2024 RLLR 107
Citation: 2024 RLLR 107
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 28, 2024
Panel: Alexandra Mann
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Simon Trela
Country: Haiti
RPD Number: VC3-10507
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2025-00611
ATIP Pages: N/A
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX as a citizen of Haiti who is claiming refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “Act”)[1].
[2] The claimant came to Canada as an unaccompanied minor. In Canada, the claimant has been residing with her paternal aunt, XXXX XXXX, who was appointed as the designated representative for the claimant. Both the claimant and the designated representative testified at the hearing.
[3] In assessing this claim, I have considered and applied the Immigration and Refugee Board’s (IRB) Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Gender Considerations in Proceedings Before the Immigration and Refugee Board,[2] and Guideline 3: Proceedings Involving Minors at the Immigration and Refugee Board.[3]
ALLEGATIONS
[4] The claimant is a 16-year-old Haitian national from Carrefour, Port-au-Prince, Haiti.
[5] When the claimant was 14 years old, she was approached by a man named XXXX who was 7 years her senior while she was walking home from school. XXXX was charming and expressed romantic interest in the claimant. Over the following two months, XXXX would meet with the claimant on her route home from school and talk with her. The claimant was flattered by the attention and considered XXXX her boyfriend.
[6] Approximately two months after the claimant and XXXX met, XXXX told the claimant that he could help her make money. XXXX said that he had a friend who could arrange for the claimant to see men in exchange for money. The claimant understood from this that XXXX wanted her to engage in sex work. The claimant told XXXX that she would never agree to this. XXXX responded that he would allow the claimant to think about his offer, and that if she refused, she would regret the day she met him.
[7] After this incident, the claimant did not go to school for several days out of fear of seeing XXXX. When the claimant resumed her studies, she saw XXXX following her on the street as she was walking to school. One day, XXXX approached the claimant, showed her that he was carrying a gun, and told her that if she refused to cooperate with him, he would kill her.
[8] After this incident, the claimant disclosed to her parents that she had been in a relationship with XXXX, and that he was now trying to force her into prostitution.
[9] As a precaution, the claimant’s mother started walking the claimant to and from school. On XXXX XXXX, 2022, XXXX and two other men approached the claimant and her mother as they were walking home from the claimant’s school. The men started hitting the claimant and her mother. The mother screamed for help, XXXX fired a gun in the air, and then he and the other two men left.
[10] The claimant’s parents reported this incident to the police, but the police did not take the matter seriously and said that there was nothing they could do.
[11] The claimant’s parents then took the claimant and her two younger sisters to the home of a family friend in another location approximately 30 minutes by car from the claimant’s home.
[12] In XXXX 2022, the claimant’s mother received a phone call from XXXX who said that he knew where the claimant was and that he was coming for her. The claimant’s parents then brought the claimant home where she remained in hiding while her parents arranged her departure from the country.
[13] On XXXX XXXX, 2023, the claimant travelled to Canada.
[14] In Canada, the claimant has resided with her paternal aunt (the designated representative).
[15] On XXXX XXXX, 2023, XXXX showed up at the claimant’s father’s workplace with several other men. XXXX told the claimant’s father that if he ever finds the claimant, he will kidnap her.
[16] On XXXX XXXX, 2023, XXXX approached the claimant’s younger sister as she was walking home from school. XXXX grabbed the sister by the hair and told her that he was looking for the claimant as he has “unfinished business” with her.
[17] On July 22, 2023, the claimant initiated her claim for protection.
[18] On XXXX XXXX, 2023, XXXX and two other men approached the claimant’s mother as she was walking home from church. XXXX told the mother that he had heard that the claimant is in Canada, and that if she ever comes back, he will make her pay.
[19] The claimant fears that in a return to Haiti, XXXX will seriously harm or kill her for refusing to comply with his demands.
DETERMINATION
[20] I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the Act.
