Category: Bahamas

Citation: 2021 RLLR 63
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 30, 2021
Panel: Miranda Robinson
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Adrienne C Smith
Country: Bahamas
RPD Number: TC0-03776
Associated RPD Number(s): TC0-03848
ATIP Number: A-2022-01594
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

MEMBER:

INTRODUCTION

[1]       I have considered your testimony and the other evidence in the case and I am ready to render my decision orally.

[2]       These are the reasons for the decision in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the principal claimant, and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the associate claimant, who claim to be citizens of the Bahamas and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[3]       In rendering my reasons, I have considered the Chairperson’s Guidelines 9: Proceedings Before the IRB Involving Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression.

ALLEGATIONS

[4]       Your allegations are found in your Basis of Claim form and narrative in Exhibit 2, as well as the oral testimony heard today. In summary, you both allege persecution at the hands of the homophobic community in the Bahamas for your sexual orientation as gay men. You also allege to be in a common law same-sex relationship with one (1) another for approximately three (3) and a half years.

DECISION

[5]       I find that you are refugees pursuant to Section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act as there exists a serious possibility of persecution should you return to the Bahamas on account of your membership in a particular social group as gay men. My reasons are as follows.

Identity

[6]       I find that your identities as nationals of the Bahamas is established by the documents provided. In particular, the certified copies of the passports and national identity cards in Exhibit 1. I also note that for the principal claimant, the USA biometrics showed variations of your name, which appear to be spelling errors and as you explained, you have no knowledge of why this would be inputted incorrectly. I also note the current passport does show stamps that match these dates with the fingerprints. In the other biodata, input is correct. It matches the passport and birth certificate. I also note the birth certificate shows your parents’ name and birthdate. And so, I accepted the principal claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX identity as it is given in the passport.

Subjective Fear

[7]       I note that neither claimant sought asylum after travelling to the United States. As the principal claimant explains, your trips to the USA were primarily for work supply trips for your job. Both claimants, you have stated that you were unaware of the ability to claim in the United States was even an option to you. Again, I accept this explanation in your circumstances and therefore, it does not raise significant concerns with respect to subjective fear or credibility.

Credibility

[8]       I find you both to be credible and in particular, when considering the evidence, you have submitted to corroborate your allegations, I do find that, on a balance of probabilities, you are both gay men in a genuine same-sex relationship. To corroborate your allegations, you have provided significant documentation, and this includes a number of letters of support from both of you, from friends of both claimants, the principal claimant’s brother, as well, and these letters attest to the author’s knowledge of your sexual orientations and of your genuine relationship with one (1) another. You have also provided a number of screenshots of text message correspondence between you both, which indicates an authentic and ongoing relationship. And this is further corroborated by evidence of email transfers, which indicates the financial interdependence of your relationship. You have also given photographs of the both of you in the Bahamas, on vacation and in Canada and these are dated, labelled and take place over the course of several years of your relationship and they do appear to also show a natural and comfortable relationship with one (1) another. I therefore find that your subjective fear is established.

Objective Basis

[9]       Given that there are no serious credibility issues with respect to your allegations coupled with the documentary evidence set out below, I find that you have established a prospective risk and a well-founded fear of persecution in the Bahamas. The risk is corroborated by the National Documentation Package, the NDP for the Bahamas, the April 30^th, 2020, version given in Exhibit 3.

[10]     Item 6.1 of the NDP indicates that,

[As Read] The Bahamas shares the same strong anti-gay attitudes as other Caribbean islands and that homophobia has permeated throughout cultural attitudes and is expressed in religion and in music.

In the British Caribbean, hypermasculinity is valued and openly gay men are seen as betraying manhood and it is culturally acceptable to exert physical violence against men who betray these gender norms. This also includes physical and psychological attacks and killings.

Sources further indicate that members of the LGBTQ community are generally afraid to be open about their sexual orientation or their gender identity in the Bahamas and are unable to live out freely.

Members of the LGBTQ community are often perceived as having a “nefarious international agenda” in order to spread homosexuality and are marginalized from employment and other social and civic spaces.

[11]     Item 2.1 indicates that, the Bahamian constitution does not include protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation. I, therefore, find on a balance of probabilities that the objective fear is also established.

Nature of the Harm

[12]     I have examined your claim under Section 96 of IRPA as I conclude that the risk you describe constitutes persecution based on at least one (1) of the grounds in Section 96. In this case, for your membership in a particular social group as gay men and in particular, in a same-sex relationship.

