's refugee claim. On October 16, 2019, the RPD rejected the claim on the basis of a lack of credibility. The Appellant submits that the RPD erred in its credibility assessment and failed to consider the risk to the Appellant in Kuwait because she is Sunni and married to an Iraqi Shia. Documents submitted in response to Member's directions [7] On March 8, 2021, the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) gave the Appellant notice of a credibility issue that was not addressed in the RPD decision or at the hearing and provided an opportunity to explain.1 The RAD noted that the Appellant husband's passport did not indicate that he was in Kuwait at the time that the Appellant allegedly provided her passport to him and he mailed the application for a visitor's visa to Abu Dhabi. [8] On March 22, 2021, the Appellant provided a statement, a copy of his passport, an itinerary of his trip to Kuwait, a reservation confirmation, a receipt and waybill.2 The Appellant submits that a few pages of her husband's passport were inadvertently not submitted to the RPD at the time of the hearing. [9] According to the law,3 I can only accept evidence that: i. arose after the RPD decision; or ii. was not reasonably available at the time of the decision; or iii. that the Appellant could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to bring to the RPD before the decision. [10] If the evidence meets one or more of these requirements, I must decide if the evidence is new, credible and relevant before I can accept it.4 [11] I find that the copy of the husband's passport does not meet any of the legislative requirements for new evidence. The passport and the stamps contained in it arose prior to the RPD decision, they were reasonably available to the Appellant and she could reasonably have been expected to have brought them to the RPD before the decision. I find the Appellant's inadvertence in not providing copies of every page of her husband's passport that contained stamps fails to meet any of the legislative requirements and is trying to repair a deficient RPD record, which is not the purpose of new evidence on appeal. As a result, the copy of the additional passport pages is not admitted into evidence. [12] I find that the remaining documents, namely the statement, flight itinerary, reservation confirmation, receipt and waybill meet the legislative requirements for new evidence. As the issue of the Appellant's husband being in Kuwait at the time in question was only raised in the RAD Member's directions, I accept that the Appellant could not reasonably have been expected to have brought it to the RPD before the decision was rendered. I find that these documents meet the jurisprudential requirements for new evidence as they are new, relevant and credible for purposes of admissibility. They are admitted into evidence. Request for an oral hearing denied [13] The Appellant requests an oral hearing. [14] The RAD may hold a hearing if, in its opinion, there is documentary evidence referred to in subsection 110(3) that raises a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the person who is the subject of the appeal, is central to the decision with respect to the refugee protection claim, and, if accepted, would justify allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claim.5 [15] As the admissible new evidence does not raise a serious issue with respect to the Appellant's credibility and would not justify allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claim, no hearing can be held in accordance with subsection 110(6) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). ROLE OF THE RAD [16] The RAD applies a standard of correctness for questions of fact, mixed fact and law, and law. I may defer to the RPD in assessing findings involving the credibility of oral testimony if I find that it had a meaningful advantage in the circumstances.6 In this case, I find that the RPD did not have a meaningful advantage. GENDER GUIDELINE [17] In deciding this appeal, I have considered the Chairperson's Gender Guideline.7 ANALYSIS The RPD erred in finding that there were material inconsistencies in the Appellant's evidence [18] The RPD found the Appellant's testimony not credible based on contradictions in her evidence. The RPD found that the Appellant's evidence was inconsistent regarding whether she maintained contact with her family after she left Kuwait, her brother's visit to Canada and who convinced her to visit her mother in Egypt. The RPD member did not accept the Appellant's explanations and drew negative credibility inferences. [19] The Appellant submits that her testimony should have been accepted as credible as there were no substantive or material contradictions, inconsistencies or implausibilities regarding the primary facts of the claim that were not explained. [20] I agree with the Appellant's submissions and find that the RPD erred in determining that the Appellant was not credible for the reasons provided. [21] I find that the RPD erred in determining that the Appellant's testimony was inconsistent with her Basis of Claim (BOC) narrative regarding whether she maintained contact with her family after she left Kuwait. The RPD reasons state there were "[c]ontradictions between your oral and written testimony at paragraph 16. You wrote that you maintained contact with your sister. Orally you said that when you escaped Kuwait you had no communication with anyone."8 [22] I have reviewed the transcript as part of my independent assessment. At the hearing, the Appellant testified that she never told anyone about her relationship with her husband.9 Later in the hearing, the RPD member referred to the Appellant testifying that, when she left Kuwait, no one knew where she was going, which was inconsistent with her narrative which states that she maintained