Category: All Countries

2019 RLLR 65

Citation: 2019 RLLR 65
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: April 1, 2019
Panel: S. Shaw
Counsel for the claimant(s): Md Wazir Hossain
Country: Bangladesh
RPD Number: TB8-14360
ATIP Number: A-2020-01274
ATIP Pages: 000180-000184

DECISION

[1] Member: This is the decision of the refugee protection claim made by Mr. [XXX] file number TB8-14360.

[2] At this point the panel has considered the claimant’s testimony and the other evidence in this case and is ready to render an oral decision.

[3] The claimant is a citizen of Bangladesh and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to Section 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[4] After review the panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee for the following reasons. Specifically, the claimant has established a serious possibility of persecution based on a Convention ground of perceived political opinion. Regarding the other issues, specifically that of religion of a Convention ground, the panel did not consider that a key issue in this case.

[5] The claimant’s allegations are set out in the Basis of Claim Form and the amendments and further supplemented by testimony and supporting documents.

[6] In summary, the claimant has alleged that he fears persecution at the hands of the Awami League who is the current ruling party in Bangladesh and the Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh herein called the JMB, specifically, because of his perceived political opinion of being anti-Awami League and because of religious beliefs which are different from the JMB Islamic extremist views.

[7] The claimant alleges that he was targeted because of his social work and his business activities. The claimant is a self-employed entrepreneur and founded [XXX] organizations in Bangladesh.

[8] He alleges that his fears began in [XXX] of 2015 when he was assaulted by Awami League members following a protest rally he organized against Awami League members which included Monir the mayor of Bhola City. Threats to the claimant continued until [XXX] of 2018.

[9] The claimant alleges that he was assaulted in 2016 because he refused to pay money to fund the Awami League’s Independence Day activities.

[10] The Awami League visited his home and threatened him to stop protesting against Monir and the Awami League and he was again attacked in [XXX] of 2016 which led to medical treatment at the local medical clinic.

[11] In [XXX] of 2017 the Awami League and associates demanded that the claimant sell his land to the Awami League, and in [XXX] of 2018 the JMB visited the claimant’s office, ransacked it, and threatened him with death.

[12] In [XXX] of 2018 two Islamic leaders also visited the claimant’s [XXX] and assaulted his spouse and two other female employees.

[13] Further, in [XXX] of 2018 the claimant was again attacked by Awami League members causing him to be hospitalized for [XXX] days, and on [XXX], 2018 three armed Awami League members tried to abduct the claimant and his two daughters.

[14] This incident prompted the claimant’s decision to flee Bangladesh and he left Bangladesh on [XXX], 2018, arriving in Canada [XXX], 2018, and claiming refugee protection soon after.

[15] With regards to the analysis, the panel considered all of the evidence submitted and determined the following.

[16] On a balance of probabilities, the claimant’s identity as a citizen of Bangladesh is established by testimony and also by a certified true photocopy of his passport and the claimant’s national identity card and his Bangladesh Road Transport Authority card. Both of which were submitted at the hearing as oral … as original documents at the hearing. The panel finds no reason to doubt the veracity of these documents.

[17] With regard to credibility, testimony given under oath is presumed to be true unless there is a valid reason to doubt its truthfulness. As such, the panel has considered the claimant’s testimony as a whole and find the claimant to be a credible witness and believe what he has alleged relating to the issue of his perceived political opinion.

[18] The panel finds that the claimant’s testimony was generally straightforward with regard to central elements of this case, and any inconsistencies, contradictions or omissions that were considered central to this claim was adequately explained.

[19] Specifically, the panel asked why the claimant returned to Bangladesh prior to his final … fleeing from Bangladesh in [XXX] of 2015. Sorry, [XXX] of 2018, given that his fears began in [XXX] of 2015. The panel notes that the claimant had returned to Bangladesh prior to the [XXX] 2018 final reason when he left.

[20] After review, the panel accepts that the claimant’s final crystalizing fear did not occur until [XXX] 2018 and [XXX] 2018, and those two incidents in 2018 were the incidents that crystalized his decision to finally leave Bangladesh in fear of his safety. The panel accept this as reasonable considering the circumstances.

[21] In addition, as previously indicated with regards to the claimant’s allegations of fear of the JMB Islamic extremist group, the panel did not consider this the key issue of this claim since the claimant had not met or been threatened personally by JMB extremists, and since the JMB … or fear was related to the [XXX] that the claimant ran the panel notes that this [XXX] was closed since [XXX] of 2018 and as such, the … the panel is of the view that this group JMB did not pose a significant fear to this claimant and hence was not the key fear of this particular claim.

[22] With regard to documentation relating to the perceived political opinion and the fear that arise from that, the claimant provided the following corroborating documents as evidence. Specifically, as noted in Exhibit 5 the claimant’s tax documents and business documents, as well as hospital and doctor’s letters in … and discharge summary report from the hospital. Both of which indicate and diagnose a physical assault that needed emergency attention and multiple deep lacerations that the claimant sustained.

[23] The panel also considered the corroborating documents of a number of police complaints, general diaries, deposition, and court order, as well as an arrest warrant, and a court case filed against the claimant’s perpetrators.

[24] Therefore, after review, the panel is satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant’s allegations are credible and further that the claimant has established a subjective fear of persecution if returned to Bangladesh.

[25] With regards to the objective basis of this claim, the panel finds that this claimant’s allegations are corroborated by the country conditions as noted in the National Documentation Package and counsel’s disclosure package.

[26] The panel accepts that there is an objective basis for this claim, specifically as noted in the NDP Items 1.1(0), 4.1(3), 2.1, and 1.5. These country condition documents confirm that the Awami League is currently by far the largest political force in Bangladesh after recent elections and that the Awami League has consolidated its power which has led international and domestic critics to accuse the Awami League of being authoritarian and heavy handed in its approach to any opposition or anti-government individuals that it is … that it views against the government.

[27] Further, the NDP shows that Bangladesh authorities increasingly use harsh measures including abuse and harassment, and that the Awami League Government is increasingly using imprisonment detention without trial and show trials to silence opposition.

[28] With regards to State protection, the panel finds that the claimant has rebutted the presumption of adequate State protection with clear and convincing evidence that adequate State protection is not available to this claimant and is not reasonably forthcoming in this case.

[29] The panel notes the claimant’s testimony that he has attempted to file complaints in the past, specifically in [XXX] of 2016 which would … sorry. Specifically, in [XXX] of 2018 but it was again refused, and also the panel notes that there is country conditions that specifically speak to the anti corruption efforts of the international community has been weakened because of the Awami League’s politicizing of law enforcement agencies and the judicial process.

[30] In addition, Item 2.3 of the NDP also indicates that there’s a concern which is on the increase about the growing interference by government in the judiciary process, and that Item 1.1(7) indicates from the United States State Department report which indicates that public has a deep distrust of police and security services which has deterred many Bangladeshis from approaching police for assistance or reporting criminal incidents.

[31] With regards to internal flight alternative, the panel has also considered whether a viable internal flight alternative exits for this claimant. After review, the panel is satisfied that there’s no viable internal flight alternative because this claimant would face a serious possibility of persecution throughout Bangladesh considering that some of the agents of persecution are the Awami League and its members which are integrally linked to the ruling government.

[32] The panel notes that the claimant and his family did attempt to internally relocate by going and staying at their parent’s home, as in the claimant’s in-laws home in [XXX](sic) District which a [XXX] kilometres away from the claimant’s home in Dhaka. However, the claimant was found one week later by the Awami League, and also the claimant again relocated to the [XXX] Region in [XXX] of 2018, but again was found by the Awami League, and the Gibot(ph) League.

[33] After review and based on the profile of the agents of persecution and their affiliation with the ruling government who has control throughout the country of Bangladesh, the panel finds that this claimant would face persecution throughout the country of Bangladesh. Therefore, the panel is satisfied that there’s no viable internal flight alternative available to this claimant.

[34] In conclusion based on the totality of the evidence and the previously mentioned analysis the panel finds that the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution based on the perceived political opinion. Therefore, this panel concludes that this claimant is a Convention refugee as defined by Section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. As such, the panel accepts this claim for refugee protection in Canada.

[35] That is the end of the decision and its reasons.

[36] This hearing is now concluded. That brings me to the end of the hearing. We are now off record. Thank you all for attending. Interpreter and everyone, thank you. Thank you.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

All Countries Bangladesh

2019 RLLR 64

Citation: 2019 RLLR 64
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 1, 2019
Panel: S. Shaw
Counsel for the claimant(s): Kieran Verboven
Country: Bangladesh
RPD Number: TB8-12509
RPD Associated Number(s): TB8-12520, TB8-12546, TB8-12547
ATIP Number: A-2020-01274
ATIP Pages: 000174-000179

[1] MEMBER: This is the decision of the refugee protection claim made by the Principal Claimant, [XXX], File Number TB8-12509; as well as the Associate Claimant [XXX], TB8-12520; and the two Minor Claimants, [XXX], File Number TB8-12546; and Minor Claimant, [XXX], TB8-12547.

[2] The Panel has considered the testimony and other evidence provided in this case, and renders the following oral decision:

[3] The above-mentioned Claimants are citizens of Bangladesh and are seeking refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. These four claims have been jointly heard, as they were joined pursuant to Rule 55 of the Refugee Protection Division Rules. The Principal Claimant was named as the Designated Representatives for the two Minor Claimants.

[4] The Panel has determined that these Claimants have established a well-founded fear of persecution in Bangladesh, based on the Convention grounds of perceived political opinion, specifically, as they are employees as [XXX] and [XXX] in their country. The female Claimant, or this Principal Claimant is the [XXX] in her country, while the associate Claimant [XXX] and [XXX] and [XXX] her [XXX]. The female Claimant, as the Principal Claimant, is also a [XXX] throughout her country, and their actions are viewed as perceived anti-government because of their employment and their roles. The two Minor Claimants’ persecution is based on their membership in a particular social group, specifically, as part of the adult Claimants’ families.

[5] With regard to the allegations, the details of this case are set out in the Claimants’ Basis of Claim forms found in Exhibit 2, 3, 4 and 5, and were further supplemented by the adult Claimants’ testimonies and supporting documentary evidence.

[6] In summary, the Claimants fear persecution in Bangladesh at the hands of the [XXX] of the [XXX], herein called [XXX], and specifically, the [XXX] name, Mr. [XXX]. They also fear [XXX] and members of the Awami League, as well as the police. [XXX] is alleged to have strong links to the ruling Awami League Party, and [XXX] is a [XXX] with the Awami League.

[7] The Principal Claimant alleges that she and her husband are targeted by [XXX] and [XXX] because of [XXX] in the Bangladeshi [XXX] and because [XXX] wanted her to restrict her [XXX] only to [XXX], and that he also wanted her husband to [XXX]. Therefore, their refusal to do so was seen as being anti-government, perceivably, and against the Awami League. Hence their fears are based on a perceived political opinion, as [XXX], and in the [XXX], either in [XXX] or as [XXX].

[8] With regard to analysis, the Panel considered all of the evidence, including the oral testimony, the supporting personal documents, and the country conditions, which has been entered exhibit — as exhibits. The Panel has also considered the further allegations in detail, specifically, that the Claimants’ fears occurred between [XXX] 2018 and [XXX] 2018, and started in [XXX] 2018 when [XXX] met with the adult Claimant and expressed his request that they work for him at his [XXX] – [XXX] instead of working at [XXX]. As the adult Claimants’ refused this offer, they were subsequently threatened by phone calls from [XXX], a current Awami League member, and others, and also asked for money by way of extortion so that they could fund the Awami League coffers.

[9] The main incident that led to the adult Claimants’ fears occurred on [XXX], 2018 when they were returning home at night and they were attacked by four Awami League associates of [XXX]. They were pistol whipped and — with rods and questioned again as to why they refused to join the [XXX], as was asked of them by the [XXX], [XXX]. Both Claimants were hospitalized as a result of this incident and they were hospitalized for three days. The adult Claimants also indicated and testified that they did report these incidents, both the [XXX], 2018 incident, as well as the [XXX], 2018 incident. They were both reported to the police, and they filed general diaries and police complaints, but they did not have much success.

[10] On [XXX], 2018, the Claimants relocated their family to their friend’s home in [XXX], [XXX] hours away, and two weeks later, their young son, the Minor — one of the Minor Claimants was subsequently kidnapped on [XXX], 2018 while they stayed in [XXX]. He was returned the next day, on [XXX], 2018, and again, the Principal Claimant and the Associate Claimant were told not to report this incident to the police and they were again asked on the phone about why they have refused to sign the contract and join [XXX]. The adult Claimants and the Minor Claimants soon left Bangladesh on [XXX], 2018 bound for Canada.