[13]     So, the risk you face is of being subjected to social abuse, discrimination, and inability to live freely. As well as mistreatment and violence at the hands of the homophobic community in the Bahamas.

State Protection

[14]     I find there is clear and convincing evidence before me that the state is unable or unwilling to provide you with adequate protection. As you stated in your narratives, you had made attempts to seek the protection from police and that these were not followed up with by authorities, and there was no positive outcome.

[15]     This is corroborated by the NDP as well. Item 6.1 states that,

[As Read] While homosexuality itself was decriminalized in the Bahamas in 1991, there continues to be a significant stigma against homosexuality that persists.

There is no official mechanism to document and monitor human rights violations against the LGBTQ community and there is no recourse available to victims of discrimination, based on sexual orientation.

Authorities in the Bahamas have not developed policies to counteract homophobia and across the region, there is a major problem of crimes against the LGBTQ community, remaining unsolved.

[16]     The evidence indicates that this lack of resolution to solve these crimes is due to either discrimination or incompetence or a general apathy in the police force. Further, crimes that are investigated face difficulties as the community itself and at times, friends and families of victims do not provide sufficient information to resolve matters.

[17]     Item 1 also indicates that in the judiciary, there is a pattern of believing the person to be straight over the person perceived to be LGBTQ, and in cases of murder of LGBTQ persons, the accused often goes without conviction and uses a penal code justification of force against a person in situations of extreme necessity, which includes forcible unnatural crime. And this causes the statute to be used to discriminate against LGBTQ people and to justify killings in response to alleged advances. I, therefore, find the presumption of state protection, in this case, is rebutted.

Internal Flight Alternative

[18]     I have examined whether a viable internal flight exists for you. Based on the evidence on file, I find that you both face a serious possibility of persecution throughout the Bahamas as the anti-LGBTQ attitudes and homophobic community is prevalent throughout the country. Therefore, there is no part of the Bahamas where you would be safe. And so, there is no internal flight alternative available to you.

CONCLUSION

[19]     In light of the preceding, I conclude that you are refugees, pursuant to Section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Accordingly, I accept your claim.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Citation: 2019 RLLR 157
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 3, 2019
Panel: David D’Intino
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Nicholas Woodward
Country: Bahamas
RPD Number: TB8-29801
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-00978
ATIP Pages: 000111-000117

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: So, this is my decision for file number TB8-29801. Please note, that the written reproduction of this decision may contain changes in grammar, syntax and references to additional country conditions as the case may be. Your going to receive a written copy of my decision in the mail as well as your counsel. The claimant in this matter is XXXX XXXX XXXX. She is a Mexican citizen and claims refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, hereafter referred to as IRPA.

ALLEGATIONS

[2]       The claimant’s allegations are fully set out in her Basis of Claim Form found at Exhibit 2. To summarize, the claimant alleges a serious possibility of persecution and a risk to life in Mexico on account of her gender identity, her HIV status by Mexican society at large and also a serious possibility of persecution and a risk to her life by La Familia Michoacana, a Mexican drug trafficking organization.

CHAIRPERSON’S GUIDELINES

[3]       In hearing this claim, I have considered and applied the Chairperson’s Guideline 4, Woman Fearing Gender Related Persecution and Guideline 9, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression.

DETERMINATION

[4]       I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee as contemplated within Section 96 of IRPA. She has demonstrated a serious possibility of persecution in Mexico on grounds of her gender identity and is therefore, a member of a particular social group, transgendered persons. I should note that the claimant had alternate potential Nexus to the Convention as well. For example, on the basis of her political activism on behalf of the transgender community or on the basis of being a female fearing gender related persecution in Mexico. As I am accepting her claim, my reasons will only focus on one of these Nexuses.

ANALYSIS

IDENTITY

[5]       The claimant’s identity is established, on a balance of probabilities, by her Mexican passport, contained within Exhibit 1 and a birth certificate and Mexican government documentation confirming her gender transition, both of which are contained in Exhibit 4.

