I'm going to speak French.
Mr. Chair, members of the committee, I'd like to tell you the story of an individual who, thanks to the current system, was granted the protection they had claimed and to which they were entitled as a refugee.
In 2006, this individual left their country of origin, Saudi Arabia, to pursue post-secondary education in the United States. Meanwhile, in Saudi Arabia, the individual's father, a public personality recognized by Amnesty International as a prisoner of conscience, was arrested and imprisoned twice. He was accused of criticizing discriminatory laws and policies and calling for their reform.
The individual began a social media campaign on Facebook calling for freedom of religion and freedom of expression and, ultimately, their father's release. A family member who was also involved in the campaign was arrested shortly thereafter and forced to make an incriminating confession.
On that basis, the individual decided to seek asylum in the U.S. for themselves and their family. Their claim was denied despite the fact that Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International had publicly criticized the arrests of their family members.
Fearing deportation with their family members to Saudi Arabia, where they would have faced near-certain persecution, the individual decided to cross the border to Canada irregularly. After examining the individual's claim, the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada determined that the individual should receive protection here, in Canada, or they would be at risk of persecution in their country of origin. The claim for refugee protection that had been rejected by an official in the U.S. was granted by the independent board.
Amnesty International therefore encourages the committee to consider the procedural challenges this individual would've faced had they not had the opportunity to demonstrate their eligibility before an independent board.