[11] So with regards to analysis. Firstly, the Panel is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities the Claimants’ personal identities as citizens of Bangladesh has been established by testimony and supporting documents filed. Specifically, documents included the certified true copies of the Claimants’ passports filed in Exhibit 1, which were seized by immigration officials. The Panel finds no reason to doubt the authenticity of these documents.

[12] With regard to credibility, credibility is an issue to be considered in all claims before the Immigration and Refugee Board. The Claimants must establish a well-founded fear of persecution by presenting credible and trustworthy evidence. When a Claimant affirms that certain facts are true, this creates a presumption that they are true unless there is a valid reason to doubt their truthfulness.

[13] In this case, after review, the Panel finds that the adult Claimants’ oral testimonies were candid, straightforward, and credible. The Principal Claimant was tearful at times during her testimony; however, her answers were still spontaneous and in detail.

[14] With regards to supporting documents, Exhibit 11, specifically, is a package of personal documents submitted by counsel. These corroborating documents included business license, income tax certificates, the [XXX] and [XXX] ID cards, as well as the two police complaint reports filed on [XXX], 2018 and [XXX], 2018, and hospital reports of their — and discharge certificates, all filed in Exhibit 11. There were also newspaper articles filed as part of the evidence. These cumulative documents corroborated the adult Claimants’ testimonies and the BOC narratives, and on a balance of probabilities, support the core elements of the allegations.

[15] Therefore, after review of the cumulative nature of the testimony and documentary evidence submitted, the Panel is satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the Claimants’ testimonies and allegations are believable and credible. The Panel is satisfied that they would face persecution based on the previously-stated determination, that being based on a Convention ground of perceived political opinion, specifically, as they are viewed as anti-government because of their — anti government and anti-Awami League because of their employment as [XXX] and [XXX] and [XXX] and in [XXX] in their country, as well as the two Minor Claimants’ persecution being based on that of membership in a particular social group, specifically, as part of the adult Claimants’ family.

[15] The Panel is satisfied that their persecution is also because they refused to comply with [XXX]’s request that they join [XXX], and — which is linked to the Awami League and the government as it tends to promote and only advertise news of the Awami League and the government.

[16] With regard to the objective basis of this claim, the Panel finds that these Claimants’ evidence as a whole is generally consistent with the objective documentary evidence and corroborated by the country conditions as noted in the National Documentation Package listed in Exhibit 6, and also, in counsel’s disclosure package listed in Exhibit 8, 9, and 10. The country conditions document - specifically demonstrates similarly situated circumstances in Items 1.10, 1.4, 1.14, and 1.9 of the National Documentation Package for this country. In particular, the evidence indicates in Items 1.4 and 1 .14 that although the Constitution provides for freedom of speech and freedom of the press, however, some critics of the government or — including journalists and publicists and publishers and social media users are subject to surveillance, arrests, harassment, and intimidation, and at times have had their media accreditation withdrawn following politically motivated allegations against them. Also, Item 1.10 of the NDP specifically speaks to the Amnesty International report that indicates bloggers, and by extension, media and television and personnel are threatened in person and they, themselves, or their family members have also received threatening phone calls at their home.

[17] The Panel is therefore satisfied on a balance of probabilities that these Claimants’ subjective fears are objectively well-founded, specifically, when assessed in the context of the country conditions. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Claimants have a well-founded fear of persecution.

[18] With regards to state protection, in all refugee protection claims, the Panel must determine if state protection is available. In other words, the Panel must consider whether or not these particular Claimants could live safely in another part of Bangladesh. In making determination on this, the Panel considered the answers provided by the Claimants, which stated the following, and the Panel also considered the information provided in their Basis of Claim forms and the objective documentary evidence submitted and the country conditions of this country.

[19] With regards to testimony, the Panel is satisfied that the Claimants have requested police assistance on two occasions by filing police complaints, as noted previously, and that they later returned to the police station on [XXX], 2018 to inquire about the status of their police complaint. They felt that the police were not proactive in providing answers to their complaint, but instead that the police was just passing the information along to them that they were going to look into the case but with no real avail.

[20] With regards to the country conditions, Items 1.10, 1.17, and 1.4 — 1.9 also speak to the country conditions and state protection, specifically, in that law enforcement agencies tend to be aligned with the ruling party, and political affiliation is a motive for arrest and criminal persecution, and further, that the effectiveness of the criminal justice system is undermined by poor infrastructure and endemic corruption. Item 1.17, the U.S. State Department report, notes that capacity issues, corruption, and politicization have weakened the ability of the judiciary to deliver effective justice, and that public distrust of police and security services deter many Bangladeshi’s from approaching the police for assistance or to report criminal incidents. Item 1.9 speaks to a culture of police corruption that continues, and that security forces commit serious abuses with impunity and that the judiciary is subject to bribery, interference, and political pressure. And also, if a person fear is of persecution or serious harm at the hands of the state, or the ruling party, they, that person, will not be able to avail themselves of the protection of the authorities.

[21] Therefore, based on the Claimants’ personal circumstances as well as the objective country conditions documentation, the Panel finds that these Claimants have rebutted the presumption of adequate state protection. Also, the Claimants have demonstrated on a balance of probabilities that they have attempted to seek state protection; however, it was not adequately forthcoming. The Panel notes that there is clear and convincing evidence that the reasons given for lack of state protection is adequate, as the agents of persecution are affiliated with the current ruling party, and includes the Awami League and its members, who have national reach and influence throughout the country.

[22] With regards to internal relocation, in reaching a decision the Panel must also consider whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for these Claimants, and whether they can live safely in another part of the country. To make this determination, the Panel did question the Claimants about possible cities of internal relocation, and also reviewed the country conditions in the documentary evidence submitted.

[23] The Panel notes that on [XXX], 2018, these Claimants relocated from Dhaka to their friends’ home in [XXX], approximately [XXX] kilometers away. They were, however, found one week later in [XXX] by [XXX]’s associates and one of the Minor Claimants was kidnapped on [XXX], 2018 while they stayed in [XXX]. After the Minor Claimant’s return, the Associate Claimant was told that she cannot hide from her persecutors and that she cannot hide within the rest of the country and that she was again asked to join the [XXX] at that time. The Claimants fled Bangladesh two days after the Minor Claimant’s kidnapping.

[24] In addition, the Panel considered the testimony of the Principal Claimant, that she is a [XXX] throughout her country, as she has been a [XXX] since 1990 and that [XXX], [XXX] throughout the entire country of Bangladesh. So the Panel accepts that if she is to relocate anywhere, she would be [XXX] within the country, which then means by extension she would be [XXX] and found by her perpetrators, and by extension, her husband’s perpetrators as well. The Claimants also testified that they cannot return to Bangladesh because [XXX]’s associates have come looking for them in [XXX] since their departure, and more recently, their house in Bangladesh has been seized by the Awami League.

[25] With regards to country conditions, the Panel is satisfied that the same objective evidence reviewed prior but addressing country conditions and state protection, is also relevant to the country conditions relating to internal relocations. The Panel has considered the specific profile of these Claimants as [XXX] and [XXX], and specifically, that the Principal Claimant is [XXX], so it would be unreasonable for them to relocate to another part of Bangladesh without being found. Therefore, the Panel is satisfied that these Claimants would face persecution throughout the country of Bangladesh, and as such, the Panel accepts that no viable internal flight alternative is available to these Claimants that is safe and reasonable given their particular circumstances.

[26] In conclusion, based on the totality of the evidence and the previously mentioned analysis, the Panel finds that these Claimants have a well-founded fear of persecution for the reasons already stated. The Claimants have established that there is a serious possibility of persecution if they returned to Bangladesh based on the previously-stated determination of perceived political opinion and membership in a particular social group. Therefore, this Panel concludes that these Claimants are Convention refugees as defined by section 96 of the Immigration and Protection — Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and as such, the Panel accepts this claim for refugee protection in Canada.

[27] And that brings me to the end of the decision, and its reasons. This hearing is now concluded.

– – – DECISION CONCLUDED – – –

All Countries Jamaica

2019 RLLR 63

Citation: 2019 RLLR 63
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 29, 2019
Panel: O. Adeoye
Counsel for the claimant(s): Robin Edoh
Country: Jamaica
RPD Number: TB8-11977
ATIP Number: A-2020-01274
ATIP Pages: 000167-000173

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] [XXX] (the claimant) is seeking refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “IRPA” or the “Act”).¹

[2] In assessing these claimants, the panel considered the Chairperson’s Guideline 9: Proceedings before the IRB Involving Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression.²

ALLEGATIONS

[3] The details of the claimant’s allegations are documented in her Basis of Claim (BOC) form, as well as her oral testimony. In summary the claimant fears persecution in Jamaica because of her sexual orientation as a Lesbian. The claimant fears persecution from the public and the authorities due to the homophobic environment in Jamaica.

DETERMINATION

[4] The panel finds that the claimant has satisfied the burden of establishing a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground if she were to return to Jamaica.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[5] The claimant has established her identity as a national of Jamaica by her testimony and the supporting documentation filed, namely a copy of her Jamaican passport.³ The original document is in custody of Immigration, Refugees Citizenship Canada (IRCC) officials.⁴

Credibility

[6] The panel found the claimant to be a credible witness on a balance of probabilities and the panel therefore accepts what has been alleged in support of her claim. The claimant testified in a straightforward manner and there were no relevant inconsistencies in her testimony or contradictions between the testimony and the other evidence before the panel.

[7] The claimant explained about the culture of homophobia in Jamaica, how the LGBTQ community functions in a homophobic society and how life was really difficult for her as a lesbian in Jamaica. She explained how she was treated differently in her family and how her father and siblings called her names. She stated that she received the same treatments at school and the community. She explained that while at school, students would confront her verbally and assault her physically and that she was reprimanded when she reported these assaults to the teachers in the school.

[8] The claimant explained that she became worried after personally seeing how gay persons were treated in Jamaica and that she did not have a same-sex relationship because of her fear of being harmed in Jamaica. She stated that her mother encouraged her to date men and that she tried to date men but she could not.

[9] The claimant explained that while at the [XXX] school, she met a [XXX] teacher (Ms [XXX]), who noticed that she always kept to herself and that she was different from other girls in the school. She stated that Ms [XXX] met her parents and advised them to allow her go to a country where she would be free to be who she really wants to be. She stated that her parents were worried about her safety even though they were not happy about her sexual orientation. The claimant explained that based on Ms. [XXX]’ s advice, her mother reached out to her sister (the claimant’s aunt) in Canada and she was invited to Canada by her aunt.

[10] The claimant testified about her current relationship and she testified with the detail and emotion that one would expect in describing such a relationship. The claimant’s same-sex partner provided a letter of support and also testified in person to provide evidence about their same-sex relationship and knowledge of the principal claimant’s sexual orientation as a lesbian.⁵ The panel, on a balance of probabilities found the witness testimony to be credible.

[11] The claimant disclosed corroborative evidence which includes a support letter from her mother, who confirmed the claimant’s circumstances in Jamaica and her sexual orientation as a lesbian. She provided copies of her academic diploma, which includes her early childhood diploma from the [XXX] college in Jamaica, the school where she met Ms. [XXX]. The claimant also provided several probative pictures of herself and her current same-sex partners at community and social events including LGBT events. The claimant provided copies of text messages exchanged between the claimant and her current same-sex partner in Canada. In addition, a welcome letter of support, identification and attendance log sheet from The 519 community center was provided to the panel to support the claimant’s involvement in the LGBT community in Canada.

Delay in Claiming

[12] The panel had some concerns regarding the principal claimant’s subjective fear due to her delay in claiming in Canada. In response to her delay in claiming in Canada, the claimant stated that she applied for a visa extension and it was denied. She stated that upon denial, she went with her aunt to an agent, who advised the claimant to make a Humanitarian and Compassionate claim. She stated that she signed some papers with the agent but the agent did not process the Humanitarian and Compassionate application. The claimant further stated that she did not know that she could make a refugee application because of her sexual orientation and that she only found out about making a refugee claim when she started interacting with the LGBTQ community and she was introduced to her current representative.

[13] The panel accepts the explanation provided by the claimant because she made efforts to remain in Canada permanently and draws no negative inference in regards to the claimant’s subjective fear.

[14] The panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant is credible and the panel accepts her allegations as credible and the claimant has established her subjective fear.

Objective Evidence

[15] The panel also finds that the claimant’s fear of harm in Jamaica because of her sexual orientation as a lesbian woman is supported by the documentary evidence.