EXCLUSION UNDER ARTICLE 1F(b)

[6]       The claimant was charged while living in Texas with possession of cocaine. She plead guilty to the lesser included offence of possession of cocaine between 1 to 4 grams. A third-degree felony which was reduced from the original charge of a second-degree felony. She received a sentence of three years in prison but only served a fraction of that sentence before being paroled. She was then subsequently deported to Mexico in early 2011. Details are fully provided in the claimant’s disclosure in Exhibit 4. The equivalent offence under Canadian law would be Section 4 Subsection (1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for possessing a Schedule One substance. This is a hybrid offence but presumed for our purposes to be an indictable election by the crown.

[7]       In considering the totality of the facts are set out in JS Sikhara v. Canada and its related jurisprudence. I find that the claimant is not excluded from refugee protection under article 1 F(b). I do not have the requisite, serious grounds to consider that a serious non-political crime was committed by the claimant outside the country of refuge. It is highly likely, sorry it’s unlikely she would have a received a custodial sentence at all in Canada, given her status as a first-time offender, her guilty plea which is a sign of remorse and the very small amount of cocaine involved. And so, for those reasons, I find that she’s not excluded from refugee protection.

INCLUSION

CREDIBILITY

[8]       I find that the claimant was a credible witness, on a balance of probabilities. Her evidence both in documentary form and in oral examination was consistent, was free from material omissions or contradictions. She was very articulate, she followed my instructions perfectly, she was pleasant and respectful and did not embellish her evidence. I have no concerns with her credibility, but even if I didn’t believe the claimant she would still have her residual profile which would produce a serious possibility of future persecution in Mexico as a member of a particular social, transgendered women. Also, her HIV status and her status as a woman who has experienced past gender related persecution would also expose her to a future persecution for, sorry, to future persecution in Mexico on those grounds as well. In any event, I accept the claimant’s evidence without reservation.

[9]       I will not revisit all of the details of her claim but the main findings that I would make in grounding my decision as are as follows. First of all, she’s a transgendered Mexican woman, she’s also HIV positive. She has experienced past gender related violence including several sexual assaults and has been threatened with death by her own brother. She has in the past been forcibly sex-, sex trafficked by a Mexican drug cartel, placing an already marginalized person into an even further marginalized group. She has been denied both employment and educational opportunities in Mexico in a systemic fashion on account of her gender identity. She has been diagnosed by the Centre for Addictions in Mental Health with gender dysphoria and post traumatic stress disorder. That report is contained within Exhibit 4 of the claimant’s documents. She has been involved in a number of transgender rights and LGBTQ organizations as an advocate in United States and Canada and would continue that activism even if she was returned to Mexico. She has a sincerely held belief that if returned to Mexico she would face persecution and violence on account of her gender identity, her diagnosis and her trans rights activism. She believes that she would not have access to her currently prescribed medication in Mexico which would pose a risk to her life and also her dignity as a human being.

NEXUS

[10]     As I mentioned, I find that the claimant is the member of a particular social group, transgendered persons. Gender identity is an innate and unchangeable characteristic of a human being as identified in Ward v. Canada and as such this claimant has a Nexus to the convention.

SUBJECTIVE FEAR

[11]     The claimant at all material times has acted consistent with someone who professes a subjective fear of persecution. For example, the claimant filed for refugee protection within a month of her arrival in Canada. As such, and in part because I found her wholly credible, I find that there is sufficient evidence on the record to conclude that the claimant has a subjective fear of persecution on a Convention ground.

OBJECTIVE BASIS

[12]     Counsel has filed 22 articles detailing the violence against LGBTQ persons in Mexico. The first article details that Mexico is now the world’s second deadliest country for trans people, it is dated September 11^th, 2019. Another article from May 7^th, 2019, discusses how a shortage of HIV drugs in Mexico have left hundreds of people without medication, which is essential to their survival. Other articles included, describe the torture in gruesome murder of gay men and trans-gendered women in Mexico. I find that these articles are wholly consistent with the National Documentation for Mexico-, National Documentation Package for Mexico as a whole vis à vis transgendered persons. They are very recent articles and I find that they are highly probative and I furthermore, place great weight on counsel’s documentary disclosure. Turning now to the NDP for Mexico, Item 6.1 of the NDP notes that, “A report on crimes against transgendered women sent to the research director by a representative at the support centre for transgender identities, in Spanish, Centro de Apoyo a las Identidades Trans or CAIT, an NGO that advocates for the rights of transgendered woman in Mexico, indicates that transgendered women are discriminated against by the police in the judicial authorities.” The representative from Colectivo Leon Gay Ac, which is also a-, an NGO for transgendered persons, indicated that LGBTQ persons are frequently harassed and arbitrarily detained due to their physical appearance, the way they dress or for express-, expressing affection in public.

