MC2-07482

RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MC2-07482 MC2-07483 / MC2-07484 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Persons who are the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Date of decision September 8, 2022 Date de la décision Panel Me Martine Durocher Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subject of the appeal Me Francisco Alejandro Saenz Garay Conseil des personnes en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS AND DECISION OVERVIEW [1] I dismiss the appeal. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (appellant), and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (associate appellants) are citizens of Venezuela and Italy. They are appealing the against the negative decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) concerning them. [2] The RPD issued a positive decision with regard to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the appellant's spouse, who is a holder of Venezuelan nationality and does not benefit from Italian nationality. Ms. XXXX was declared a Convention refugee, as the RPD concluded that she would face a serious possibility of persecution on the basis of her political opinion, if she were to return to her country of origin. [3] The RPD found that the appellants had failed to establish that they would face a serious possibility of persecution should they return to Italy. The determinative issues before the RPD were whether the discrimination in Italy reached the level of persecution and state protection. The issues remain the same before the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD). DETERMINATION [4] I dismiss the appeal. The RPD was correct to conclude that the appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection. ANALYSIS [5] My role is to look at all the evidence, including the recording of the hearing, and decide if the RPD's decision is correct.1 [6] The RPD acknowledged the problems of racism, xenophobia and intolerance faced by Italy, but identified objective evidence that the Italian authorities have addressed these problems through a national action plan to fight social discrimination and that Italy therefore provides adequate protection to individuals within the country. The RPD concluded that, based on their age, the associate appellants would be part of the general population with an unemployment rate of 9.8%, and therefore that they would not face discrimination regarding employment. [7] According to the appellants, the RPD erred in considering only one experience of discrimination reported by the associate appellant during his six-month stay in Italy. The appellants argue that they reported more than one experience of discrimination in Italy, contrary to what had been considered by the RPD, and that the analysis should also take into account the objective evidence describing [translation] "the reality of the country." The appellants refer to paragraphs 11 and 13 of Tab 2.2, which was only partially reviewed by the RPD in its reasons, on the difficulties that Italy faces in implementing the national plan against racism. They cite Tab 2.4, stating that in 2019, 726 racial crimes were reported by the authorities, including 234 incidents of violence, 147 acts of desecration of graves and 93 acts of physical violence. They also state that the Italian elected officials blame immigrants for the pandemic and employ anti-immigration rhetoric. The appellants are of the view that the RPD was wrong to analyze the allegations of associate appellant XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (Mr. XXXX XXXX) regarding difficulties finding employment in Italy in isolation from the rest of the evidence available on the same subject. Lastly, they state that the RPD was silent with regard to the health of appellant Mr. XXXX XXXX, set out in the XXXX report submitted into evidence, which concerns the reasonability and viability of all of the appellants settling in Italy. [8] Listening to the hearing revealed that Mr. XXXX XXXX described just one incident that could be considered discriminatory, when someone allegedly stated that, despite his Italian passport, he was still a foreigner from Venezuela.2 Further, despite the vexatious and discriminatory nature of this type of remark, it is not criminal and would not be subject to an intervention by the authorities, in my opinion. The other discriminatory experiences related by the appellants are very general and result from incidents experienced by other individuals of Venezuelan origin who have been poorly received in Italy and elsewhere in Europe.3 [9] As noted by the RPD, the documentary evidence shows that a discriminatory environment and interethnic tension prevail in Italy.4 I note that the following definition was used to paint a picture of persecution within the meaning of the Convention, echoing the words of the Court of Appeal in Rajudeen: To harass or afflict with repeated acts of cruelty or annoyance; to afflict persistently, to afflict or punish because of particular opinions or adherence to a particular creed or mode of worship. A particular course or period of systematic infliction of punishment directed against those holding a particular (religious belief); persistent injury or annoyance from any source.5 [10] In Ward, the Supreme Court adopted this passage from The Law of Refugee Status by James C. Hathaway: "'Persecution,' for example, undefined in the Convention, has been ascribed the meaning of 'sustained or systemic violation of basic human rights demonstrative of a failure of state protection.'"6 [11] I note that the National Documentation Package on Italy (NDP) states