Jamaica

[16] The objective documentary evidence indicates that, according to sources, same-sex acts between men are criminalised in Jamaica. While sources report that same-sex acts between women are not criminalised in Jamaica, the US Department of State’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2016 specifies:

“[t]he law prohibits ‘acts of gross indecency’ ([which are] generally interpreted as any kind of physical intimacy) between persons of the same-sex.”⁶ Further, according to sources “despite a lack of enforcement, the existence of these laws creates a climate that sanctions violence and discrimination against sexual minorities.”⁷

[17] The documentary evidence speaks to the societal attitudes and discrimination in Jamaica against members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) community. According to the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2016, homophobia is “widespread” in Jamaica.⁸ Furthermore:

other sources note that homophobia continues to be perpetuated by the country’s music, political and religious figures and by the media. According to Human Rights First, sexual minorities “face both general societal discrimination as well as discrimination in access to services, including healthcare, housing and employment.” [citations omitted]⁹

[18] The documentary evidence indicates that violence and harassment against sexual minorities continue to be problems in Jamaica:

Human Rights Watch … states that physical and sexual violence is “part of the lived reality” for many members of sexual minorities and that “the level of brutality leads many to fear what could happen if their sexual orientation or gender identity is disclosed.”¹⁰

[19] Based on the claimant’s testimony on her personal experiences and the documentary evidence cited above, the panel finds the claimant’s fear of return to Jamaica to be objectively well founded.

State Protection and an Internal Flight Alternative

[20] The objective evidence supports the reasonableness of the claimant’s allegations and the conclusion that state protection would not be reasonably forthcoming in this particular case. With respect to the claimant’s profile as a lesbian woman, the panel finds that state protection would not be reasonably forthcoming to her.

[21] The documentary evidence confirms that “citizens express mistrust towards the police and their effectiveness.”¹¹ Further sources indicate:

“bias based specifically on gender identity or sexual orientation directly contributes to the inadequate police response”. Following interviews with LGBT persons in 2013, Human Rights Watch notes that most respondents indicated that they did not report incidents of violence to the police because they believed that police would not take any action…. [W]hile individual police officers “showed sympathy” and worked on cases involving sexual minorities, NGOs [non-governmental organizations] reported that “the police force, in general, did not recognize the extent and seriousness of bullying and violence directed against members of the LGBT community and failed to investigate such incidents.”

[22] The documentary evidence also indicates “that police officers have perpetrated violence against sexual minorities themselves.”¹² Further, according to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights:

“[p]etitioners reported abuse and discrimination against LGBTI individuals who were either ignored or laughed at when they attempted to report acts of violence, or were themselves the direct victims of police abuse, including arbitrary detention, blackmail, extortion, threats and cruel and degrading treatment.”¹³

Human Rights Watch noted “that while cases of police violence appear to have decreased between 2004 and 2014, ‘the persistence of even isolated cases is of great concern given the police’s role as a source of protection. “‘¹⁴

[23] I have considered whether there is a viable internal flight alternative for you. On the evidence before me, I find that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Jamaica since homophobia as per the Department of State report is widespread.¹⁵

CONCLUSION

[24] For the foregoing reasons the panel concludes that the claimant would face a serious possibility of persecution on the basis of her sexual orientation should she return to the Jamaica. Accordingly, the claim is accepted under Section 96 of the IRPA.

(signed) O. Adeoye

January 29, 2019

¹ Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 as amended.
² Chairperson’s Guideline 9: Proceedings Before the IRB Involving Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression, Guidelines issued by the Chairperson pursuant to paragraph 159(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, Effective date: May 1, 2017.
³ Exhibit 1.
⁴ Exhibit 1, Notice of Seizure.
⁵ Exhibit 9.
⁶ Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Jamaica (31 March 2017), item 2.1.
⁷ Exhibit 3, NDP for Jamaica (31 March 2017), item 6.1.
⁸ Exhibit 3, NDP for Jamaica (31 March 2017), item 2.1.
⁹ Exhibit 3, NDP for Jamaica (31 March 2017), item 6.1.
¹⁰ Ibid.
¹¹ Exhibit 4, NDP for Jamaica (31 March 2017), item 6.1.
¹² Exhibit 4, NDP for Jamaica (31 March 2017), item 6.1.
¹³ Ibid.
¹⁴ Ibid.
¹⁵ Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Item 2.1, Jamaica. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2015, United States. Department of State, 13 April 2016.

All Countries Colombia

2019 RLLR 62

Citation: 2019 RLLR 62
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: October 29, 2019
Panel: David D’Intino
Counsel for the claimant(s): Michael Brodzky
Country: Colombia
RPD Number: TB8-10382
Associated RPD Number(s): TB8-10409, TB8-10410
ATIP Number: A-2020-01274
ATIP Pages: 000156-000166

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] [XXX] (the principal claimant), her daughter [XXX] and her son [XXX] (the minor claimants), are citizens of Colombia and claim refugee protection pursuant to ss. 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).¹

ALLEGATIONS

[2] The claimants’ allegations are fully set out in the principal claimant’s basis of claim (BOC) form². To summarize, the principal claimant alleges a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground and a risk to life or of cruel and unusual punishment or treatment in Colombia by her ex-partner [XXX].

DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE

[3] The principal claimant was appointed as the Designated Representative for her minor children. She provided a written consent letter³ from her ex-spouse to take the children to Canada.

CHAIRPERSON’S GUIDELINES

[4] In assessing the evidence of the principal claimant, I have considered the Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution.⁴

DETERMINATION

[5] The principal claimant is a Convention refugee, as she has demonstrated a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground, as a member of a particular social group – women fearing gender-related persecution.

[6] The minor claimants are also Convention refugees, as they have demonstrated a serious possibility of persecution on Convention ground, as members of a particular social group – family members of the principal claimant.

ANALYSIS

Credibility

[7] The principal claimant was a credible witness. Her testimony was consistent with the evidence in her narrative and she provided documentation which was corroborative of certain aspects of her claim. Her evidence was free from material contradictions or omissions and I find that she did not embellish her evidence.

[8] As such, I make the following findings of fact:

a) The principal claimant met her former partner [XXX] in 2000 while working for his uncle’s company called [XXX]. She became pregnant after dating him for approximately one year and they moved in together in [XXX] of 2002;

b) [XXX] was affiliated with the Centro Democratico Party and worked on the campaign of one [XXX];

c) After living together for a while, [XXX] became verbally abusive by making hurtful comments about the principal claimant’s appearance. Once her daughter was born, the principal claimant became aware that [XXX] had other lovers and when she attempted to leave, [XXX] struck her, verbally accosted her, raped her and locked her in the apartment for three days;

d) On the third day, [XXX] came home with roses, food and apologies. He threatened the principal claimant that he would take their daughter away from him if she should ever leave;

e) [XXX] had asked his uncle, the couple’s employer, to start paying the principal claimant’s salary directly to him, as she was allegedly too irresponsible to handle the money herself. Thus, the principal claimant became totally dependent on her former partner;

f) In 2004, after being questioned by his uncle about bruises on her face, [XXX] forbade the principal claimant from working outside the home;

g) In 2012 the principal claimant became pregnant again, this time with a son;

h) In [XXX] 2013, while seven months pregnant, her former spouse raped her and beat her, causing her to enter a depressed state and to develop anemia which required hospitalization;

i) In [XXX] 2014, the principal claimant saw a psychologist who diagnosed her with [XXX] and [XXX];

j) In [XXX] of that year she worked up the courage to file a complaint with the Family Welfare Office. [XXX] showed up to a mediation session with a party colleague who convinced the social worker that the principal claimant was delusional. [XXX] later beat the principal claimant once again;

k) In [XXX] 2016, the principal claimant was alerted by her daughter’s teacher that [XXX] was unhappy and uncommunicative. She was taken to therapy where she was diagnosed with [XXX], [XXX] and [XXX] and ordered to attend further clinical intervention;

l) In [XXX] of 2017, [XXX] invited some of his associates over to the house for dinner. One was an unsavory youth nicknamed [XXX] made appalling comments about [XXX]’ s mature appearance, and referred to her as his “princess”. The youth was openly glaring at [XXX] the whole time;

m) In [XXX] of 2017, the principal claimant found her daughter’s diary while cleaning the house. In it were passages that referred to her inability to cope with the family abuse and that she would rather be dead;

n) At the end of that month, the principal claimant went to the Court in Tulua to seek a restraining order against [XXX]. When the official heard his name, he looked mockingly at the principal claimant and told her without evidence nothing could be done;

o) On Tuesday [XXX], 2017 XXXX came home livid because he learned about the judicial complaint. When the principal claimant showed him the psychiatrist’s notes about their daughter, he went crazy and began hitting the principal claimant and threatened to kill her and the doctor if she kept divulging that [XXX] has mental health issues;

p) On Saturday of that same week, [XXX] showed up with three men to the principal claimant’s stepmother’s home. The two ladies were alone at the time. The men flashed their firearms and began insulting them. [XXX] then bragged about his affiliation with the Los Urabeños criminal group and that he was sent by [XXX] to tell her she had 24 hours to return home or die, and if she disappeared, [XXX] promised him “her princess” as a present;

q) The principal claimant’s stepmother managed to record some of the conversation on her phone. The principal claimant then phoned [XXX] and threatened to expose him and his ties to the Urabeños if he did not leave her and her daughter alone;

r) On [XXX], 2017 the principal claimant called [XXX] and told him to provide her with a consent letter via post to her parents’ house, where it was retrieved by a neighbour;

s) The claimants left Colombia on [XXX], 2017 filed their basis of claim forms on March 28, 2018;

NEXUS

[9] Based on the above facts, I find that the principal claimant was the victim of physical, emotional and sexual abuse by her former spouse. As such, I find that she has a nexus to the Convention by virtue of her membership in a particular social group – women fearing gender related persecution. I find that but for her gender, she would not have been subject to the various forms of violence she suffered at the hands of [XXX].

[10] The minor claimants [XXX] and [XXX] in my view also have a nexus to the Convention as family members of the principal claimant. The effect of the household domestic violence on [XXX] is particularly acute as evidenced by the psychological documentation filed by the principal claimant. However, it is clear that both children have been threatened and face a future serious possibility of persecution as family members of the principal claimant should they return to Colombia.

SUBJECTIVE FEAR

[11] The principal claimant tried to leave the relationship three times, twice by filing complaints with the authorities. Each attempt was unsuccessful and resulted in future violence and sexual abuse.

[12] The principal claimant fled to her parents’ house on [XXX], 2017 and remained there until leaving for Canada the next month. She filed for refugee protection in Canada within a reasonable time, while she had lawful status in Canada courtesy of a previously obtained VISA;

[13] When the domestic violence began to affect her daughter, the principal claimant took steps to address the mental health issues which arose therefrom.

[14] All of these actions are consistent with a person that fears their spouse and therefore I find that the principal claimant has demonstrated a subjective fear of persecution.

OBJECTIVE BASIS

Documentary Evidence

[15] Exhibit 4 contains approximately 11 items, 36 pages in total. This documentation includes two psychological reports and one medical report, as well as excerpts from [XXX]’s journal which support the principal claimant’s allegations that [XXX] was abusive to the principal claimant and verbally abusive to the minor female claimant. It also supports the assertion that the abuse took such a toll on [XXX] that she was preparing to commit suicide.

[16] The principal claimant has also provided photographs⁵ and website print outs⁶ which show her spouse at various events with Senate candidate [XXX], Former President Alvaro Uribe and current President Ivan Duque, among others.

Country Documentation

[17] The National Documentation Package (NDP) for Colombia indicates that domestic violence is so pervasive and normalized in that country, that it has become virtually invisible to authorities and citizens alike.⁷ Women are unlike to report such violence to the authorities as they fear being stigmatized or re-victimized by state institutions, and as such spousal abuse – and specifically spousal rape – remains a “serious problem” in the country.⁸

[18] In considering the totality of the documentary evidence, I find that the principal claimant has established an objective basis for her fear of persecution on a Convention ground, as well as the children’s fears.

STATE PROTECTION

[19] The principal claimant alleges that Colombia has failed to protect her from her husband to date and should she return to Colombia, the state would be unwilling or unable to provide her and her children with adequate state protection.

[20] According to the NDP for Colombia⁹:

According to the 2015 National Survey on Demographics and Health, 76.4 percent of women never sought help in cases of violence committed against them (Colombia 2015, 84). The same source indicates that, in cases where the violence was reported, 40.3 percent were reported at a police station, 37.2 percent at the FGR, 19 percent at a Family Commissary, 7.1 percent at “another institution,” and 2.4 percent at a court (Colombia 2015, 83-84). Of all reported cases by women victims of violence, the aggressor was penalized in 21.1 percent of the cases, the victim was summoned to conciliation in 29.5 percent of the cases, the aggressor was not penalized or did not appear in 28.2 percent of the cases, the aggressor was ordered not to go near the victim in 22.1 percent of the cases, and in 5.7 percent the aggressor was prohibited from going back into the home (Colombia 2015, 84). In 4.7 percent of the cases that were reported, the violence did not stop, and in 2.3 percent it got worse (Colombia 2015, 84).