[13]     The representative also indicated that they are barred from assembling in public because they are seen as, “engaging in prostitution” or giving a, “bad example or bad image to society.” According to Colectivo Leon Gay Ac, officials from the public ministry often mistreat LGBTQ persons and refuse to open investigations for crimes against them. In-, In correspondence with the research directorate, a representative from Queer Investigations, a civil society that advocates for the right of LGT-, rights of LGBTQ persons in Mexico, indicated that despite a lot of training provided to judicial authorities on sexual diversity, there’s still a lot of intimidation and threats against the LGBTQ population due to what they perceive as faults against morals, which are used to extort members of the LGBTQ community.

[14]     Also, from item 6.1, “Transgender women in Mexico face brutal violence, not only from private citizens but also from state officials.” Police officers in the military subject transgender women to arrest, extortion and physical abuse. Many transgender women have been the victims of police violence or know someone who have been a victim. According to Victor Clark, Professor at San Diego University and the Director of the Bi-National Centre for Human Rights in Tijuana, Mexico, the police and military are the primary predators targeting trans gender women. Mexican police target transgender women and arbitrarily arrest them for pretextual reasons such as, “disturbing the peace” and “because they were not wearing female clothing for being perceived to be sex workers even if they were not, for failing to carry a valid health card for-, for allegedly carrying drugs or for being said to be gay.”

[15]     For example, in March 2014, police officers in Chihuahua, Mexico arrested five transgender women for not carrying a health card even though this isn’t a crime. At the police station, male police officers forced the transgender woman to undress in front of them. The police then illegally forced the women to take HIV tests, the police held the transgender women in jail for 36 hours and demanded 200 pesos from each woman for release. For decades, the Mexican police forces have been implicated in cases of arbitrary detention, torture and other human rights violations that are often unpunished. Police officers often extort transgender women for sex or money in return for not arresting them or for releasing them from jail. Many transgender women have had to pay almost daily bribes to avoid being arrested.

[16]     Furthermore, in its March 2017 Human Rights report, covering the year 2016, the USDOS report notes the following concerning the discrimination of LGBTQ persons in Mexico. Discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity was prevalent, despite a gradual increase in the public tolerance of LGBTQ individuals according to public opinion surveys. In March, Ruby Suareaz Araujo began-, became the first transgender municipal counsellor in Guanajuato, for example. In October the press reported three killings of transgender individuals in a space of 13 days. NGOs stated that transgender individuals face discrimination and were mar-, marginalized even within the gay and lesbian community. These are but a few examples of the information contained within the claimant’s Country Conditions Documentation and the NDP for Mexico, which for reference is Exhibit 3. I find that in considering all of this information, that the-, on a balance of probabilities, the claimant has demonstrated an objective basis for her subjective fear of persecution in Mexico on account of her membership in a particular social group, transgender women and also on account of her HIV diagnosis, and so in that vain her fear is well-founded.

STATE PROTECTION

[17]     States are presumed to be capable of protecting their citizens. Mexico is a democratic country with a functioning government and a military that exercises effective control over its territory. Therefore, the claimant must-, must rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence. Where the state itself is an agent of persecution, however, the claimant will also succeed at rebutting this presumption. The country documentation for Mexico provides sufficient documentation to demonstrate that state actors are often an agent of persecution for members of the LGBTQ co-, community and especially the trans community. Claimants are not required to place their lives in jeopardy to avail themselves of state protection, which in any case would not be reasonably forthcoming. Item 6.1 provides the following examples where state actors have been implicated in the atrocities against LGBTQ persons, “In Mexico City a young man was alleg-, allegedly arrested by federal police officers while he was walking the street late at night. When asked why he was being arrested, the officers answered, “because you are gay” and then asked him to preform oral sex on them.”

[18]     Police abuses also reported to take place in and around places were LGBTQ persons socialize or-, or its surroundings. For example, a violent police raids reported to have taken place at a LGBTQ beauty pageant in Monterrey, Mexico in February 2013. Agents of the federal police force under the command of an official of the Federal Public Ministry stormed the nightclub where the contest was taking place, ordered everyone out and arrested at least 70 people who were present at the event who were fined without criminal charges. According to the information presented to the commission, police agents insulted them using homophobic and trans-phobic slurs, “faggots, we are taking you because you are dressing up-, because dressing up as women is immoral.”

