Litvinov v. Canada ( Secretary of State )
IMM-7488-93
Gibson J.
30/6/94
6 pp.
Application for judicial review of CRDD determination applicant not Convention refugee-Applicant born in Ukraine-Father Jewish-Emigrated to Israel where, under Law of Return received citizenship, generous benefits accorded to those arriving from former U.S.S.R.-Applicant securing work in Israel as massage therapist for which trained in Ukraine-Employer actually operating prostitution ring-Applicant raped by customer, employer, threatened with death if not continuing as prostitute-Came to attention of police as prostitute-Unsuccessfully seeking police protection-After great difficulty, obtaining aid of lawyer-CRDD holding not falling within gender-related persecution of particular social group-Not persecuted because Russian woman, but because applied for job as massage therapist-If receiving differential treatment from police, because viewed as common criminal, not upstanding citizen-Application allowed-Test in Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689 applied-CRDD erred in law in concluding applicant's fear of persecution not based on membership in social group-Group defined as "new citizens of Israel who are women recently arrived from elements of former Soviet Union and who are not yet well integrated into Israeli society, despite generous support offered by Israeli government, who are lured into prostitution and threatened and exploited by individuals not connected to government, and who can demonstrate indifference to their plight by front-line authorities to whom they would normally be expected to turn for protection"-Claimant need not literally approach state unless objectively unreasonable not to-Applicant approaching state, in contact with police on several occasions-CRDD statement evidence disclosed all contacts with authority related to local, municipal authorities incorrect-In failing to take account of evidence before it regarding involvement of state authority in applicant's difficulties, efforts to seek protection, CRDD failed to consider totality of evidence and erred in law.