A report sent to Congress by the President’s High Commissioner for Women’s Equality, regarding the implementation of Law 1257 of 2008, states that, in 2014, the FGN received 74,899 cases of intra-family violence, with charges laid in 10 percent of the cases and a conviction rate of 23 percent (Colombia 26 Jan. 2017). In 2015 the number of cases received was 85,040, with charges laid in 12 percent of the cases and a conviction rate of 24 percent (Colombia 26 Jan. 2017). The same report states that, despite the increase in the rate of charges being laid, that rate remains “very low, ” and the investigation and prosecution of intra-family violence cases remains “insufficient” and the conviction rate “deficient” (Colombia 26 Jan. 2017).

Country Reports 2016 states that, according to women’s groups such as Sisma Mujer, law enforcement response is “generally ineffective” (US 3 Mar. 2017, 37).

[21] The NDP further states that due to the prevalence of domestic violence throughout the country and a corresponding lack of resources, the state response to such violence is “insufficient”. As such, spousal abusers are able to act with relative “impunity” in Colombia.¹⁰

[22] This information certainly accords with the evidence of the principal claimant with regard to her attempts to obtain protection prior to her coming to Canada.

[23] This of course does not take into account the profile of the agent of persecution which in my view, only further supports the inference that state protection for this family is not available in Colombia.

[24] The ties between the political class and the various criminal groups in Colombia are well documented and date as far back as the 1960’s and 70’s.¹¹ The principal claimant alleges that but for the threat delivered to her at her step-mother’s home, she would not have believed that [XXX] had ties to the Urabeños, but that was the threat and she believed it capable of being carried out.

[25] The National Documentation Package for Colombia (NDP) indicates that the Urabeños are now the dominant criminal band with the “biggest presence in Colombia” and the ability to “interfere at the national level.”¹² The International Criminal Court describes the Urabeños as highly organized and able to exert effective control over its members.¹³ The Urabeños operate through a criminal network composed of nodes that “answer to central command,” and are known to use extortion, threats, killings, and other forms of violence including “kidnapping and selective assassination.”¹⁴

[26] On a balance of probabilities, and in light of the claimants’ particular circumstances, I find that there is clear and convincing evidence that the Colombian state would be unable to provide the claimant with adequate protection. The principal claimant provided reliable and trustworthy evidence of her efforts to obtain state protection, and aside from issuing a report and offering to investigate, the Colombian authorities did not provide specific protection measures.

[27] The NDP indicates that when victims of armed groups complain to Colombian authorities, the state is often unable to offer operationally adequate protection. This is due in part to the “overwhelming caseload” of prosecutors and “inadequate official investigation” which has “made it difficult to address threats, attacks and killings.”¹⁵ This is especially the case for those who are not “high profile”¹⁶ as the National Protection Unit (UNP) in Colombia focuses on persons “given their position or activities, [who] may be subjected to extraordinary or extreme risk,”¹⁷ such as well-known human rights defenders. The “vast majority of victims of criminal groups do not receive protection.”¹⁸

[28] The NDP indicates that authorities have “failed to curb the power of criminal groups” and crimes committed by neo-paramilitary groups are “sometimes committed with the collusion or acquiescence of the security forces.”¹⁹ Indeed, neo-paramilitary groups are known to use ties to Colombian officials in order to “avoid prosecution” and Colombian police officers have been seen “meeting with members of criminal groups, including the Urabeños.”²⁰

[29] I note that Colombian authorities have undertaken efforts to capture members of the Urabeños.²¹ However, even if the perpetrators are incarcerated, they can continue to “use alliances outside to take revenge.”²² The preponderance of the evidence before me is both clear and convincing and rebuts the presumption of state protection in the claimant’s particular circumstances. I find on a balance of probabilities, that that the Colombian state is unable to provide the claimants with adequate protection from either [XXX] or the Urabeños.

INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE

[30] I also considered whether a viable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) exists for the claimants in Barranquilla and Tunja. The former city is [XXX]-hour drive or [XXX] kilometers from her former residence and the latter [XXX]-hour drive or [XXX] kilometers.

[31] I must consider a two-prong test in order to determine the viability of an IFA location.²³ Firstly, I must be satisfied that, on a balance of probabilities, the claimants would not face a serious possibility of persecution or section 97 risk in the proposed IFA. Secondly, I must be satisfied that it would not be unreasonable, in all of the circumstances, including those particular to the claimants, for them to seek refuge there.

[32] In determining whether [XXX] and the Urabeños have both the means and motivation to locate the claimant in the proposed IFA locations, I have considered the Urabeños area of operation, its ability to track its victims across Colombia, as well as its level of interest in the claimants. I have also considered the profile of the agent of persecution illustrated by the principal claimant in her testimony.

[33] With respect to [XXX], the principal claimant alleges that due to his involvement with the Centro Democratico party, he could use his “contacts” to locate her throughout Colombia. She further testifies that this could be done via access to government databases that contain biographical information which must be kept updated in order to access education, health care, exercise voting rights, etc.

[34] I have examined the NDP for Colombia, particularly Item 10.2 which is dedicated to privacy and data security. This document discusses the legal rights Colombians have over their own data and incidents of misuse. I do not find any support in this document for the claimant’s suggestion that [XXX] or his colleagues in the Democratic Party could track the principal claimant throughout Colombia or that they would even have access to any of these databases.

[35] The Urabeños are not present in Barranquilla or Tunja according to the NDP.²⁴ However, the Urabeños have a national reach and the ability to operate across the country.²⁵ Human Rights Watch notes that “that there have been documented cases of people being tracked down by the Urabeños after fleeing to other parts of the country.”²⁶ The Urabeños as an organization don’t appear to have any interest in the claimants, save and except on the part of “[XXX]” who approached the claimant purportedly on behalf of [XXX].

[36] Neither the principal claimant nor her family members have heard from the Urabeños since this single incident in [XXX] of 2017. They have not heard from [XXX] since mid-2018. The principal claimant has no information regarding any recent attempts by either party to locate her and the children.

[37] I find that based on the information in the NDP and that filed by counsel, the Urabeños have the means to locate the claimant throughout Colombia should [XXX] direct them to do so. It does not appear they have a motive to locate the claimants on their own accord, but the [XXX] 17, 2017 incident demonstrates a willingness to intimidate and threaten the principal claimant and her family at the behest of [XXX].

[38] I therefore find, on a balance of probabilities that a viable IFA does not exist for the claimants in Colombia, including in Barranquilla and Tunja, which is both safe and reasonable for them.

CONCLUSION

[39] I find that the claimants are all Convention refugees pursuant to s. 96 of IRPA. The principal claimant has demonstrated a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground which exists throughout Colombia, as a woman fearing gender-based persecution.

[40] Her claim is therefore accepted.

[41] I find that the minor claimants both face a serious possibility of persecution as members of a particular social group – family members of the principal claimant. This possibility exists throughout Colombia, and I find that they too are Convention refugees as per s. 96 of IRPA.

[42] Their claims are also accepted.

(signed) David D’Intino

October 29, 2019

¹ Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), SC 2001, c 27, as amended
² Exhibit 2.1
³ Exhibit 4.
⁴ https://irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/legal-policy/policies/Pages/chairperson-guideline.aspx
⁵ Exhibit 7.
⁶ Exhibit 8.
⁷ Exhibit 3. National Documentation Package for Colombia (May 31, 2019 version) Item 5.4 at pg 1.
⁸ Ibid.
⁹Ibid at pgs 6-7
¹⁰ Ibid at pg 8.
¹¹ NDP for Colombia. Item 7.20.
¹² Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Colombia Item 7.2, at p. 5, 13.
¹³ Exhibit 3 Item 7.15, at p. 3.
¹⁴ Exhibit 3 Item 7.2, at p. 12; Item 7.15, at p. 3, 4; Item 7.18, at p. 5.
¹⁵ Exhibit 3 Item 7.8, at p. 27; Item 1.7, at p. 19.
¹⁶ Exhibit 3 Item 1.7.
¹⁷ Exhibit 3, Item 7.3, at p. 1.
¹⁸ Exhibit 3, NDP for Colombia Item 7.15, at p. 20.
¹⁹ Exhibit 3, NDP for Colombia Item 7.15, at p. 19.
²⁰ Exhibit 3, NDP for Colombia), Item 7.2, at p. 12; Item 7.15, at p. 15.
²¹ Exhibit 3, NDP for Colombia Item 7.15, at p. 19.
²² Exhibit 3, NDP for Colombia Item 1.7, at p. 33.
²³ Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (MEI), 1993 CanLII 3011, paras. 5-6, 14; Rasaratnam v. Canada (MEI), [1992] 1 FC
706, at p. 710.

All Countries El Salvador

2019 RLLR 61

Citation: 2019 RLLR 61
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 8, 2019
Panel: D. Marcovitch
Counsel for the claimant(s): Adela Crossley
Country: El Salvador
RPD Number: TB8-09319
Associated RPD Number(s): TB8-09330, TB8-09365, TB8-09366
ATIP Number: A-2020-01274
ATIP Pages: 000151-000155

DECISION

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

[2] [XXX], [XXX] who I will refer to as the principal claimant, [XXX], and [XXX] are citizens of El Salvador and are requesting protection under Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[3] The claims were joined pursuant to Rule 55 if the RPD rules, and [XXX] was appointed as the designated representative of the minor claimants pursuant to rule … or pursuant to Section 167(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[4] The specific details of this claim are set out in the Basis of Claim Form of [XXX].

[5] In short, the claimants fear the MS-13 gang in El Salvador as a result of years of extortion and threats, particularly experienced by the adult male claimant. The MS-13, it started approaching him in 2015 seeking small extortion amounts on a regular basis. However, starting in [XXX] 2016 the principal claimant was approached for greater extortion amounts which the principal claimant paid on the [XXX] of every month, and he considered it part of his monthly costs of living.

[6] However, in [XXX] 2017 the principal claimant was asked by an elder … elderly neighbour to use his position as the [XXX] of a [XXX] company called [XXX](ph) to provide samples of [XXX] that the neighbour was unable to obtain through the El Salvador social assistance program due to office closers during the holiday season.

[7] Shortly after doing this favour the MS-13 approached the principal claimant and asked for sample [XXX] as well in addition to the extortion amounts. At this time the MS-13 also advised as to the details that they had regarding the principal claimant’s family, where he worked, when and where his kids went to school, etcetera.

[8] Later on, the minor claimant [XXX] was stopped by gang members as he got off a school bus and was threatened regarding his father following through on extortion amounts and to try and stop avoiding them.

[9] INTERPRETER: Would you kindly repeat that (inaudible) last part all about the school bus?

[10] MEMBER: To try and stop avoiding them.

[11] INTERPRETER: Can you back to where he got on the school bus (inaudible)?

[12] MEMBER: And was threatened regarding his father following through on extortion and to stop trying to avoid them.

[13] The claimants also believe that the MS-13 members had moved into a rooming-house across from their home and were keeping an eye on them.

[14] My determination is that I find the claimants persons in need of protection pursuant to Section 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[15] With regard to Section 96, I find that the claimants fear criminal entity and I therefore find that their fear of persecution is not based on one of the five Convention grounds. That being so, this case was assessed under Section 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[16] With regard to generalized risk, the documentary evidence that El Salvador is one of the most violence countries in the world with one of the highest homicide rates. In particular, gangs are responsible for about 60 percent of the country’s homicides, as noted in NDP Item 7.1(1).

[17] El Salvador’s National Documentation Package further indicates that random organized violent crime is endemic throughout El Salvador.

[18] Based on the documentary evidence contained in the NDP and counsel’s country package I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the risk of violence at the hands of gangs in El Salvador is a generalized risk faced by the general population in El Salvador, and that extortion threats are common. However, I find that the claimant in this particular case face an individualized risk.

[19] I find that even though some of the extortion faced by the claimants in 2015 or 2016 may have been generalized in nature, the more recent threats they experienced in 2017 and 2018 was personalized in nature. I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimants face a greater risk to their lives than the risk faced by the generalized population in El Salvador, such that they are subject to the generalized risk exception found in sub-paragraph 97(1)(b)(ii) of the Act.

[20] With regard to identity, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimants have established their identities by way of certified true copies of their El Salvadorian passports as seized by the Canadian Border Security Agency.

[21] With regard to credibility, I find that the principal claimant was a credible witness. I find that he was consistent and did not embellish his testimony when there were opportunities for him to have done so. I find that I believe what he said and presented at his hearing.

[22] I accept the principal claimant’s evidence that before they went to the United States in [XXX] 2017, he was scared of the gangs but did not consider the threats at that time to be significant, as he was paying the extortion amounts and viewed it as a monthly expense.

[23] Further, the gangs appear to have accepted that monthly amount and had not threatened further at that point.