[19]     The claimant has testified today that she has little faith in the ability of the authorities in Mexico to protect her. She alleges that the transgender community at large feels the same way. Item 6.3 explains why that might be. From Item 6.3, transgender women often do not report hate crimes or police abuse because the authorities rarely investigate these crimes. When the police do get involved, they frequently minimize the crime and mischaracterize it for example, in violent murder cases the police usually determine that the cases are “crimes of passion,” instead of hate crimes. Holding police and military abusers accountable is also difficult. The process for punishing the police and military is, “extremely slow and inadequate.”

[20]     Transgender women avoid reporting police out of fear of police retaliation against them or their family members. Further, human rights commissions tend to be anti-LGBTQ and will often disregard complaints by transgender women. Transgender women cannot depend on inadequate and ineffective laws penalizing hate crimes to protect their rights. Since Mexico recognized same sex marriage in 2010, several prominent advocates in the transgender community have been brutally murdered. Many of these killings occurred in Mexico City despite its adaptation of hate crimes statues and anti-discrimination laws. In 2010, a Mexican National Survey about discrimination found that 83.4 % of LGBTQ Mexicans had faced discrimination because of their sexual preference. In 2011, the same survey reported the principal bases of discrimination was sexual preference. In 2012, however, gender identity was the most frequent bases for discrimination showing growing rates of discrimination against the transgender community. “It is clear the Mexican government is unable to effectively protect transgender women”, that’s a direct quote.

[21]     In considering the testimony of the claimant and the documentary evidence provided by counsel and the National Documentation f-, for Mexico, I find that the claimant has rebutted this presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence. I find that adequate state protection would not be forthcoming for this claimant and I find that the Mexican state itself is an agent of persecution for her.

[22]     Lastly, internal flight alternative. The claimant alleges a fear of Mexican society in general as well as the La Familia Michoacán Cartel. I purposed Mexico City as a-, as an internal flight alternative outside of Michoacán that I believed would be safe and reasonable in the claimant’s circumstances. For the following reasons, I find that the claimant would face a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground in Mexico City and therefore, the IFA location fails the first prong of the analysis. Item 6.4 depicts Mexico City as the most progressive area in-, in Mexico visive LGBTQ rights. For example, it was the first district to legalize same sex marriage and also to allow persons to change their gender identity. One source quoted in this item said that there are, “gay friendly zones or gay zones where the LGBTQ community feel safe from being abused. Although there are police officers that look for anyway to intimidate or extort couples wherever they are.”

[23]     The UN special rapporteur on extra judicial and arbitrary executions noted, “the alarming pattern of grotesque homicides from lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals and the broad impunity for these crimes, sometimes with the suspected complexity of investigative authorities.” According to the report by CA-, CEAV and Fundación Acrois, trans women and homosexuals represent the group most effected by motivated physical assaults. Between January 2014 and December 2016, 202 sexual minorities or those perceived as such were killed as a result of their sexual orientation or gender identity or expression. Including 108 trans women, 93 gay men and 1 lesbian woman. The highest number of victims, 76, was recorded in 2016. Of the total 202 victims, 33 showed signs of torture while 15 showed signs of sexual violence.

[24]     In addition to these cases, I also eluded to a case from Mexico City earlier in my decision. In item 6.4 discusses how in June 2012 in Mexico City, the body of a transgendered women was dismembered. Her remains were found abandoned in different neighbourhoods in the Benito Juarez District. In 2013 police found the body of a transgender woman who headed the special unit for attention to members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, transgender, transsexual and intersex community of the Attorney General of the Federal District. In July 2013, two attackers released pepper spray into a crowd of 500 at a beauty contest for transgendered woman. Again, these are but a few examples of the violence and persecution that trans people face on a daily basis. And Mexico City does not appear to be the safe-, as safe as it is liberal for the LGBTQ community.

[25]     Ultimately, I find that the preponderance of evidence weighs in favour of the finding that the claimant would face a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground in Mexico City and throughout Mexico and therefore, I find that the proposed IFA location is not safe for her.