contact with her sister.10 I fail to see how the Appellant's statement that no one knew where she was going when she left Kuwait is inconsistent with her statement that she maintained contact with her sister. Maintaining contact with her sister does not mean that, at the time she left Kuwait, the Appellant told her sister about the relationship or that she was going to Canada. [23] The RPD member then pointed out that the Appellant stated in her BOC narrative that she maintained contact with her sister, then her brother came to visit her in Canada then her mother contacted her. The RPD member then states that there is a slight difference between what she wrote and the timeline she provided in her testimony.11 Once again, I find the inconsistency to be unclear. I fail to see how the Appellant's evidence was inconsistent and find that the RPD erred in drawing an adverse inference. I set this finding aside. [24] I find that the RPD erred in finding the Appellant's testimony inconsistent regarding the events that transpired when her brother visited her in Canada. The RPD reasons state: The whole testimony regarding your brother's visit is full of contradictions. You never mentioned in your narrative that your brother asked you to go to Egypt. You wrote that he was very upset and wanted to take you to Kuwait. Orally you said that he convinced you to go to Egypt to visit your sick mother.12 ... With regard to your brother's visit you kept contradicting yourself and evolving your testimony with regard to how he found you, how he knew to recognize your husband, how you met (all in the record).13 [25] First, I note that the Appellant's brother asking her to go to Egypt is not material to the claim. As a result, although unclear, if the RPD drew an adverse inference from the Appellant omitting this from her BOC narrative, I find that it was in error. I have reviewed the transcript as part of my independent assessment. At the hearing, the RPD member states that the Appellant testified at one point that she saw her brother and that he went to her apartment and at another point testified that he came and knocked at the door, which were inconsistent with one another.14 I find that, if there is an inconsistency in the Appellant's testimony at all, it is not significant and should not be the basis of an adverse credibility finding. I set this finding aside. [26] Finally, I agree with the Appellant that the question of who convinced her to visit her mother in Egypt, is not material to the claim and should not form the basis of an adverse credibility finding. I set this finding aside. The RPD erred in its application of specialized knowledge and in finding the circumstances of the Appellant's education implausible [27] The RPD member relied on her specialized knowledge at the hearing and in her reasons. The RPD member found the circumstances of the Appellant's education implausible. The RPD states: I also have issues with your studies, and not as counsel stated because I believe that Muslims do not educate their women. On the contrary, I have issues with the fact that you were presenting yourself as living in a very traditional family, but you were able to go study 1.5 hours away in a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX) male oriented according to your testimony. You were asked why you would choose this field of studies, far away from home if you were not allowed to work. I also have concerns with the fact that you testified that you didn't know where your school was located and to respond to my concerns you said that your mom used to accompany you to school every day for two years 1.5 hours away from your hometown and wait at the library until you were done your classes.15 [28] The Appellant submits that the RPD's concerns regarding how she got to school and that her family sent her to school do not undermine the central aspect of the claim. The Appellant submits that her education does not undermine that her family was incredibly conservative. The Appellant refers to the cultural misconception that Islam prohibits the education of women and that religious families often send their daughters to school without any expectation that they will ever work. The Appellant submits that she refuted the RPD's perception regarding women in Kuwait by explaining that her own family and region is much more conservative than other families and which is supported by country conditions evidence which the RPD failed to address. [29] The Appellant submits that the RPD member only vaguely indicated that she had specialized knowledge based on her work experience in the reasons and that such information was not provided at the hearing. The Appellant submits that the RPD member did not identify any specific documents upon which her knowledge was based. The Appellant refers to Federal Court jurisprudence for the proposition that an RPD member planning to use specialized knowledge to impugn a claimant's credibility must place on the record sufficient detail of his or her knowledge so as to allow it to be questioned, that the knowledge must be qualifiable and verifiable, and that specialized knowledge cannot be based on personal experiences and standards of expected behaviour. The Appellant submits that the RPD improperly used what she called specialized knowledge to reverse the presumption of truth. The Appellant submits that the Member's comments at the hearing make it clear that the RPD did not provide the Appellant the presumption of truth from the very outset of the hearing. [30] The Appellant submits that the RPD member made findings that were not grounded in a reliable and verifiable evidentiary base. The Appellant refers to Federal Court jurisprudence that states credibility findings can be made on the plausibility of assertions and common sense but that they should provide a