[24] I therefore find that the claimants have not experienced such serious threats of a personal nature, that they should have sought protection in the United States…

[25] INTERPRETER: That they should have?

[26] MEMBER: That they should have sought protection in the United States. And that I find they did not re-avail themselves of El Salvador’s protection when they returned.

[27] With regard to State protection, there are numerous documents in the Board’s disclosure packages that describe the ineffectiveness of El Salvador’s police and judiciary. Based among other things, on gang infiltration and corruption.

[28] The claimants in this case did not approach the police at any point about the threats. While I find this problematic, I’m also of the opinion that even if they had stayed to try to get the benefit of State protection that the protection offered would not have been adequate given the objective country documentation on the issue, and the imminent threats faced by the claimants.

[29] I therefore find, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimants have rebutted their presumption of State protection available to them in El Salvador and I find, on a balance of probabilities, that State protection would not be available to these particular claimants in the future if they were to return to El Salvador.

[30] With regard to internal flight alternative, the documentary evidence is clear that gang activity is prevalent throughout El Salvador and that MS-13 has connections throughout the country and that they communicate with each other when new people move into their neighbourhoods.

[31] That being so and given my determination regarding State protection, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that there’s no viable internal flight alternative available to these particular claimants anywhere in El Salvador.

[32] To conclude I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimants are persons in need of protection pursuant to Section 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act as they would be personally subjected to a risk to their lives or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment should they return to El Salvador today.

[33] I therefore accept their claims. Good luck.

[34] COUNSEL: Thank you, Mr. Member.

[35] MEMBER: And we’re off the record.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

All Countries Hungary

2019 RLLR 60

Citation: 2019 RLLR 60
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: June 14, 2019
Panel: M. Somers
Counsel for the claimant(s): John W. Grice
Country: Hungary
RPD Number: TB8-09172
Associated RPD Number(s): TB8-09218, TB8-09231, TB9-11 756
ATIP Number: A-2020-01274
ATIP Pages: 000145-000150

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: The Board is prepared to render a decision orally based on the testimony of the claimants, as well as, other documentary evidence that has been filed in this matter.

[2] The claimants, a family, the principal claimant, [XXX] (the principal claimant), his wife, [XXX] (wife) and their minor daughter, [XXX] (daughter) and the principal claimant’s mother …

[3] Did I get something wrong, Madame Interpreter, the names?

[4] INTERPRETER: [XXX] is the wife, the common-law wife.

[5] MEMBER: Okay. Thank you.

[6] INTERPRETER: [XXX] is the daughter.

[7] MEMBER: Thank you and we’ve got … they never put these things in the right order.

[8] So, the mother is, [XXX].

[9] So, that it’s clear, the claimants are a family, husband/wife, mother/father, their minor daughter and the principal claimant’s mother. They are all citizens of Hungary.

[10] They have all made refugee protection claims under Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).

[11] The principal claimant has been designated as the representative for his minor daughter in this matter.

[12] The Board has taken into consideration the Board’s guidelines for minor claimants in the determination of the daughter’s claim.

[13] In addition, the Board has taken into consideration the Chairperson’s Gender Guidelines in the determination of the claims for the principal claimant’s wife, the principal claimant’s mother, the principal claimant’s daughter.

Allegations

[14] The specifics of the claim are stated in the principal claimant’s narrative, as well as, the principal claimant’s mother’s narrative, that are found in their Basis of Claim Form (BOC).

[15] They allege the following:

[16] They are Hungarian citizens whose ethnicity is Roma.

[17] They fear to return to Hungary as they believe that they will be persecuted based on their ethnicity. They claim that they have been harassed, discriminated, threatened and assaulted due to their ethnicity.

[18] They claim that there’s systematic discrimination against the Roma in Hungary.

[19] In addition, they fear the actions of extremists, nationalists and members of the Jobbik Party in Hungary and in general, racist attitudes of the population as a whole.

[20] They maintain that the police in Hungary have a discriminatory attitude towards members of the Roma community and would not adequately protect them or other members of the Roma community.

[21] The principal claimant, his wife and child, left Hungary on or about [XXX], 2018. The principal claimant’s mother left on [XXX], 2019.

[22] When they entered Canada, they made claims for refugee protection soon thereafter.

Determination

[23] The Board finds that the claimants are Convention refugees pursuant to Section 96 of the IRPA.

[24] The Board’s reasons are as follows:

Analysis

[25] The Board was concerned with the issues of credibility and state protection.

Identity and Credibility

[26] The Board was satisfied with the personal identity of the claimants, that is, the personal identity of the claimants and that they were or are Hungarian citizens based on certified copies of their passport, as well as, other secondary identification documents filed.

[27] In respect to the claimants’ ethnicity, that of being a Roma, the Board is satisfied that they are Roma based on the testimony of the claimants, as well as, a few secondary identification documents filed on their behalf. As such, the Board accepts that all claimants’ ethnicity is that of a Roma.

[28] In the hearing, most of the evidence, most of the testimonies, was given by the principal claimant. The principal claimant’s mother did testify for a brief moment, as well. Overall, the Board found that the testimony of both witnesses were credible and reliable.

[29] The principal claimant testified that he believed that the discriminatory attitude towards Roma was what at best could be described as, widespread. In fact, it would not be far fetched to state that he believed that it was 100%, that all non-Roma are discriminatory and act on that discriminatory basis towards a minority community that he belongs to, the Roma in Hungary.

[30] The Board has carefully reviewed the country condition articles, reports, filed by both Counsel and the Refugee Protection Division. The Board notes that many of the documents, particularly found in the National Documentation Package, are from independent, reputable, international human rights organizations, as well as, reports from state agencies, departments from well-respected Western democracies such as Canada itself, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

[31] It would be fair to say that, the vast majority of information in these country conditions articles and reports, substantiates, supports the claimants’ testimony and allegations found in their narrative in their claim that there is a long history of discrimination towards the Roma community by the general Hungarian society, by the government, by its security apparatus.

[32] The country conditions articles clearly describes discrimination as widespread. As noted, the principal claimant believes 100% of the population is discriminatory. I’m not sure the documentary evidence states that but it does state that it is widespread.

[33] In its determination of whether the claimants are Convention refugees or not, the Board has to determine whether the claimants have been persecuted in the past or if they were to return, would they be persecuted as opposed to just being discriminated against?

[34] The Board notes that there is jurisprudence that states for a matter to be considered persecution that the mistreatment suffered or anticipated by a claimant must be serious. The approach that is used by the courts is and approved by the courts, is equated to a notion of a denial of a core human right.

[35] The documentary evidence indicates that – and will be discussed later on in this decision – that the Roma, members of the Roma communities are discriminated on a continuous basis on all facets of their life from education, employment, health services, accommodation.

[36] The Board finds that if the claimants were to return to Hungary that they would have a well founded fear of persecution.

[37] The information found in the documentary evidence acknowledges that Hungary has taken steps to improve in the moderating of the rights of the Roma in Hungary. It has maintained a Roma Council bringing in members from different facets of society to ensure that the Roma population in Hungary is not discriminated or abused.

[38] Nevertheless, the sources clearly indicate that both government and non-government policies for Roma integration has not been implemented.

[39] The documentary evidence indicates that there are grave problems regarding poverty in the Roma community in Hungary, in particular, child poverty. Many of the reports, particularly from the European Union, from the UN, have not been implemented.

[40] The annual reports from the United States State Department Reports on Human Rights Practices in Hungary, each year indicates that discrimination continues to significantly limit Roma from access to education, employment, health services and social services.

[41] The U.S. reports every year indicates that there is a racist attitude perpetrated by the police force against this particular ethnic community.

[42] Some of the statistics mentioned in the documentary evidence are shocking. For example, 80% of the Roma aged between 15 and 64, have not completed more than 8 years of primary education, compared to 20% among non-Roma and of those Roma, 16% did not finish primary school at all while 63% completed primary school without going on to secondary school. The comparable figures for non Roma Hungarians are I% and 90%, respectively.

[43] The discrepancy narrows among those students who study vocational and trade schools, 15% of Roma versus 25% of non-Roma completed vocational programs.

[44] The unemployment rate between the Roma and non-Roma Hungarians are significant.

[45] The Board does acknowledge that the Hungarian government has expressed the willingness to provide protection to all of its citizens. The government has made commitments to the European Union to make efforts to improve the conditions of its minority citizens, including the Roma.

[46] However, the Federal Court of Canada has held on a number of occasions, that good intentions alone to protect and improve the plight of the Roma in Hungary are not enough. There is a general jurisprudence that states that, having legislation that protects its nationals but is not implemented at all while its nationals are being deprived of core human rights, does not amount to adequate state protection.

[47] As such, the Board finds that he Hungarian government and its police are unable to provide adequate state protection to its Roma citizens, at this time.

[48] As such, based on case law, the Board finds that the claimants have rebutted the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence.

[49] Although not an issue, I would mention internal flight alternative. The Board finds that the country condition articles and reports indicate that the discrimination and harassment and hostile attitudes of the Hungarian population, of the Hungarian government, of the poor services provided by police to this minority group, is systematically widespread and as such, there is no viable IFA available to the claimants should they return to Hungary.

Conclusion

[50] Based on this brief analysis, the Board finds that the claimants are Convention refugees and accepts their claims.

[51] This hearing is over.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

All Countries Qatar

2019 RLLR 59

Citation: 2019 RLLR 59
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 14, 2019
Panel: K. Genjaga
Counsel for the claimant(s): Howard P Eisenberg
Country: Qatar
RPD Number: TB8-07897
ATIP Number: A-2020-01274
ATIP Pages: 000139-000144

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: We’re back on the record. All parties are present and the claimant’s brother whose joined us today can you translate that?

[2] INTERPRETER: Yes I’m going to.

[3] MEMBER: Okay.

[4] INTERPRETER: Can you repeat just slowly like (inaudible)

[5] MEMBER: Sure the claimant’s brother has joined us now for the delivery of the decision.

[6] Okay so during the break counsel has advised that the claimant understands enough English for the purposes of delivering the decision. So we can excuse you after you finish.

[7] INTERPRETER: Okay, okay thank you.

[8] MEMBER: Okay. Okay so thank you Madame Interpreter.

[9] INTERPRETER: You’re welcome I really apologize for being late but that map quest drove me crazy.

[10] MEMBER: Okay.

[11] INTERPRETER: My husband is not here I’m going to sponsor him, he’s in Lebanon to same.

[12] COUNSEL: Okay perfect thank you.

[13] MEMBER: Thank you.

[14] INTERPRETER: It was a pleasure.

[15] MEMBER: Thank you.

[16] Okay I have considered your testimony and the other evidence in this case and I’m ready to render my decision orally. I’d like to add that in the event that written are issued a written form of these reasons may be edited for spelling, syntax and grammar and references to applicable case law and documentary evidence may also be included.

[17] The claimant sorry [XXX] claims to be a stateless Palestinian claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[18] In deciding your claim I have considered your testimony and the documentary evidence filed. In addition I have considered the guidelines on women refugee claimants fearing gender related persecution.

[19] Your allegations are set out in your basis of claim form which is found in Exhibit number 2. The following is a brief summary of your allegations.

[20] In 1978 you allege that your father and mother moved to Qatar from Lebanon. In 1981 you allege that you were born in Qatar. In your father or under your father’s sponsorship while you were growing up and attending school in Qatar subsequently your father ended up going, retiring his sponsorship was transferred to another company in Qatar and in your brother in Canada here ended up sponsoring your mother and your father to come to Canada.

[21] They ended up coming here in 2014. You ended up working at [XXX] for the period from 2010t to the period of 2016 upon which you were also let go. During that particular time you ended up transferring back to your father’s sponsorship for a brief period.

[22] You ended up going to Lebanon in [XXX] of 2017 to renew your Lebanese travel document and during that time you visited your sister in [XXX] in a Lebanese camp. Subsequently due to the violence that was going on in that particular camp and gunfire you ended up cancelling your trip and ended up going back to Qatar. You tried to find other employment and you had difficulty.

[23] You ended up coming to Canada on [XXX] 2018 and made an inland claim for refugee protection and subsequently to you being here in Canada your residency permit from Qatar was cancelled due to the fact that you had been out of the country or that particular country for more than six months.

[24] I find that you are a Convention refugee based on the grounds of membership in a particular social group that being of a female fearing gender related persecution in Qatar for the following reasons.

[25] Your identity as a stateless Palestinian is established by your testimony and the supporting documentation filed namely a Lebanese travel document issued to stateless Palestinians which appears in Exhibit number 1.

[26] I find you to be a very credible witness and therefore believe what you have alleged in support of your claim. You have testified in straightforward manner and there were no relevant inconsistencies in your testimony or contradictions between your testimony and the other evidence before me.