CONCLUSION

[26]     The claimant has demonstrated a serious possibility of persecution in Mexico on the Convention ground of membership in a particular social group, transgender women. This, this serious possibility exists on a forward-looking basis and throughout Mexico such that there is no location within Mexico which is both safe and reasonable in all of her circumstances. She has demonstrated, on a balance of probabilities, that the adequate state protection would not be forthcoming for her, in part because the state authorities are an agent of persecution. As such, the claimant is a Convention refugee within the meaning of Section 96 of IRPA. Her claim is therefore, accepted.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Citation: 2019 RLLR 156
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 4, 2019
Panel: M. Gayda
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Nicholas Woodward
Country: Bahamas
RPD Number: TB8-27227
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-00978
ATIP Pages: 000106-000110

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: Okay, we are on the record and I am ready to give you my decision. I am going to accept your claim. This is the refugee protection decision for the claimant XXXX XXXX XXXX, the File Number is TB8-27227.

[2]       You are claiming refugee pursuant to Sections 96 and 97 (1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I have considered your testimony and the other evidence in the claim as well as guidelines 4 and 9.

[3]       Guideline 4 deals with gender related claims and guideline relates to proceedings before the Immigration and Refugee Board involving sexual orientation, gender identity and expression. After considering all of the above I am ready to give you my decision.

[4]       I find that you are a Convention refugee. You have established on a balance of probabilities a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground, the nexus being your membership in a particular social group, namely a bisexual woman.

[5]       Your allegations are set out in your Basis of Claim Form. In summary, you allege that you are a citizen of the Bahamas and you fear harm at the hands of society due to your sexual orientation.

[6]       You have on a balance of probabilities established your personal and national identity through your testimony and the provision of your Bahamian passport to Immigration Refugee Citizenship Canada when you made your refugee claim at an inland office.

[7]       A certified true copy of your passport is before me in Exhibit 1.

[8]       I find that you have established on a balance of probabilities that you are a bisexual woman and you have a subjective fear of persecution based up on this.

[9]       You gave clear and convincing testimony about who you are and how you came to the realization that you were attracted to girls and then women, your past same sex relationships as well as your heterosexual relationships and your fear that others in the Bahamian community discovering your sexual orientation including some people close to you such as family members and ex-abusive male partners and the fear of having to keep your true self hidden in order to avoid physical aggression and verbal taunts and harassment from such people as well as the Bahamian community at large if you were to return to Bahamas.

[10]     Your testimony was detailed and spontaneous about your life including your male and female relationships and your attempt to get documents to assist in corroborating your allegations.

[11]     You also provided credible testimony about your family but your family suspecting you of being a lesbian as they thought something, I should say suspected something about your girlfriend at one point who was dressed in a more masculine manner with one uncle aggressively saying homophobic things such as keep your sissy friends outside on the streets.

[12]     You testified that you felt you had nowhere to go and that those who were supposed to support you as your family did not do so and that society wouldn’t be on your side either if you were to be true self.

[13]     Further, your testimony was generally consistent with your Basis of Claim Form and also supported by two letters from the Bahamas and the writer’s identity documents were also provided along with those letters.

[14]     One is from a fellow co-worker who was also a bisexual to whom you disclosed your sexual orientation as a bisexual in the past and another letter was from a past woman you would had a brief sexual relationship within Bahamas.

[15]     You also provided me when asked at the hearing with your phone to look at your text history of your conversations with the woman that you have been having, such text history showed since XXXX of 2019 up to the present day and this is someone you were interested in and you have met a few times but with whom you have not yet been physically intimate with.

[16]     You also showed me your dating profile on the online dating website MeetMe that showed your orientation as bisexual.

[17]     You provided me access to these items without hesitation and they assist in corroborating your sexual orientation.

[18]     I find that minor inconsistencies in your testimony are not material and do not go to the core of your claim that you presently and for the foreseeable future identify as a bisexual woman and you fear discrimination, threats and other harms if you were openly who you are if you return to the Bahamas.

[19]     Moving to the subjective basis of your claim. You had previously travelled to the USA over the years on several occasions. You explained that you had aunts, uncles, and cousins there and would usually stay with them and these trips were often for special celebrations such as birthdays, to do shopping and also to give you a chance to clear your head and have some relaxation.

[20]     The trips were generally all of short duration of a few days to a maximum of just over one month. I asked if you had ever thought of making an asylum claim in the USA and you indicated that you had not known that such a thing is possible at the times of these trips.

