Sure. I think I made some related remarks earlier, but I may not have been clear at the time.
Independent criteria are used, such as the refugee convention, which doesn't say if you're this religion, you're a refugee, but if you're that religion, you're not. It says if you're being persecuted based on your religion, it's one of the grounds on which you can be recognized as a refugee. Certainly there is the danger in some parts of the world for the refugee community itself if a particular ethnic group is receiving resettlement or receiving assistance or receiving something special that is separate from others simply based on some non-protection need. When we've used these independent categories, this is the way we've also gotten support from the refugees themselves. They understand it more clearly. It's because this person has this problem, or it's because the person is a single mother who has no other male protector. They understand that concept.
The other issue, of course, is the host governments whom we have to work with, which has been alluded to. There's even just the challenge of the ability to get exit permits. I won't name names, and it wasn't Canada, but when countries seemed to have policies that were focused on a particular ethnic group, one instance I can recall is that a country of asylum wouldn't give exit permits for a period of time. You have to be able to navigate a whole series of relationships. When you're able to identify and say, “This is based on independent vulnerable criteria, which we told you about from day one, that when we come in here, we're going to look for the refugees with these particular needs, because they're being detained, they're facing refoulement, they're going to be killed inside your country of asylum”, then we tend to have universal support.