2019 RLLR 30

Citation: 2019 RLLR 30
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: October 28, 2019
Panel: Zahra Kaderali
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Brian Ibrahim Cintosun
Country: Turkey
RPD Number: TB9-06422
ATIP Number: A-2021-01124
ATIP Pages: 000175-000178


[1]       MEMBER: I’ve considered your testimony and the other evidence in the case and I’m ready to render my decision orally.

[2]       The claimant, [XXX], claims refugee protection pursuant to s. 96 ands. 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Allegations

[3]       The claimant fears return to Turkey on the grounds of his involvement with the Hizmet or Gulen Movement. He indicates that his family, including his mother and father, are Hizmet members and that his brother and nephew have been granted protection in Canada.

[4]       The claimant indicates that after the coup attempt took place in July 2016, Hizmet media was closed, Hizmet schools were closed and Hizmet-affiliated business were seized. He indicates that he and his family were concerned, as people affiliated with the Hizmet Movement were being arrested for being members of the FETO terrorist organisation.

[5]       The claimant alleges that at the end of December 2018, he was advised by a lawyer that his name was being mentioned in a Hizmet case by the authorities, and the claimant made an application for a US visa and departed Turkey for the United States on the [XXX] 2019, and travelled to Canada on the [XXX] 2019.

Determination

[6]       The panel finds the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to s. 96 of the IRPA.

[7]       Should the claimant return to Turkey, the panel finds he has established a serious possibility that he would be persecuted on the ground of his perceived or imputed political opinion.

Analysis

Identity

[8]       The claimant’s personal and national identity- of Turkey has been established through a copy of his passport, found in Exhibit 1.

[9]       I am satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant is who he says he is and is a citizen of Turkey.

[10]     The panel notes that while the claimant’s parents were born in Bulgaria, they do not hold citizenship in Bulgaria.

[11]     The panel further notes that the claimant provided an excerpt from his father’s passport, which includes a visa for Bulgaria, and has further reviewed Item 3.1 of the National Documentation Package for Bulgaria.

[12]     The panel is satisfied that Bulgaria is not a country of reference in these particular circumstances.

Credibility

[13]     The panel found the claimant to be a credible witness, who provided detailed testimony consistent with his BoC narrative and forms.

[14]     While the panel has concerns with the claimant’s failure to claim for protection in the United States, the test is forward-looking, and the panel finds a serious possibility of persecution, should the claimant return to Turkey.

[15]     The claimant explained in detail his involvement with the Hizmet Movement, his family’s history with the movement and the basic principles of the movement as examples.

[16]     Several corroborative documents are found in Exhibits 6 and 8, including, but not limited to: the investigation letter from the Office of the Prosecutor, dated 25th December 2018, in regards to the claimant; and the Notice of Decision and Reasons for the claims for protection in Canada for both his brother, who was here today but did not testify, and his nephew, both of whom were granted protection; the hearing record for the claimant’s fellow shareholder in his coffee business, who was sentenced to six years and three months of imprisonment for what the claimant indicates was his involvement in the Hizmet Movement.

[17]     While the claimant did not provide the original documents to the panel today, the claimant was credible and explained that these documents were sent via the application WhatsApp and via e­ mail through his brother and his nephew and through himself. Counsel was able to show the panel on his e-mail some of the documents sent to his e-mail by the claimant’s nephew, [XXX] (ph.).

[18]     Counsel also indicated that the claimant’s brother was available this morning to testify. As the claimant indicated, he had assisted the claimant in e-mailing some of the documents. The panel accepts the claimant’s allegations as credible and his brother [XXX] (ph.) was not called upon to testify.

[19]     As indicated in Item 4.6 of the National Document Package for Turkey, Turkish authorities blame the failed coup attempt in July 2016 on Gulen and the Turkish government has characterised the Gulen Movement as a terrorist organisation.”

[20]     As indicated in Item 2.1 of the NDP for Turkey, the government engaged in a worldwide effort to apprehend suspected members of FETO, a term the government applied to followers of Fetullah Gulen, also known as members of the Gulen Movement.”

[21]     Item I.7 indicates that,

“Following the coup attempt, there was a large number of arrests, detentions and dismissals from jobs, as the government took measures against those suspected of involvement in the Gulenist Movement.”

[22]     Item 2.1 further indicates that the authorities used anti-terror laws broadly against alleged Gulen Movement members, resulting in the detention of the member.

[23]     The claimant in these particular circumstances indicates he has come to the attention of the Turkish authorities, as indicated by the documentation found in Exhibit 8 from the Office of the Prosecutor.

[24]     The panel finds an objective and subjective basis to the claimant’s fears on a balance of probability.

State Protection

[25]     I find that State protection would not be reasonably forthcoming since the authorities themselves are the agents of persecution.

Internal Flight Alternative

[26]     Given that the State is the agent of persecution, the panel finds no internal flight alternative in your particular circumstances. There is a serious possibility of persecution throughout the country.

Conclusion

[27]     The panel concludes that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to s. 96 of the IRPA and accepts his claim.

DECISION CONCLUDED