[27] You did not exaggerate or embellish your claim. You also have provided extensive personal documents in Exhibit 7, 8, 9 and 10 to support your life in Qatar and also support your family’s connections to Lebanon.

[28] These documents include your status in Qatar it also includes your university documents from the [XXX] University. It also includes your secondary education certificates, your birth certificate, your [XXX] (ph) document it also includes your driver’s license, letters of support from your family and therefore the panel believes your story in support of your claim.

[29] There was one concern the panel had which was your failure to claim in the United States or in other countries prior to 2015, however you have provided a reasonable explanation, that during those periods of time you had a job in Qatar and also you had family still in Qatar and your problems only arose after your family had left Qatar and came to Canada. Therefore the panel did not draw a negative inference as to your credibility.

[30] Now as for the objective documentary evidence which appears in Exhibit 7b, 7c, 8, 10, 11 and 12 they also support the problem that you may have as a single woman living without a male relatives in Qatar.

[31] The panel finds that you are a stateless Palestinian you spent all of your life in Qatar even though that you have made visits to Lebanon during your formative years and that you do have some connection to Lebanon as your parents and relatives, your parents were born there.

[32] Some of your siblings were born there, you also have a sibling who’s still there and even though the panel did not find that as a formal country of habitual residence we proceeded, I don’t want to belabor that point but a lot of time was spent regarding establishing your connection to Lebanon. The panel is making this decision squarely on you would have problems going back to your formal habitual residence of Qatar.

[33] In Qatar you only have a temporary status, you do not have the same rights as Qatari nationals and you’re not allowed to own your own home or work at certain jobs. You do not have access to public healthcare or education, you had to pay for that on your own and you would also face difficulties the panel finds on a balance of probabilities of finding a job in part because you’re Palestinian and you hold a Lebanese travel document.

[34] The documentary evidence indicates quite clearly in some of the exhibits that a resident, that you can’t be outside of your country of formal habitual residence Qatar longer than six months. Some people, the documentary evidence also indicates that you might be able to obtain permission to enter but you had to have to obtain it prior to departure.

[35] You can’t necessarily get it now that you are out of the country. There’s a different set of rules that would apply to you and I believe that particular time period has elapsed. According to the fact that your residence permit has now expired and I do agree that the documentary evidence does support that you can’t enter unless an employer hires you from overseas. So and that’s not the case that we have here today.

[36] So as a result you can’t return there, that’s one condition that I have to find. You left Qatar in [XXX] 2018 and you can no longer return using your previous residency permit and consequently the documentary evidence also indicates that, that you need to obtain a sponsor.

[37] Foreign workers have to get the employers consent, have to be able to change jobs. The sponsor controls whether the employee, certain aspects of the employees, existence in that particular country and because you would have an uncertain immigration status in Qatar. Those particular sponsorship rules still apply to you but in any event because you are Palestinian your status in Qatar could only be temporary.

[38] Now the area that I particularly focused on in this decision is the fact of the documentary evidence which appears in 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5 pertaining to gender issues. The fact that you would have no sponsor, no male guardian there, I find that cumulatively amounts to discrimination in your particular case as a Palestinian woman.

[39] 2.1 of Exhibit number 6 indicates there’s human rights problems of for women, there’s the guardianship system in place that requires every woman to have a close male relative as her guardian with legal authority to approve whether she works there, files any kind of legal or goes to the police. It also notes that widespread societal exclusion exists for statist institutions in terms of recognizing single women’s rights.

[40] In addition you may face discrimination in courts and also discrimination under family law because women are not treated as an equal member in society and many laws discriminate against them in Qatar.

[41] And normally the documentary evidence is also in 5.1 it talks about that husband nor the closest male relative has to set up or has to be involved in the woman’s daily life. I find that this is persecutory in this particular case it would impose important obstacles for your own autonomy to find your own job and would possibly prevent you from renting on your own and it would also limit the range of full activities that you would be able to do on your own in society.

[42] Therefore I find that there’s more than a mere possibility of treatment amounting to persecution in Qatar in your case. I also find that because these are the laws of the land that you have rebutted the presumption of state protection in this case.

[43] I also find that there would be no alternative flight alternative in Qatar because this would be the situation that you would face wherever you go and therefore I conclude that you are a Convention refugee and accept you claim.

[44] In addition I also find that you cannot return to your formal habitual country of residence in this particular case.

[45] Thank you and welcome to Canada. Thank you I wish to thank you for coming to tell your story and I wish to thank counsel for your participation and everybody have a good afternoon.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

All Countries Colombia

2019 RLLR 58

Citation: 2019 RLLR 58
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: May 1, 2019
Panel: J. Pollock
Counsel for the claimant(s): A. Mejia-Arias
Country: Colombia
RPD Number: TB8-07483
ATIP Number: A-2020-01274
ATIP Pages: 000129-000138

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] MEMBER: We are back on record. All the same parties are present, except Madam Interpreter has been excused while we were off record.

[2] While we were off record, while Madam Interpreter was still present, I advised the claimant and counsel that I would be granting the claim here today. Madam Interpreter indicated that she has a headache and is unable to remain in the hearing room. So with — well, I discussed this issue with counsel.

[3] And Counsel, my understanding is you have no objection to me providing my reasons and waiving off interpretation.

[4] COUNSEL: I have no objection.

[5] MEMBER: Thank you so much.

[6] All right. While we were off record, I also provided the original documents back to Counsel.

[7] I have considered your testimony and the other evidence that you presented here today, and I am ready to render my decision.

[8] This is a decision for Ms. [XXX].

[9] The claimant claims to be a citizen of Columbia and is making her claim protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[10] In considering your claim here today and in rendering my decision, I have considered and applied the Chairperson’s Guideline 4 on women refugee claimants fearing persecution.

[11] I find that you are a convention refugee as you have established a serious possibility of persecution upon return to Colombia based upon your particular social group as a religious community worker who was imputed to be opposed to the ELN.

[12] Your allegations are set out in detail in your basis of claim form which we have at Exhibit 2.

[13] You allege that you worked in the evangelical sense by providing community religious work to various underserved communities in Columbia.

[14] You indicated that you provided literacy lessons to adults and children and that you taught people about the bible.

[15] You allege that the person who you referred to as your spiritual father, Pastor [XXX] (ph), was murdered in [XXX] 2015 by the ELN. You allege that you, along with his now widow, witnessed this murder, and that ever since this time you received multiple threats from the ELN.

[16] So specifically, you indicate that you were personally approached while you were in [XXX] (ph) in Sincelejo.

[17] You were approached by members of the ELN, who identified themselves as members of the ELN who demanded that you cease your religious work, and that you were interfering in the community. They ordered you to leave. They explained that they would kill you if you didn’t do as they told you.

[18] You further allege you experienced two more threatening phone calls, one in [XXX] 2016, the next in [XXX] 2016. You allege that during these calls they again threatened your life and demanded that you cease your evangelical work. They also demanded that you leave the city.

[19] As a result, you fled the city where you were living in Manaure and you resided with family. You then fled Columbia for Canada where you remained on a visa.

[20] You allege that even after you fled Columbia, your family members continued to receive telephone threats regarding you specifically.

[21] Just for clarity purposes, the full name of the ELN is National Liberation Army, hereinafter referred to as the ELN.

[22] I find your personal identity as a national of Columbia is established on a balance of probabilities by your Columbian passport, which I have at Exhibit 1.

[23] Regarding the issue of nexus, I do find that the ELN targeted you for reasons beyond the expansion of their criminal enterprise. I am satisfied that on the particular facts of your case, the ELN targeted you because of your community religious work.

[24] I would note that even if the ELN has expanded into drug trafficking and other criminal enterprises throughout Colombia, it remains at its core a guerilla group with violent political aspirations and a left-wing political ideology that is known to target community workers.

[25] In my view, from the perspective of the agent of persecution, your particular religious community activities were in opposition to the objectives of the ELN and, as a result, they imputed to you an anti-ELN political opinion.

[26] And I am satisfied that your religious work in the community is central to your human rights and, therefore, that you do comprise a particular social group as a community religious worker.

[27] Regarding your credibility, I find you to be generally credible. I did have some credibility concerns. However, I found you to be extremely credible when it came to your commitment to your religious work in Columbia and your continuing religious work here in Canada.

[28] I do believe that you acted as a religious worker, that you engaged underserved communities in lessons about literacy, as well as lessons about the bible.

[29] You provided very detailed testimony in this respect which I found compelling. You spoke about the importance of your faith to you personally.

[30] You spoke in detail about what led you to become involved in this work back in 1997 and I found that to be credible as well.

[31] You spoke about why you were motivated to engage in this work after you first met your spiritual father, who then later on was murdered. I would note that this testimony was very difficult for you as it required you to remember this very important person in your life. And as a result, an additional break was offered to you today. I did find that to be very credible.

[32] I also found to be credible your allegation that you witnessed your spiritual father’s murder. Your testimony about this was consistent and it was detailed and very spontaneous.

[33] I would note that there was a minor inconsistency in your testimony.

[34] So when I had asked you about what was told to you during the first telephone threat you received from the ELN, you didn’t mention that they indicated they knew where you were living. However, you did mention the vast majority of every other single thing that you allege that they told you on that day.

[35] And so I have weighed this omission against the consistent nature of your testimony for that threat in particular, and I find that it is minor in nature. You indicated that you may have forgotten this detail and I am affording you the benefit of the doubt with respect to this inconsistency. I haven’t drawn an adverse inference.

[36] I do find that you were threatened in person, as alleged, and over the phone as alleged in your narrative.

[37] However, I did and I am drawing an adverse inference based on your submission of a national attorney general report. Specifically, this report appears at Exhibit 6. So it begins at page 25 and it ends at page 28.

[38] You tendered this report in evidence and you also provided a purported original document to a company, the copy that you put in evidence. However, upon my review of this original document, I noted there were no signatures apparent.

[39] However, on the copy in the disclosure package, at page 26, your signature appears above the phrase “reporting party”. I wasn’t sure why this was and so I asked for your comment on this.

[40] You indicated that you signed this document in Canada. When it was asked why you had done this, you indicated you believed you were supposed to do this. However, I find that this alteration of a document undermines its veracity before me here today and I am drawing an adverse inference as to your credibility.

[41] In addition to the fact that the original document doesn’t match the document in evidence, I would note that there is no indication that this report was even filed with the authorities. There is no stamp. There is no signature by the receiving party. You indicated they didn’t sign it. However, I am not satisfied on a balance of probabilities that this report was filed

[42] I also did have some concerns about the appearance of the report. However, I won’t draw an adverse inference on that basis, given that the comparison report may indeed be a different report and that specifically, the report example specimen that I am referring to is at Exhibit 3, Item 9.5.

[43] So we do have an example of a report to the national attorney general appears to be generally and we know that there is no variation in the format of reports because they are established by the attorney general in Columbia. However, given that the title of the report is different from the title of the specimen, I won’t draw an adverse inference.

[44] But I do draw an adverse inference based on the fact that you signed this document and I have no credible evidence before me to indicate that it was ever filed. So I have drawn an adverse inference on this basis.

[45] However, it’s my job to weigh the evidence before me. Even considering the minor inconsistency about the telephone threat, and the fact that I don’t find this report that you have given me to be credible, I do find that the balance of your evidence is credible and I believe what goes to the core of your claim, which is that you were a community religious worker and that you were threatened by the ELN.

[46] In addition to these credibility concerns, I also asked you about why you delayed two years in making your claim. So you entered Canada in XXXX or, sorry, in XXXX of 2016 and you made your claim in XXXX of 2018.

[47] When I asked you for an explanation, you indicated that you — well, first of all, you indicated that your visa did not expire. But then I confronted you with your stamp which indicates it expired in XXXX of 2016. At that point you indicated that in fact you did try and renew your temporary status. But there is no evidence before me that you did engage in an attempt to renew your status

[48] I have examined the GCMS notes at Exhibit 1 and I note that there is no reference to an extension being filed. The only dates that are after 2015, that I can see in these notes, refer to your claim in 2018 and refer to the file being archived in 2017.

[49] And so I don’t find that you have established, on a balance of probabilities that you made an attempt to extend your status here in Canada

[50] I note that by remaining in Canada without authorization for one and a half years following the expiration of your six months upon entering Canada, you were at risk of removal to Columbia. And I find it unreasonable for you not to have made your claim sooner.

[51] I have considered your explanation, which is that you remained hopeful that the peace process in Columbia — and I do appreciate that and I have weighed that explanation. However, this is a significant delay.

[52] While I may be in a position to accept that as a reasonable explanation for a shorter delay, I simply don’t find it reasonable for two years, especially when I am finding that you were without status for one and a half of those years and at risk of removal.

[53] So while I do draw an adverse inference against your credibility based on the significant delay, I don’t find that this failure puts your general credibility in doubt. Indeed, I am mindful that it’s not advisable to deny a claim solely based on an adverse inference as to a claimant’s subjective fear.