ANALYSIS
Identity
[21] I find that the claimant’s personal identity and her identity as a Haitian national has been established on a balance of probabilities by her testimony and the copy of her passport in evidence.[4]
Nexus
[22] The claimant fears that she will be seriously harmed or killed for resisting forced prostitution. I find that the claimant faces this risk on account of her gender. I therefore find that the claimant’s fear has a nexus to the Convention ground of membership in the particular social group of women and girls. I have therefore assessed this claim under section 96 of the Act.
Credibility and Findings of Fact
[23] As a starting point, a refugee claimant’s testimony is presumed to be true unless there is sufficient reason for doubting its truthfulness.[5] At the hearing, the claimant testified in a straightforward and genuine manner. I note that there were some inconsistencies between the claimant’s testimony and the Basis of Claim (BOC) narrative. However, the designated representative later testified that when the claimant arrived in Canada, she was very withdrawn, and it was very difficult for her to provide a detailed account of what had happened to her in Haiti. The designated representative also noted that it was difficult for the claimant to provide a full account of events given her age. I find these explanations credible and reasonable. Given that the claimant arrived in Canada as an unaccompanied minor, it is understandable that she had difficulty relating a complete account of the events that caused her to flee her country. I find this particularly understandable in light of the traumatic nature of the events in question. For these reasons, I do not draw a negative credibility inference from the minor inconsistencies between the BOC and the claimant’s oral testimony.
[24] In support of her testimony, the claimant disclosed a letter from her parents. In this letter, the parents confirm that following the claimant’s departure from Haiti, XXXX has continued to harass members of the family in pursuit of the claimant.
[25] The claimant’s allegations are also consistent with the evidence regarding the current conditions in Haiti. According to reports in the National Documentation Package (NDP), Haiti is characterized by weak governance and lack of security. Freedom House reports that “(r)ampant corruption and violence by armed criminal groups undermine basic services and contribute to pervasive physical insecurity” in the country.[6]
[26] According to the U.S. Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC), “(v)iolent crime is rampant in Haiti, especially in Port-au-Prince, where the expansion of gang activity has led to widespread violence, kidnappings, and gender-based violence. Gangs often move into new neighborhoods, displacing local residents or fighting rival gangs with high levels of incidental violence. Gangs also control significant roads throughout the city, charging “tolls” for drivers, especially targeting delivery vehicles and fuel transportation. The United Nations estimates that gangs control approximately 80% of Port-au-Prince.”[7]
[27] In this context of insecurity, women face high levels of gender-based violence. Sources report that gangs use rape “as a weapon against women and children to humiliate, terrorize and reinforce the control of gang members over local populations”. There are reports that “(i)n some areas, the feeling of impunity is so pervasive that rapes have been perpetrated in broad daylight”.[8]
[28] According to 2022 report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, in the coercive environment of gang-controlled areas, gang members force women and girls into prostitution, and girls as young as 13 are known to be taken as “wives” or “sex slaves” by gang leaders.[9]
[29] Given the claimant’s credible testimony, the corroborative statement from the claimant’s parents, and the above-cited evidence regarding the conditions in Haiti, I find the claimant credible, and I accept the facts as alleged. In particular, I accept that the claimant has been targeted by a man named XXXX who lured her into a relationship with him and sought to force her into prostitution. I also accept that XXXX physically assaulted the claimant and threatened her with death at gun point. Given the claimant’s evidence that XXXX was armed and that he pursued her with the assistance of other men, along with the country condition evidence that gangs are rampant in Port-au-Prince, I find on a balance of probabilities that XXXX is a member of a gang. I also accept that since the claimant departed Haiti, XXXX has continued to harass the claimant’s family members about her whereabouts.
Well-Founded Fear of Persecution
[30] As stated above, I accept that the claimant has been targeted for forced prostitution by a gang member – XXXX – who physically assaulted her, threatened her with death at gun point, and has continued to harass the claimant’s family members about her whereabouts. Based on this evidence, I find that XXXX has an active and ongoing interest in harming the claimant. I therefore find that in a return to Haiti, the claimant would face a serious possibility of persecution from this individual.