reliable and verifiable evidentiary base against which the plausibility of the Appellant's evidence might be judged, otherwise they are unfounded speculation. The Appellant submits that, despite claiming specialized knowledge, the RPD did not identify any specific documents upon which the knowledge was based which is not in accordance with jurisprudence or Rule 18 and leads to the conclusion that the findings are premised on speculation and conjecture and not made with proper consideration for diverse family situations found in Kuwait. [31] The Appellant requests that the RAD consider the Gender Guidelines and that the evidence be viewed from the Appellant's perspective, namely being from a very conservative family, rather than the RPD member's perspective of Kuwait as a forward-thinking, relatively open-minded society with regard to women. [32] I agree with the Appellant's submission that, at the hearing, the RPD member erred in not providing the basis of her specialized knowledge. At the hearing, the RPD member states: I also want to say for the record that I have specialized knowledge from the region. I know - I'm familiar with country conditions of Kuwait and Arabic and Muslim culture in general, okay? So, I want you to keep that in mind when you answer my questions, okay? So just relax and tell me your story, okay?16 [33] The RPD member's statement does not provide the source of her knowledge or sufficient detail to make it sufficiently qualifiable and verifiable to allow the Appellant to question it. I find that the RPD erred in her use of specialized knowledge at the hearing. [34] In her reasons, the RPD member provides the basis for her specialized knowledge, where she states: Contrary to what counsel for the claimant was implying in her written submissions, I do have specialized knowledge based on my work experience as a board member on gender cases from the Middle East. I wanted the claimant to feel comfortable and explained that I know about the situation of women in Kuwait and there was no need to explain the cultural norms further. My specialized knowledge as applied in this case derives from my understanding of the country conditions through hearings and research in the NDP. My decision rests primarily on the numerous contradictions and lack of evidence as shown in my reasons below.17 [35] I agree with the Appellant's submission that some of the RPD's comments suggest that she did not grant the Appellant the presumption of truth. At one point the RPD states "[p]lease, I told you, be straightforward. I'm familiar with the region, so don't give me the, "I don't know; I was supposed to be driven." Just be straightforward, okay?"18 At another point, she states: I'm going to ask for a quick on the record and its nothing, but I was kind of expecting that - see, I understand the claimant's story and I'm sympathetic. I want you to talk to her because I'm familiar with the Middle East very well. I don't know, sometimes it's a good thing, it can be a good thing because I can understand they don't have to explain. Sometimes maybe its not that good because I - so I want you to talk to her and explain that she doesn't need to embellish and give me the stereotype of the Arab Muslim woman, so we can go to the heart of the story, you know, very quickly. ...19 [36] It appears from the above-noted excerpts that the RPD member was having difficulty reconciling the Appellant's conservative family background with the circumstances of her education. While I too have some difficulty reconciling these issues, the Appellant explained that, despite her family's traditional beliefs, her mother wanted her to be educated as she herself was not. I agree with the Appellant's submission that the RPD member's plausibility finding regarding her education fails to consider the diverse family situations in Kuwait. In Valtchev, the Federal Court states that "plausibility findings should be made only in the clearest of cases, i.e., if the facts presented are outside the realm of what could reasonably be expected, or where the documentary evidence demonstrates that the events could not have happened in the manner asserted by the claimant."20 I accept that the circumstances of the Appellant's education are not outside the realm of what could reasonably be expected and therefore that this is not one of the clearest of cases. As a result, I find that this is an impermissible plausibility finding and I set it aside. The RPD misconstrued the Appellant's testimony regarding the visa [37] The RPD found it implausible that the Appellant obtained a visa in Kuwait without anyone's knowledge by giving documents to her future husband whom she had not met in person. The RPD member found the Appellant's testimony was initially vague, then indicated that she was not sure how the application was made, then, after she was asked how she signed the application, indicated that her husband came at night and that she passed the documents under the door. [38] The Appellant submits that the RPD made findings that were not grounded in a reliable and verifiable evidentiary base. The Appellant refers to Federal Court jurisprudence stating that credibility findings can be made on the plausibility of assertions and common sense but that they should provide a reliable and verifiable evidentiary base against which the plausibility of the Appellant's evidence might be judged, otherwise they are unfounded speculation. [39] I find that the RPD member misconstrued the Appellant's testimony. I have reviewed the transcript as part of my independent assessment. Contrary to the RPD's findings, I fail to see how the Appellant was vague or unsure regarding the visa application. The Appellant testified that she signed papers for her husband to apply for the visa on her behalf, that he mailed the application to Abu Dhabi and that