[54] I find even when combining this to your delay with my adverse inference as to your submission of the report that I don’t find credible, I still find that the credible evidence in your claim outweighs these adverse inferences.

[55] And so I do find you credible on a balance of probabilities and I do find that you face the harm that you have alleged in support of your claim.

[56] So in addition to your generally credible testimony, you did provide a number of documents which I did find to be credible before me here today.

[57] So you provided me with a letter from your employer in Columbia. I didn’t see the original of that document. However, I saw a copy.

[58] You provided me with the original church letter and I found that to be very credible. Your testimony about the name of the church, who your pastor was; all of that was consistent and I placed weight on that letter. I do find that you attended the church you have alleged and that you engaged in the community work that is included in that letter.

[59] I have also considered the affidavit from your mum. I know that this corroborates your allegations and is also accompanied by information about (inaudible) and also a photograph of her upon making the affidavit.

[60] I have also considered to be quite credible the affidavit from the friend who you had from the church, Ms. [XXX] (ph) and so that appears at page 19 of Exhibit 6, also an affidavit accompanied by a photo of her commenting on that declaration

[61] I found that to be consistent with your allegations and that it corroborates the specific allegation where you were personally approached by the ELN.

[62] I have also considered the affidavit from your sister. And while I note that this doesn’t refer to her seeking police protection or protection from the authorities as you have alleged, I am mindful that evidence should be taken for what it does say and not for what it does not say and, I further note, that it does corroborate your allegation that she received threatening telephone calls. So I have waived this in your favour as well.

[63] Perhaps one of the most compelling pieces of evidence that you provided, however, is the affidavit from the widow of your spiritual father. I found this to be very credible and I placed significant weight on this document.

[64] I found that its description of the murder of your spiritual father to be very consistent with what you have alleged and I also found it to be written in a very compelling manner as well.

[65] So specifically, she mentions that, “This was the most horrible moment of my life. I’m sure it was the most terrible experience also for XXXX and my daughter.”

[66] I just found this to be a very credible and compelling document and I accorded it significant weight.

[67] Okay. So in addition to this personal evidence, I also have considered the objective evidence before me.

[68] I would note that while the Columbian government has signed a final peace accord with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia, also known as the PARC, and they have completed PARC demobilization in XXXX 2017, in contrast, the peace process with the ELN has stalled in Columbia.

[69] The ceasefire with the ELN ended in XXXX 2018 after the armed group resume attacks and the government suspended the peace negotiations.

[70] So since the end of the ceasefire with the ELN the armed conflict has intensified in many regions in Columbia and, indeed, many FARC dissidents have been joining the ELN, expanding its territory and its operations.

[71] The ELN is described as Columbia’s biggest guerrilla group with somewhere between 1,500 and 2,500 combatants, which operate in war fronts or urban militias. The ELN continues to regularly carry out kidnappings, extortion, assassinations, bombings and other terrorist activities.

[72] Indeed, I am also mindful of counsel’s disclosure of recent documentary evidence which indicates that the ELN took responsibility for targeted attacks in January 2019; an attack against a police academy killing 21 people.

[73] So these more recent reports can be found at Exhibit 6 at page 29.

[74] Okay. I further acknowledge that the country condition evidence is clear regarding the consequences of being declared a military objective. So you indicate that during the last telephone call they declared you a military objective.

[75] The national documentation package indicates that when a person is declared a military objective it means that they have been issued a threat to be killed and that their life, physical integrity and freedom are endangered, and also indicates that these objectives are commonly made by guerilla groups such as the ELN.

[76] The NDP also corroborates that the persecution of social leaders and community workers in Columbia is increasing. Indeed, scores of activists have been murdered and there is widespread impunity for their killers in Columbia. The problem is getting worse, not getting better, according to the objective evidence.

[77] Moreover, there is specific reference in the documents to the targeting of religious workers.

[78] So counsel has provided a very recent report which indicates the murder of a religious worker. That appears at page —

[79] COUNSEL: Thirty-five (35).

[80] MEMBER: — oh, 35. Thank you so much, Counsel. At page 35.

[81] And we also know from the objective evidence that there is intimidation, violence and killing and targeting of religious leaders and members of religious communities, that Columbia is one of the most dangerous countries in the world in which to be a community leader, including a religious community worker, that non-governmental organizations in Columbia continue to report that in many areas of the country, illegal armed groups threatened leaders and members of religious organizations.

[82] So I do find based on all this evidence that your claim is objectively well founded and that you face more than a mere possibility of persecution upon return to Columbia.

[83] Regarding state protection, I find on a balance of probabilities and, in light of your particular circumstances, that there is clear and convincing evidence that the Columbian state would be unable to provide you with adequate protection.

[84] You allege that you made no less than three attempts to obtain protection in Columbia by contacting the police unsuccessfully and also the attorney general in Columbia in three specific occasions.

[85] I find that the objective evidence, in your particular circumstances, supports the inadequacy of state protection in Columbia.

[86] I would note that the Columbian government has undertaken significant efforts to combat the ELN, including through the bombing of ELN camps and the capture of ELN members. However, the documents also indicate that when victims of armed groups complain to Columbian authorities, the state is often unable to provide them with protection. This is especially so for cases like yourself in which you are not high profile.

[87] I would note that the National Protection Unit, or UNP in Columbia, focuses on persons given their position or activities who may be subjected to extraordinary or extreme risk, such as well known human rights defenders. I don’t find on a balance of probabilities that you are of a particularly high profile or that you are a well-known human rights worker. You are a community religious worker.

[88] I would note that while this program is in place, there is evidence in the documents to show that four social leaders, who were provided with UNP protection, were killed while under protection of that unit in 2017, despite all four of them having been assigned bodyguards.

[89] The NDP goes on to note that budgetary cuts affecting the unit have negatively impacted protection schemes and that perpetrators of abuses against rights defenders and community workers are rarely held accountable.

[90] And so while I note that the state isn’t expected to provide or afford perfect protection at all times, authorities must be able and willing to implement law and procedure.

[91] So based on my review of the objective evidence and, in your particular circumstances, I find on a balance of probabilities that the evidence is clear and convincing and rebuts the presumption of state protection in your own specific particular circumstances.

[92] I have also considered whether you have a viable internal flight alternative in Columbia. I proposed the city of Sincelejo and the department of Sucre (ph). I would note that the maps that we have in evidence at Items 1.2 as well as Item 7.23 indicate that the ELN is not present or active in Sincelejo or anywhere in the department of Sucre and that’s why I proposed this specific location.

[93] I asked you a number of questions about whether you could safely relocate there. You indicated that you fear that the ELN are active throughout Columbia that they operate without people knowing that they are there and that you fear for your life and your safety throughout the country.

[94] In determining whether the ELN has the means and motivation to locate you in Sincelejo, I have considered their area of operation as well as their interest in you in particular. I would note that the most recent response to information request from April 2018 — that’s Item 7.23 — indicates that information about the ELN’s ability to track people is scarce.

[95] However, the same document quotes the Amnesty International Americas director’s observation that, “It is possible that the ELN can monitor a target across Columbia.”

[96] In addition, I note that you were declared a military target and the NDP is clear that for those who are declared a military objective, relocation within Columbia is not an option. This appears at Item 7.21.

[97] I do note that the ELN has undertaken sustained efforts to find you and that they have located you in a number of different locations in Columbia. So they have called you and your family members.

[98] They have called you while you were in Manaure. They have in Antioquia, the department of Antioquia. They have also located you in Nort Des Centendre. You were also targeted in Centendre when your spiritual father was murdered.

[99] And so I have weighed all of this in the evidence in determining whether you have a viable IFA as well.

[100] However, perhaps most importantly, I am mindful that you remain committed to your religious social work in Columbia and based on my assessment of your credibility.

[101] I have also considered whether you would be able to freely participate in these religious activities in Sincelejo without facing a serious possibility of persecution. I find that you could not.

[102] In making this determination, I have considered the level of violence and harm directed at religious community workers from armed groups in operation throughout Columbia.

[103] So based on the evidence before me and based on your particular circumstances, I find that you would face a serious possibility of persecution throughout Columbia and that there is no viable internal flight alternative for you in Columbia, including in Sincelejo.

[104] So I am accepting your refugee claim and I find you to be a convention refugee, pursuant to sections 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[105] Thank you so much. Thank you.

[106] Thank you, Counsel.

[107] COUNSEL: Thank you.

[108] MEMBER: Thank you.

– – – DECISION CONCLUDED – – –

All Countries Lebanon

2019 RLLR 57

Citation: 2019 RLLR 57
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 18, 2019
Panel: Marie-Andrée Lalonde
Counsel for the claimant(s): Chelsea Peterdy
Country: Lebanon
RPD Number: TB8-07412
ATIP Number: A-2020-01274
ATIP Pages: 000122-000128

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] The claimant, [XXX], a citizen of Lebanon, claims refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).

[2] The claimant bases her claim on membership in a particular social group: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution. The case is, thus, assessed according to section 96 of the IRPA.

ALLEGATIONS

[3] The claimant listed in response to question (2a) of her Basis of Claim (BOC) numerous incidents, where she has been severely beaten by her husband between 1998 and 2017.

[4] The claimant was forced to marry, [XXX], a man chosen by her aunt when the claimant turned 16 years old. The claimant made objection to this marriage to no avail. She was officially married 5 years later.

[5] She described in response to question 2(a) of her BOC how she was verbally, emotionally and sexually abused over a period of 20 years of married life with [XXX].

[6] She was living at her in-law’s house during the first years of her marriage. Members of her in-law’s family were also rude and abusive towards the claimant. She was hit and attacked physically by her sister-in-law and [XXX]’s parents.

[7] The claimant indicated that she had problems getting pregnant. She was often insulted for this health difficulty. She was beaten and had to be taken to the hospital several times. She was treated at a clinic which was run by [XXX]’ s cousins. She could not make any report to the authorities. All aspects of her life were under the control of the [XXX] family. The worse incidents occurred in 2008, 2010 and 2011 and are fully described in the narrative and its addendum.

[8] In 2014, the claimant’s sister called for assistance. She had breast cancer. The claimant was given permission to come to Canada to help her sister with her treatment and with her nephew, which needed much attention. During her first visit she overstayed her visa. She was asked to leave Canada.

[9] During her absence her family had indicated that her husband was told by elders to change his conduct. She returned to Lebanon with her nephew.

[10] However, soon after the claimant’s return to Algeria, her husband started to beat her up again. The claimant sent her nephew at her parent’s home. After two weeks she went to stay at her parents’ place. Her sister asked her again to return to Canada. The claimant’s brother intervened to obtain permission to leave Algeria from her husband. The claimant obtained permission to leave.

[11] During that sojourn in Canada, the claimant learned about the possibility of making a refugee protection claim.

[12] The claimant indicated that she learned from her mother that her husband agreed to divorce her. He would have gone twice to see an imam for the procedure. It is only after the third time that a certificate can be issued. She did not yet receive the divorce certificate. However, she understands that she can make an application for divorce from Canada. She was pleased to hear of this possibility to ensure that she would be fully free from her aggressor who has been abusing her for more than 20 years.

Credibility

[13] I find that the claimant was credible on all the aspects of her claim. She described the ordeal that she had suffered. The claimant provided, at Exhibit 6, the mental assessment done by Dr. [XXX]. Moreover, personal documents adduced at exhibit 5 also corroborate the situation of women who are living similar domestic situations. Counsel adduced extra documents on the topic, which corroborates the lack of protection for women fearing gender-related persecution in Algeria.

[14] Considering the quality of her testimony, which was devoid of exaggerations, incoherence or embellishments, the panel finds the claimant credible.

State Protection

[15] The panel, following the Chairperson’s Guidelines for Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution, stipulate in that a woman cannot ask protection from a state who is not respecting women’s rights and offering adequate protection to women. Such is the case in Algeria. According to Response to Information Request: Number: LBN104656.FE, Exhibit 3, item 5.2.: Sources report that Lebanese women are victims of discrimination in their country both in law and practice (AI 23 May 2013; U.S. 19 Apr. 2013, 28; Human Rights Watch Jan. 2013, 4). Some sources specifically note that certain provisions of the legislation relating to the status of the person discriminate against women (ibid.; Freedom House 2013; UN 2011, 14-15). These sources also state that such legislation is linked to the religion to which the person belongs (Human Rights Watch Jan. 2013, 4; Freedom House 2013; UN 2011, 14-15). The treatment of women thus varies based on their religious affiliation (ibid.; U.S. 19 Apr. 2013, 28; Freedom House 2013). These sources state that, in general terms, the legislation is such that women are disadvantaged with regard to divorce, child custody and succession (U.S. 19 Apr. 2013, 28; Human Rights Watch Jan. 2013, 4; Freedom House 2013).

