2023 RLLR 164
Citation: 2023 RLLR 164
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 15, 2023
Panel: Zorana Dimitrijevic
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Daniel Tilahun Kebede
Country: Ethiopia
RPD Number: TC3-18211
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2024-00894
ATIP Pages: N/A
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
[1] This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX (the “claimant”), as a citizen of Ethiopia, who is claiming refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).[1]
ALLEGATIONS
[2] The details of this claim are set out in the claimant’s Basis of Claim (BOC) Form.[2] The claimant fears Ethiopian authorities because he witnessed murder of Amhara workers in Western Oromia by Oromo Liberation Army (OLA) during his business trip to the XXXX owned by his company.
DETERMINATION
[3] The panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee as he has established a serious possibility of persecution for the following reasons.
ANALYSIS
Identity
[4] The claimant’s identity as a national of Ethiopia is established, on a balance of probabilities, based on his testimony and a certified copy of his Ethiopian passport on file.[3]
Nexus
[5] For a claimant to be considered a Convention refugee, the well-founded fear of persecution must be by reason of one or more of the five grounds: race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion. The persecution that the claimant fears is due to the perception that he is in opposition to the government of Ethiopia because he witnessed the murder of Amharic workers. The panel finds that he has established nexus to the Convention grounds of imputed political opinion. As such, his claim is being assessed under section 96 of IRPA.
Credibility
[6] The panel is guided by the leading jurisprudence on the issue of credibility. Maldonado[4] stands for the principle that when a claimant swears to the truth of certain allegations, this creates a presumption that those allegations are true unless there is reason to doubt their truthfulness.
[7] The claimant responded to all questions clearly and directly. There were no issues that were not reasonably explained. His sworn viva voce testimony was consistent with his BOC Form and narrative and documentary evidence he submitted to corroborate his allegations, which includes his educational credentials and employment verification, letters form his father and his uncle and documents from the police in Ethiopia and from his bank in Ethiopia, all of which can be found in Exhibit 5.
[8] The panel has no reason to doubt the genuineness of these documents and accepts them as genuine. The panel assigns full weight to these documents when assessing the credibility of the claimant’s central allegations. Therefore, based on the corroborating documentary evidence on file, the panel finds the claimant to be credible and accepts his allegations of being at risk in Ethiopia due to witnessing the murder organized by the Oromo wing of the Prosperity Party in Oromia and OLA. The panel finds that the claimant has established his subjective fear.
Well-Founded Fear of Persecution
[9] In order for the panel to make a finding that the claimant is a Convention refugee, the objective evidence should establish that there is a serious possibility that he would be persecuted if removed to Ethiopia, as alleged by him.
[10] The panel finds that the objective evidence supports his subjective fear and establishes a serious possibility of persecution for the claimant if he is forced to return to his country.
[11] The objective evidence states that the Ethiopian authorities indulged in arbitrary arrests and detention, as well as unlawful or arbitrary killings, including extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearance, torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.[5] The objective evidence further states that there is a lack of investigation of and accountability for crimes involving violence or threats of violence targeting members of racial or ethnic minority groups,[6] which the panel notices is the case with the claimant considering his ethnicity as Amhara.
[12] The objective evidence further provides information that the government silences critical voices…especially in Oromia,[7] which the panel notices is the location where the claimant witnessed harm in Ethiopia, as well as that its crackdown on individuals and political institutions with opposing views has pushed individuals to refrain from commenting on sensitive topics, including political issues.[8]
[13] The objective evidence further states that ruling party operatives and militia members made intimidating and unwelcome visits to their homes and offices,[9] which the panel notices was the case with the claimant’s father following the claimant’s departure from Ethiopia. These intimidating contacts, according to objective evidence, included entry and searches of homes without a warrant.[10]
[14] The objective evidence discussed above establishes that the government of Ethiopia is cracking down on anyone seen in opposition to the establishment, especially the Amhara. The claimant has been targeted directly by the Ethiopian authorities after witnessing the murder in the XXXX in Western Oromia and has been threatened with arrest by the government.
[15] Therefore, based on all the evidence before it, the panel finds that the claimant will face a serious possibility of persecution if forced to return to his country. The panel finds find that his fear is indeed well-founded.
State Protection
[16] The panel finds that it would be objectively unreasonable for the claimant to seek the protection of the State in light of his particular circumstances.
[17] Given that the State is the agent of harm in this case, the panel finds that the presumption of state protection has been rebutted and based on country conditions documents, there is no state protection for the claimant in Ethiopia.
Internal Flight Alternative (IFA)
[18] The panel has also considered whether a viable IFA exists for the claimant. On the evidence before it, the panel finds that there is a serious possibility of persecution for him throughout Ethiopia.
[19] The regime in Ethiopia is in control of the entire country. There is no part of the country where the claimant can live in order to escape the Ethiopian authorities, especially since he has been targeted by the police. Therefore, the panel is satisfied that the claimant does not have a viable IFA in his home country.
CONCLUSION
[20] For the foregoing reasons, the panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 of IRPA. Therefore, the panel accepts his claim.
——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———
[1] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.
[2] Exhibit 2, Basis of Claim (BOC) Form, TB8-25085.
[3] Exhibit 1.
[4] Maldonado, Pedro Enrique Juarez v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-450-79), Heald, Ryan, MacKay, November 19, 1979. Reported: Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1980] 2 F.C. 302 (C.A.); 31 N.R. 34 (F.C.A.).
[5] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Ethiopia, 31 October 2023 (NDP), item 2.1: Ethiopia. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2022. . United States. Department of State. 20 March 2023.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid, item 2.4: Ethiopia. Freedom in the World 2023. Freedom House. 2023.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid, item 1.8: COI Compilation. Austrian Red Cross. Austrian Centre for Country of Origin and Asylum Research and Documentation. November 2019.
[10] Ibid.