that the Italian judicial system is implementing fundamental guaranteed rights for all nationals.7 These fundamental rights, including that of integrity and security, in addition to economic rights, such as employment. [12] While state protection against discriminatory and xenophobic acts is not perfect, I am of the view that in the circumstances, the RPD correctly concluded that the protection provided by the Italian state was adequate. Even though the implementation of the action plan contains some gaps, the objective evidence states that this plan still exists.8 I note that the crimes set out in Tab 2.1 of the NDP, as alleged by the appellants, concern in particular individuals of Roma origin, and not Venezuelans or persons from Latin America. The same report states that the authorities in Foggia intervened to punish the individuals responsible for violence against persons from Latin America, highlighting the availability of state protection with regard to these heinous violent acts.9 [13] In particular, I note that the principal appellant never lived in Italy and that his fears stem mainly from hearsay from the Venezuelan community, which had not been well received in Italy.10 He testified also that he did not want to settle there, since he does not speak Italian and has no family there.11 I am of the view that these reasons are insufficient to support the allegation according to which the appellants' rights would be systematically violated or that they would suffer persistent hardships there owing to their Venezuelan nationality. Language skills or the presence of family members are certainly useful assets for relocation, but they are irrelevant in the assessment of a serious possibility of persecution. [14] Contrary to the appellants' claims, I am of the opinion that the RPD correctly analyzed all of the evidence available, including the relevant objective evidence in the NDP regarding the possibility of employment for the associate appellants, taking into consideration Tab 1.3 of the NDP. The appellants did not indicate what objective evidence should have been expressly considered by the RPD, failing which the conclusion is erroneous. [15] Regarding the XXXX report of Mr. XXXX XXXX, I note that he suffered from serious problems with generalized XXXX and that he was able to benefit from ongoing XXXX follow-up in this regard. However, the appellants did not establish that Italy could not provide similar XXXX services or that these services could not be provided remotely online, should he return to his country of nationality. [16] In any event, I note that the claim for refugee protection of the principal appellant's spouse was allowed, therefore she will be able to include, at the very least, her spouse in her application for permanent residence. As previously explained by the Federal Court in Chavez: Fortunately, the solution to this problem can be found in subsection 176(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 [IRP Regulations]. It provides that "An applicant may include in their application to remain in Canada as a permanent resident any of their family members." Therefore, when the applicant's mother files an application for permanent residence (if she has not already done so), she will certainly include the applicant as a family member.12 (emphasis added) [17] Therefore, I am of the view that the RPD correctly concluded that the appellants did not discharge their burden of establishing that they would face a serious possibility of persecution or, on the basis of probabilities, a risk as defined in section 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act should they relocate to Italy. In particular, I am of the opinion that they did not establish that they would not benefit from adequate state protection. CONCLUSION [18] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the RPD's determination according to which the appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection. (signed) Me Martine Durocher Me Martine Durocher September 8, 2022 Date IRb IRB translation Original language: French 1 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145. 2 Recording of the hearing, third recording, between 10 and 15 minutes. 3 Hearing, second recording, at approximately 5 minutes. 4 National Documentation Package, Italy, May 31, 2022, Tab 2.2: ?Compilation on Italy. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. August 21, 2019. A/HRC/WG.6/34/ITA/2; National Documentation Package, Italy, May 31, 2022, Tab 2.4: ?Italy. World Report 2021: Events of 2020. Human Rights Watch. January 2021. 5 Rajudeen v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1984), 55 N.R. 129 (FCA). 6 Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, 1993 CanLII 105 (CSS), [1993] 2 SCR 689. 7 National Documentation Package, Italy, May 31, 2022, Tab 1.4: Common core document forming part of the reports of States parties: Italy. Italy. July 25, 2016. HRI/CORE/ITA/2016. 8 National Documentation Package, Italy, May 31, 2022, Tab 2.2: ?Compilation on Italy. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. 9 National Documentation Package, Italy, May 31, 2022, Tab 2.1: Italy. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2021. United States. Department of State. April 12, 2022. 10 Hearing, second recording, between 4 and 8 minutes. 11 Ibid. 12 Chavez Carrillo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 1228 (CanLII), in para 18. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MC2-07482 MC2-07483 / MC2-07484 RAD.25.02 (August 20, 2021) Disponsible 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 (August 20, 2021) Disponible en français