2024 RLLR 38
Citation: 2024 RLLR 38
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: May 3, 2024
Panel: Gregory Israelstam
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Amrit Danai Sharma
Country: Türkiye
RPD Number: TC2-25423
Associated RPD Number(s): TC2-25424, TC2-25425, TC2-25426
ATIP Number: A-2025-00128
ATIP Pages: N/A
REASONS FOR DECISION
INTRODUCTION:
[1] XXXX XXXX (the principal claimant), his spouse XXXX XXXX and their two children XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX seek protection pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“IRPA”). The claimants are citizens of Türkiye.
[2] The claims were heard together pursuant to Rule 55 of the Refugee Protection Division Rules. XXXX XXXX, the principal claimant, was designated representative for XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, who were minors at the time of the hearing.
ALLEGATIONS:
[3] The allegations of this claim are found in the Basis of Claim (“BOC”) forms submitted by the claimants as well as the testimony of the two adult claimants. The claimants allege a fear of persecution in Türkiye at the hands of society in general and the Turkish authorities in particular because of the claimants’ race and because of the claimants’ political opinion.
[4] More specifically, the claimants allege that they face an increased risk of harassment and discrimination at the hands of society in general because of the claimants’ Kurdish ethnicity. The claimants also allege a risk of harassment, detention, and mistreatment at the hands of the police in Türkiye because of the claimants’ public support for Turkish opposition parties such as the former Peoples’ Democratic Party (Halklarin Demokratik Partisi or “HDP”).
DETERMINATION:
[5] The claimants have established a serious possibility of persecution on the Convention grounds of race and political opinion should they return to Türkiye. The claimants meet the definition of Convention Refugee pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA. The reasons for this determination follow below.
ANALYSIS :
Identity:
[6] The claimants did not have their passports when they arrived in Canada; their passports had been seized by U.S. immigration authorities during the claimants’ immigration detention there. A copy of a photograph of the biographical data page of each of the claimants’ passports was included in the evidence[1]. The claimants submitted additional identification documents including copies of extracts from Turkish civil and family registries at exhibit 1. Through these documents and the claimants’ testimony, I find that the claimants have established their personal identities and their citizenship of Türkiye.
Credibility:
[7] Both adult claimants testified at the hearing. A claimant who testifies under oath or affirmation is presumed to be truthful unless there are valid reasons to disbelieve the testimony.
[8] The principal claimant testified that he is Kurdish. He testified that his family used to live in a Kurdish village in XXXX, but that his family had to move because of military activity against Kurdish separatists in the area. XXXX testified she is also Kurdish and that she was also born in XXXX.
[9] Both adult claimants testified that their families engaged in political activity, supporting parties that promoted Kurdish rights such as the HDP. Although neither adult claimant formally joined a political party, both describe attending protests and rallies, distributing campaign literature and canvassing for support and donations for the HDP. The principal claimant explained his reluctance to formally join a political party as stemming from the fact that doing so requires a public declaration to the government.
[10] The principal claimant describes multiple instances of nationalist violence against him, first in 2013 when he was attacked by a mob on his way to a Newroz celebration, once in 2017, when the principal claimant’s home was attacked and vandalized by a nationalist mob, and finally in 2019 when he and his brother were attacked by a colleague at work who shouted racist epithets at the principal claimant. XXXX describes an attack against her by a nationalist at her work.
[11] The adult claimants allege that they have been arrested multiple times because of their political activity. The principal claimant testified that he was arrested and detained in 2016 at a protest in XXXX against the government dismissal of elected municipal mayors, in 2021 at a demonstration, and in 2022 in Istanbul at a commemoration of victims of a bombing in XXXX. The principal claimant testified that after each detention he was released after being held XXXX and interrogated. He describes being beaten and mistreated while in detention.
[12] XXXX described being arrested in 2017 at a Woman’s Day march. She testified that she has been stopped and questioned at other political events, but the 2017 incident was the only one which resulted in detention. She testified that she was held XXXX, searched, photographed, and released XXXX XXXX XXXX.
[13] The claimants testified that during the principal claimant’s last detention in 2022, the claimants’ home was searched by police. They testified that shortly after this, the police called the principal claimant to warn him that he should not participate in political activities in the future. The claimants testified that they decided after this to leave Türkiye.