[16] Moreover: Sources note that there are no official statistics on domestic violence in Lebanon (consultant 8 Nov. 2013; independent researcher 29 Oct. 2013; U.S. 19 Apr. 2013, 27). However, according to a report published by the United Nations Population Fund (UNPF), “gender-based violence is prevalent in Lebanon in different forms, including domestic/marital physical, sexual and psychological violence” (UN 2012, 8). According to the Country Reports for 2012, “there was a broad consensus that domestic violence, including spousal abuse, was a serious and widespread problem in the country” (U.S. 19 Apr. 2013, 27). An article published on the website of the international television network TV5 Monde states that [translation] “the project director for KAFA, a Lebanese organization combating violence against women, is of the opinion that domestic violence against women ‘is the most common form of abuse and is not subject to economic or community barriers”‘ (TVS Monde 19 Nov. 2011). In written correspondence sent to the Research Directorate, a gender consultant who conducts research and writes on violence against women in Lebanon, and who taught at Lebanese University (Universite libanaise) until 2008, states that it is [translation] “well known that domestic violence (…) is underreported” in the country (gender consultant 8 Nov. 2013). The author of the TV5 Monde article also notes that [translation] “the phenomenon is more widespread than generally presumed” (19 Nov. 2011).

[17] Sources report that it is estimated that one woman a month is killed by a family member in Lebanon (gender consultant 8 Nov. 2013; UN 8 Mar. 2012; Nasawiya 27 Feb. 2012).

[18] Therefore, based on the documentary evidence there is clear and convincing evidence that adequate state protection is not available to the claimant.

[19] The United States. Department of State. Lebanon. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2018, (Exhibit 3, item 2.1) states the following in its most recent report:

[20] The law criminalizes domestic violence, but it does not specifically provide protection for women. Despite a law that sets a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison for battery, some religious courts may legally require a battered wife to return to her home despite physical abuse. Foreign domestic workers, usually women, often suffered from mistreatment, abuse, and in some cases rape or conditions akin to slavery. Some police, especially in rural areas, treated domestic violence as a social, rather than criminal, matter.

[21] NGOs and activists criticized the domestic violence law, claiming that it does not sufficiently protect victims or punish abusers, whom they alleged often received disproportionately light sentences. On January 29, activists gathered in downtown Beirut to protest perceived inaction by the judiciary and security forces to respond to such cases after at least eight women died in domestic violence incidents through January. Examples included a woman whose husband shot her outside their home in front of neighbors following a dispute. On April 25, a judge issued an indictment and called for the death penalty for the husband who had fled to Syria but subsequently returned and surrendered to investigators.

[22] Women continue to face discrimination under the 15 distinct religion-based personal status laws. Discrimination includes inequality in access to divorce, residence of children after divorce, and property rights. Unlike Lebanese men, Lebanese women cannot pass on their nationality to foreign husbands and children and are subject to discriminatory inheritance laws. Human Rights Watch, January 2018, (item 2.3, P.4)

[23] The claimant over the years had asked for divorces several times. Each request was ignored. She had no possibility of complaining to the authorities. The claimant felt that it would make things worse.

[24] In such a country context for women, the claimant has met the burden of proof that the state turns a blind eye on women victim of domestic violence.

IFA

[25] Documentary evidence regarding the lack of state protection shows that it applies to the whole country, thus, confirms a lack of adequate state protection throughout Lebanon. Under such circumstances, as the State is turning a blind eye on the problems of domestic violence done to women, it is reasonable to find that state protection would not be forthcoming in her case. Therefore, there is no viable internal flight alternative (IFA) for the claimant under these conditions.

Conclusion

[26] Therefore, after finding that the claimant is credible, the objective country condition reports in evidence and the claimant’s supporting documents (exhibit 4 and 6), the claimant demonstrated objectively that she has more than a mere possibility of being persecuted upon return to Lebanon.

DECISION

[27] The claim is accepted

(signed) Marie-Andrée Lalonde

November 18, 2019

All Countries Colombia

2019 RLLR 56

Citation: 2019 RLLR 56
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: May 8, 2019
Panel: D. Marcovitch
Counsel for the claimant(s): Jonathan W. Jurmain
Country: Colombia
RPD Number: TB8-04624
Associated RPD Number(s): TB8-04707, TB8-04708, TB8-04745, TB8-21591,TB8-21612, TB8-21613, TB8-21548
ATIP Number: A-2020-01274
ATIP Pages: 000108-000113

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: This is an oral decision in the claims for refugee protection submitted by [XXX], [XXX], [XXX], [XXX], [XXX], [XXX], [XXX], and [XXX].

[2] I’ve considered your testimony and all the evidence in this case and I’m ready to render my decision orally.

[3] The claims were joined pursuant to Rule 55 of the RPD rules. [XXX] was the designated representative for the minor claimants [XXX] … [XXX] and [XXX] and [XXX] was the designated representative for [XXX] and [XXX] pursuant to Section 167(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[4] Your claims for protection have been made pursuant to Sections 96 and Sections 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[5] The claimants allege that they face a threat to their lives or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if they were to return to Columbia.

[6] The claimant [XXX] was a [XXX] in Columbia and was actively involved in helping poor claimants … sorry, poor citizens who had been affected by the various active conflicts that have been plaguing Columbia.

[7] [XXX]’s immediate family in this claim includes [XXX] his wife and his two children [XXX] and [XXX].

[8] [XXX] came to the attention of the Clan del Golfo when he attempted to enter a poor neighbour in Cucuta North Santander with the intention of meeting a social leader and setting up forms where he could meet citizens and try to help them with land restitution or other [XXX].

[9] Before you could enter the neighbourhood [XXX] was stopped and investigated by four armed men who claimed to be part of a neighbour … to be part of neighbourhood security and members of the Clan del Golfo. He was eventually free to leave but the men had called their commander and advised that they would be calling him later so that he could do them a favour.

[10] [XXX] went to the police and filed a denunciation.

[11] In [XXX] 2017 [XXX] received a call from the Clan del Golfo telling him to return to Cucuta within 10 days in order to discuss a business proposal. [XXX] was advised that the Clan de Golfo knew where he was living in [XXX] and knew many other details about him and his family. Nonetheless, [XXX] did not travel to Cucuta for the meeting.

[12] After this [XXX] was approached and threatened on several more occasions.

[13] By [XXX] 2017 the Clan de Golfo had stopped trying to gain his cooperation and instead demanded [XXX] pesos every three months in order for him to continue living. This demand was presented in a threat letter from the Autodefensas Gaistanistas de Columbia and was on their letterhead. The letter also declared XXXX and his family military objectives.

[14] [XXX] went to the police, the Attorney General, and the Ombudsman seeking assistance for the continued threats and demands. He had also hired private security to protect himself while working.

[15] Despite being a [XXX] and being familiar with State protection mechanisms, [XXX] was unable to get meaningful assistance from any of the previously mentioned government bodies.

[16] As a result, [XXX] and his family left Columbia in [XXX] 2018.

[17] The claimant [XXX] and his immediate family which consists of his wife [XXX] and his children [XXX] and [XXX] claim refugee protection based on being threatened by the same Clan de Golfo members that were seeking out his brother-in-law [XXX].

[18] [XXX] alleges that he was approached on the street in Bogota on [XXX], 2018 by people claiming to be members of the Clan de Golfo and that they were seeking the whereabouts of [XXX]. [XXX] did not provide them with the information as he not seen [XXX] in several months and was unsure of his location. The Clan de Golfo offered [XXX](ph) … sorry, offered [XXX] financial reward if he had helped them.

[19] About a week later [XXX] filed a report with the Attorney General about the incident even though he had been turned away from the police twice when he attempted to seek their assistance. [XXX] managed to get a protection order from the Attorney General and provided it to the police. The police dropped by his home and provided three telephone numbers for him to call if he noticed anyone following him.

[20] The Clan de Golfo contacted [XXX] by phone on [XXX] and then again on [XXX], 2018 to see if he had the requested information. [XXX] reported both of these calls to the fiscalia.

[21] Eventually, [XXX] received a letter from the Clan de Golfo which declared him and his family military objectives. Along with the letter were also photographs of [XXX]’s family members outside their home and at different locations within Bogota.

[22] As a result, [XXX] and his family fled Bogota to the United States where they then irregularly crossed into Canada. It was always their intention to come to Canada but could not do directly as their temporary resident visa application had been denied on the basis that [XXX] and his family had already applied for refugee protection.

[23] [XXX] and his family entered Canada on [XXX], 2018.

[24] I find that all the claimants are persons in need of protection pursuant to Section 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act as the risk was occasioned as a result of criminality and extortion and not … and not on the basis of [XXX] political opinion.

[25] I find that the claimant’s personal identities as nationals of Columbia has been established, on a balance of probabilities, by certified copies of each claimant’s passports which have been seized by Canadian Immigration officials.

[26] With respect to credibility, I find that the claimants were all credible witnesses.

[27] I asked extensive questions of [XXX] and he was able to answer my questions clearly and with detail.

[28] I was concerned about the placement of the fiscalia emblem on the reverse side of his fiscalia reports but in the absence of evidence that such a practice is abnormal, I do not take a negative inference against it.

[29] I had a few credibility concerns with [XXX]’s testimony as it related to an omission regarding his activities on the day following his first Clan de Golfo contact wherein he went to the United States Embassy in Bogota, but I do not have any clear basis to impugn the core of his allegations on this point alone.

[30] The claimants also submitted credible documentary evidence in support of their claims, including support letters from politicians, security guards, fiscalia reports, Ombudsman reports, copies of the AGC threat letters, and a text threat message which corroborates their testimony.

[31] I therefore accept what the claimants have alleged in support of their claims.

[32] I also note that the objective documentation confirms that Clan de Golfo is an alternative name for the Autodefensas Gaistanistas de Columbia also known as the AGC, and I therefore accept that when the claimants indicate they were threatened by the Clan de Golfo, but the threat letter is from the AGC, that it is the same organization.

[33] Now, I would normally have considered that the claimants could have had an internal flight alternative in the City of Tunja in Boyaca Department, but because the claimants have been declared military objectives I removed this options as an active issue.

[34] Documents on file indicate that when a person is made a military objective it means that their life, physical integrity, and freedom are endangered and that this threat extends to the family.

[35] The National Documentation Package response to information request at Item 7.2(1) suggests that when someone is declared a military objective means they had been marked as someone who is to be killed. I therefore found it odd that [XXX]’s threat letter from the AGC demands money at the same time as declaring him a military objective. This does not directly fit without being declared a military objective plays out according to the NDP document.

[36] However, on a balance of probabilities, I find that you were, in fact, declared military targets. Further, given that you made several denunciations and sought State protection, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the risk to [XXX] and his family would have increased.

[37] Likewise, [XXX]’s family having also been declared military targets and in conjunction with the photographs taken of him and his family, that the threat letter declaring them military target is credible.

[38] For the following reasons I find that State protection would not be forthcoming for the claimants.

[39] The objective documentation notes that there’s been some improvement in State response to bacterium groups but the efforts have been mainly confined to a peace with the ELN.

[40] The State has also managed to see a large demobilization of FARC. However, despite this groups such as the Clan de Golfo which have moved into the territory of the demobilized FARC and have become the largest actrime(ph) group in the country. The Clan de Golfo continues to intimidate opponents and commit other crimes.

[41] Further, there are reports of complicity and collaboration between bacterium groups and security forces. Investigation of murders by such groups continues at a slow pace and there continues to be issues of impunity for security forces involved in human rights abuses.

[42] The United Nations High Commission on Refugees reports that witness protection in Columbia continues to be inadequate. They further note that the ability of the government to provide protection is limited due to capacity issues and issues with corruption.

[43] Further, as a [XXX] who works with disadvantaged citizens, [XXX]’s profile may fall within those profiles considered in the UNHCR refugee eligibility guidelines.

[44] Further, as the claimants provided evidence that they approached the authorities on a number of occasions but … but no meaningful assistance was forthcoming, I find that adequate State protection was not available to them in the past and would not be in the future.

[45] Based on the foregoing I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimants would not receive adequate State protection in Columbia.

[46] As previously noted with respect to NDP Item 7.2(1), with the claimants having been declared military objectives, the objective evidence suggests that bacterium groups will travel to anywhere in the country in order to find those who have been declared military objectives. As such, an internal flight alternative will not be available to these clients, so excuse me, claimants.

[47] I therefore conclude that the claimants are Convention refugees. Excuse me. I therefore conclude that the claimants are persons in need of protection and I therefore accept their claims. Good luck.

[48] COUNSEL: Thank you.

[49] CLAIMANT: Thank you so much.

[50] MEMBER: You’re welcome.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-