he received the passport with the visa.21 However, I agree with the RPD's concern regarding the plausibility of the Appellant not having met her husband in person at this time. [40] As outlined above, in my review of the RPD record, a credibility concern arose regarding the circumstances of the Appellant's application for a Canadian visa. At the hearing, the Appellant testified that her husband travelled to Kuwait to see her in XXXX 2013, that he returned to Kuwait two months later and that, during this second trip, she gave him her passport and he applied for a Canadian visa on her behalf by mailing the application to Abu Dhabi.22 The Appellant's BOC narrative refers to her husband returning to Kuwait in XXXX 2013.23 The Appellant's husband's passport contains a stamp indicating that he entered Kuwait on XXXX XXXX, 2013. However, the Global Case Management System notes indicate that the Appellant's visa application was submitted on XXXX XXXX, 2013, seemingly prior to the Appellant's husband's arrival in Kuwait. [41] As a result of the foregoing, I had concerns that the Appellant's husband's passport did not indicate that he was in Kuwait at the time of the visa application. As this concern was not put to the Appellant at the hearing nor referred to in the RPD's reasons, as outlined above, the RAD provided notice of the concern to the Appellant, through counsel, and an opportunity to respond. In response, the Appellant provided a flight itinerary which indicates that her husband left Canada for Kuwait on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2013 and was scheduled to arrive late on XXXX XXXX, 2013.24 The waybill indicates that the Appellant's husband sent documents to the Canadian Embassy in Abu Dhabi on XXXX XXXX, 2013.25 I find that these documents establish that the Appellant's husband was in Kuwait at the time that the Appellant claims to have provided her passport to him and when he applied for her Canadian visa. The RPD erred in drawing an adverse inference from a lack of corroborative evidence [42] The RPD drew a negative credibility inference from the Appellant's failure to provide corroborating documentary evidence. The RPD noted that there is no legal requirement to provide independent evidence if a claimant's account is uncontradicted or credible and that Rule 11 of the Refugee Protection Division Rules states that the failure to produce documents that one would normally expect may be a relevant consideration in assessing a claimant's credibility. [43] The RPD found that the Appellant failed to provide evidence regarding the marriage at the mosque and noted that this would have helped determine the date of marriage, the religious denomination and who the witnesses were. The RPD also found that the Appellant failed to provide evidence from the brother who visited her in Canada regarding her fear of persecution at the hands of her other siblings. [44] As a result of my finding that the RPD erred in its credibility findings, as outlined above, I find that it was an error to draw an adverse inference from a lack of corroborative evidence. As a result, I set this finding aside. The Appellant established her claim on a balance of probabilities [45] Sworn testimony is presumed to be true unless there are valid reasons to doubt it.26 Although I have some concerns regarding the Appellant's credibility, these concerns relate to her delay in claiming refugee protection and implausibility concerns related to the Appellant not meeting her husband in person at the time of the visa application. I find these concerns insufficient to rebut the presumption of truth and note that the balance of probabilities standard allows room for some doubt. I find that the Appellant has established, on a balance of probabilities, the allegations that form the basis of her claim. Adequate state protection is not available to the Appellant in Kuwait [46] Absent a complete breakdown, there is a presumption that states are capable of protecting their citizens. This presumption can be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence.27 The onus is on the refugee claimant to approach the state for protection in situations where state protection might be reasonably forthcoming.28 [47] I have considered whether adequate state protection is available to the Appellant in Kuwait. I have reviewed the country condition evidence regarding state protection for victims of domestic violence in Kuwait. The 2019 United States Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices states: Violence against women continued to be a problem. ... There were reports alleging that some police stations did not take seriously reports by both citizens and noncitizens of rape and domestic violence. ... Although the government does not regularly publish statistics on violence against women, domestic violence cases against women were regularly reported by local NGOs. While there is no specific domestic violence law, punishments ranged between six months in jail to the death penalty, based on other sections of the criminal code. Service providers observed that domestic violence was significantly underreported to authorities. Women's rights activists documented numerous stories of citizen and migrant women seeking help to leave an abusive situation who faced obstacles because no shelters for victims of domestic violence existed. The authorities claimed to have opened a shelter for victims of domestic abuse, but activists familiar with the facility have said it was only an empty building. Advocates reported that women who reach out to police rarely get help because officers were not adequately trained to deal with domestic violence cases. Victims were generally sent back to their male guardians, who in some instances were also their abusers. The government did not publish statistics on violence