[14] Both adult claimants testified that Kurdish culture and identity is subject to repression by the Turkish government. Both testified that the claimants faced general discrimination in education, where they have faced bullying and harassment from other students and racism and prejudice from teachers. Both testified to discrimination in employment, with employers less likely to provide work to Kurds.
[15] As noted, claimants testifying under oath or affirmation are presumed to be testifying truthfully absent a valid reason to reject the testimony. I find no valid reason to reject either of the claimants’ testimony. Both adult claimants were generally forthright and spontaneous in their answers to the questions put to them at the hearing. Their testimony was consistent with each other’s testimony and with the narratives in their Basis of Claim forms. They included evidence in the form of letters from a relative that generally confirmed the claimants’ allegations. They also included a positive decision on a claim for protection made by the principal claimant’s brother. The claimants presented letters from the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX attesting to their Kurdish identity.
[16] I find on a balance of probabilities that the claimants are, as alleged, of Kurdish ethnicity. I find on a balance of probabilities that both adult claimants are supporters of opposition parties that support Kurdish rights, such as the HDP, although neither are formal members. I find on a balance of probabilities that the adult claimants supported these parties through canvassing, campaigning, and attending party events. I find on a balance of probabilities that both adult claimants have ben arrested and detained because of their political activities.
[17] I find on a balance of probabilities that the claimants have faced discrimination and prejudice because of their Kurdish ethnicity. I find on a balance of probabilities that both adult claimants have also faced physical attack at the hands of nationalist motivated by anti-Kurd animus.
[18] I find on a balance of probabilities that after the principal claimant’s last arrest, his home was searched, and he was warned by police against continuing his political activities.
[19] The claimants allege that should they return to Türkiye, they face potential arrest, detention and prosecution at the hands of the state authorities because of their political activites, as well as discrimination, harassment and violence at the hands of society in general because of the claimant’s Kurdish ethnicity. I find that the claimants do have a genuine fear of arrest, detention, harassment, discrimination and violence which, collectively, constitute persecution. I find the claimants have a genuine fear of persecution on the basis of race and political opinion at the hands of society in general and state authorities in particular.
Objective Basis:
[20] Having found the claimants to have a subjective fear of persecution, I turn to the question of whether this fear has an objective basis. Country condition reports, found in the National Documentation Package for Türkiye support the claimant’s allegations. Items 4.16 and 4.23 note that the government has continued a crackdown on opposition political parties since the attempted coup of 2016. Senior members of the HDP, a party traditionally linked with Kurdish issues, have been subject to arrest and detention, often for security reasons or because of suspected links to terrorism. In some cases, even relatives of HDP members have been put at risk.[2]
[21] In addition, exhibit 3 notes the continuing difficulties faced by Kurdish people in Türkiye. Item 13.1 notes that the Turkish government continues to shutdown Kurdish media and that Kurdish journalists and activists remain at risk of arrest or detention. Kurdish people may be suspected of being supporters of the banned PKK party, and detained or jailed for security reasons, often on spurious grounds or mere suspicion. Hate speech and racism against the Kurds continues in daily life in Türkiye. Military or security actions against Kurdish areas or Kurdish populations remain common in Türkiye.[3]
[22] There is evidence on record to conclude that the claimants have an objective basis for their fear of persecution. The claimants therefore have a well-founded fear of persecution.
State Protection and Internal Flight Alternative:
[23] As the state of Türkiye is one of the agents of persecution and the state exercises authority throughout Türkiye, the claimants have no viable internal flight alternative within Türkiye to where they could escape persecution. As the state is one of the agents of persecution, I also find that the claimants could not expect adequate state protection against persecution in Türkiye.
CONCLUSION
[24] Based on the evidence before me and the testimony of the two adult claimants, I conclude that the claimants have established a serious possibility of persecution on the Convention grounds of race and political opinion should they return to Türkiye. This serious possibility of persecution exists throughout Türkiye and the claimants can not expect state protection. The claimants are therefore Convention refugees pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA. The Panel accepts all four claims for protection.
——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———
[1] Exhibit 1, Exhibit 12.
[2] Exhibit 3, items 4.16, 4.23.
[3] Exhibit 3, item 13.1.