State Protection
[31] The next element in my analysis is whether there is adequate state protection for the claimant in Haiti. While there is a presumption of state protection, this presumption can be rebutted with clear and convincing evidence that protection would not be forthcoming to the claimant.[10]
[32] According to OSAC, “Haiti’s security forces are frequently overwhelmed by the large amounts of gang violence experienced by the nation as well as the lack of resources provided to law enforcement.” OSAC further reports that Haiti’s police have “a limited response capability, which hinders the deterrent effect on criminals, who operate without fear of the uniformed or traffic police. Lack of resources frequently limits investigations.” [11]
[33] The U.S. Department of State reports that Haiti has laws that prohibit gender-based violence but “the law was not enforced”.[12] Freedom House similarly reports that gender-based violence is underreported and rarely results in successful prosecutions.[13]
[34] In light of this evidence, I find that in a return to Haiti, the claimant would not have access to adequate state protection. I thus find that the presumption of state protection has been rebutted in this case.
Internal Flight Alternative
[35] The final issue for me to consider is whether the claimant has an internal flight alternative (IFA) in Haiti. In assessing the availability of an IFA, the following two prong test applies:
- The Board must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that there is no serious possibility of the claimant being persecuted in the part of the country to which it finds an IFA exists and/or the claimant would not be personally subject to a risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of torture in the IFA; and
- The Board must be satisfied that the conditions in the part of the country considered to be an IFA must be such that it would not be unreasonable in all the circumstances, including those particular to the claimant, for him or her to seek refuge there.[14]
[36] Sources report that violent crime is so rampant throughout Haiti that the U.S. Department of State has issued a Travel Advisory “that travelers should not travel to Haiti due to crime, unrest, poor health care infrastructure, and kidnapping.”[15]
[37] According to a recent report by the U.S. Committee on Refugees and Immigrants, 362,551 people were internally displaced in Haiti as of March 2024.[16] According to the United Nations, “the crisis in Haiti is worsening every day, that half of the population needs humanitarian aid, including almost 3 million children, but that half of those who need it do not receive it due to insecurity and insufficient funds; she also reported that basic services are on the verge of collapse.”[17]
[38] The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) reports a 50 percent increase in sexual violence in Haiti between 2022 and 2023, and that 80 percent of women and girls reported being subjected to some form of gender-based violence. The UNFPA further reports that in 2024, the situation has deteriorated. UNFPA highlights that risks of sexual violence and gender-based violence are “especially high in overcrowded displacement settings” and that “1.2 million women and girls in Haiti need GBV protection.” [18]
[39] This evidence establishes that due to the security and humanitarian crisis in Haiti, if the claimant were to relocate within the country, she would face harsh conditions including a high risk of being subjected to gender-based violence. As such, I find that relocating within Haiti would jeopardize the claimant’s personal safety and that the claimant therefore does not have a reasonable IFA.
CONCLUSION
[40] For these reasons, I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 of the Act and I accept her claim.
——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———
[1] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.
[2] Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Gender Considerations in Proceedings Before the Immigration and Refugee Board, July 18, 2022.
[3] Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) Chairperson’s Guideline 3: Proceedings Involving Minors at the Immigration and Refugee Board, October 2023.
[4] Exhibit 1.
[5] Maldonado v. Canada (1979), [1980] 2 FC 302.
[6] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Haiti, Item 2.6
[7] Exhibit 3, NDP for Haiti, Item 7.4
[8] Exhibit 3, NDP for Haiti, Item 7.28
[9] Exhibit 3, NDP for Haiti, Item 7.28
[10] Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, 103 D.L.R. (4th) 1, 20 Imm. L.R. (2d) 85.
[11] Exhibit 3, NDP for Haiti, Item 7.4
[12] Exhibit 3, NDP for Haiti, Item 2.1
[13] Exhibit 3, NDP for Haiti, Item 2.6
[14] Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (C.A.).
[15] Exhibit 3, NDP for Haiti, Item 7.4
[16] Exhibit 3, NDP for Haiti, Item 5.23
[17] Exhibit 3, NDP for Haiti, Item 2.21
[18] Exhibit 3, NDP for Haiti, Item 5.23