against women. A November survey by the Kuwait Society for Human Rights found that 54 percent of women in Kuwait of all nationalities had experienced violence in their life.29 [48] An Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report states the following: There is an absence of comprehensive legal protection against gender-based violence in Kuwait. ... Kuwait has partially addressed domestic violence, but the practice remains widespread and underreported. General provisions in the Criminal Code prohibit domestic violence but there are no laws criminalizing all forms of domestic and sexual violence against women. ... In 2015, a law establishing family courts set up a centre to deal with domestic violence cases, but the centre focused on reconciliation rather than protection for domestic violence survivors. In the same year, a draft bill on domestic violence was rejected. Society remains silent on the issue of domestic violence against women and cases are rarely reported to the police, even though health centres and counselling services regularly received cases of domestic violence. [footnotes omitted] 30 [49] I find the Appellant's testimony regarding what she thought would happen if she approached authorities in Kuwait for assistance consistent with the country conditions evidence. The Appellant testified that, if she asked for protection, she believed that the authorities would try to get the family to reach a settlement, but that she knew that this would not happen and that her family would kill her.31 [50] After reviewing the country conditions evidence regarding protection for victims of domestic violence, I find that adequate state protection would not be reasonably forthcoming to her in Kuwait. I find that the presumption of state protection has been rebutted and that adequate state protection is not available to the Appellant in Kuwait. The Appellant does not have an internal flight alternative (IFA) in Kuwait [51] I have considered whether the Appellant has a viable IFA in Kuwait. [52] I find that the Appellant's brothers have the means and motivation to find the Appellant throughout Kuwait. With respect to the means to find the Appellant, I note the small size of Kuwait, the large size of the Appellant's family and that the Appellant's brother was able to locate the Appellant in Canada. I also note that the Appellant maintains contact with her sister. I find that it would be unreasonable to expect the Appellant to hide her location in Kuwait from this sister. I also find that the Appellant's sister knowing her location in Kuwait increases the likelihood that her brothers could find her. [53] With respect to motivation, the Appellant has gone against the traditions of her very conservative Sunni family and married someone whom they did not approve of and who is Shia Muslim. As noted above, one of the Appellant's brothers travelled to Canada to find her. As a result of the foregoing, I find that the Appellant does not have a viable IFA in Kuwait. As I have found that the Appellant would not be safe throughout Kuwait, it is not necessary to consider the reasonableness of the IFA. CONCLUSION [54] The appeal is allowed. I substitute my own decision that the Appellant is a Convention refugee pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(b) of the IRPA. (signed) L. Krajcovic L. Krajcovic April 26, 2021 Date 1 Exhibit RAD-1, Member's Directions, March 8, 2021. 2 Exhibit P-3, Response to Member's Directions, March 22, 2021. 3 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), S.C. 2001, c. 27, at s. 110(4). 4 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, 2016 FCA 96 (CanLII), [2016] 4 FCR 230; Raza v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FCA 385 (CanLII). 5 IRPA, supra, endnote 3, at s. 110(6). 6 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93 (CanLII), [2016] 4 FCR 157, at paras. 70, 103. 7 Chairperson Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution: Guideline Issued by the Chairperson Pursuant to Section 65(3) of the Immigration Act, IRB, Ottawa, Effective date: November 13, 1996. 8 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, at p. 6, para. 13. 9 Transcript of September 18, 2019 RPD Hearing, at p. 19. 10 Ibid., at pp. 31-32. 11 Ibid., at p. 32. 12 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, at p. 6, para. 14. 13 Ibid., at p. 6, para. 16. 14 Transcript of September 18, 2019 RPD Hearing, at p. 20. 15 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, at p. 7, paras. 23-24. 16 Transcript of September 18, 2019 RPD Hearing, at p. 5. 17 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Reasons, at pp. 4-5, para. 5. 18 Transcript of September 18, 2019 RPD Hearing, at p. 8. 19 Ibid., at p. 10. 20 Valtchev v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 776 (CanLII), at para. 7. 21 Transcript of September 18, 2019 RPD Hearing, at pp. 15-16. 22 Ibid., at pp. 13-16. 23 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 2, at p. 24, para. 11. 24 Exhibit P-3, Response to Member's Directions, March 22, 2021, at p. 16. 25 Ibid., at p. 19. 26 Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1980] 2 FC 302 (CA). 27 Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, 1993 CanLII 105 (SCC), [1993] 2 SCR 689. 28 Ibid. 29 National Documentation Package (NDP) for Kuwait (October 30, 2020), item 2.1: ?Kuwait. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2019, United States: Department of State, 11 March 2020, at p. 25. 30 NDP for Kuwait (October 30, 2020), item 5.2: ?Kuwait. Social Institutions and Gender Index 2019, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 7 December 2018, at p. 4. 31 Transcript of September 18, 2019 RPD Hearing, at p. 24. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-30825 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