[21]     You had testified similar to your Basis of Claim Form that you only learned of making a refugee claim on the basis of your sexual orientation in Canada when you were visiting Canada for what you thought would be a short trip and when you met friends who were LGBT friendly of a friend you were staying within Canada after which point you started to look into the process of making a refugee claim here in Canada.

[22]     You candidly acknowledged in your testimony that if you had known about the process while visiting the USA you don’t think you would have claimed there at that point as you believe the USA to be unsafe in terms of racial violence.

[23]     I accept that you are subjectively fearful of returning to the Bahamas and that you have reasonably explained why you did not previously claim asylum while visiting the USA.

[24]     I find therefore that you have well-founded subjective fear of persecution.

[25]     Moving to the objective basis of you claim, the objective country reports and the articles and reports found in the National Documentation Package at Exhibit 3 and in counsel’s country conditions evidence found at Exhibit 5 are consistent with your evidence about what you have experienced.

[26]     In Exhibit 3, I refer specifically to Item 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3; those documents indicate that the LGBTQ population in Bahamas face widespread discrimination, harassment, and at time violence from community members and that LGBT persons are usually fearful of being open about their sexual orientation.

[27]     In summary, I find that you have established on a balance of probabilities that you have well founded fear of persecution in the Bahamas as a bisexual woman.

[28]     State protection, based on your personal circumstances as well as the objective country documentation I have just briefly outlined, I find that you have rebutted the presumption of State protection, adequate State protection is not available to you in the Bahamas as a bisexual woman.

[29]     You testified that you did not think the police would care in assisting someone seen as a lesbian or bisexual and that the police similar to many in the community in the Bahamas are homophobic.

[30]     Although homosexuality was decriminalized in the Bahamas in 1991, LGBT persons face widespread stigmatization and discrimination as homophobia is permeated throughout cultural attitudes and expressed in religion, music and other expressions, that is a quote from Item 6.1 in the NDP.

[31]     According to many sources in the National Documentation Package for example Item 2.3, Freedom in the World Report of 2018, discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is not prohibited by law and LGBT people report discrimination in employment and housing.

[32]     The law in Bahamas does not provide protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

[33]     The objective country reports indicate that significant stigma against homosexuality persists in the Bahamas and that this is widespread and often results in psychological and physical violence without adequate protection from the authorities.

[34]     Items again 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 of the National Documentation Package report that police in the Bahamas did not take threats and crimes against the LGBT community seriously and often ridiculed LGBT persons who came to them for help.

[35]     We are turning now to the issue of internal flight alternative. On a balance of probabilities, I find that there is no viable internal flight alternative for you in the Bahamas.

[36]     The objective evidence before me indicates that homophobia and the resulting violence and discrimination experienced by people on the LGBT spectrum are common problems throughout the country and therefore there is no part of the country where you could live safely and openly as a bisexual woman.

[37]     In conclusion, based on the totality of the evidence I find you to be a Convention refugee and I accept your claim. All the best, we are concluded.

CLAIMANT: Thank you.

MEMBER: You are welcome.———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Citation: 2019 RLLR 154
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 9, 2019
Panel: S. Randhawa
Counsel for the Claimant(s): El-Farouk Khaki
Country: Bahamas
RPD Number: TB7-23928
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-00978
ATIP Pages: 000093-000096

[1]       PRESIDING MEMBER: I’ve asked you questions and I’ve listened to counsel’s submissions at this point and I am ready to render my decision and I have reviewed the evidence that’s before me and it’s in abundance including your testimony and I have considered counsel’s submissions.

[2]       I reserve the right to – this decision is final, but I reserve the right to edit the written version of the reasons for syntax, spelling and grammar and to add references to legal citations and footnotes of country conditions, country documentary evidence as necessary.

[3]       Now you are claiming refugee protection pursuant to Section 96 and Section 97.(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[4]       You were born on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and you’re claiming to be a citizen of Bahamas.

[5]       Now your allegations are presented in your Basis of Claim Form which are the original narrative and then there is the amended narrative and then there is an amendment to the amendment.

[6]       Basically your allegations are that you are – from the beginning you were lesbian, you liked women and then basically you started as a male and you considered yourself as a male. I’m not going to repeat all the allegations that are in the part of your Basis of Claim Form.

[7]       Now my determinations are that I find you to be a Convention refugee pursuant to Section 96 of the IRPA and a person in need of protection under Section 97 and I find that you’ve established your claim on a balance of probabilities that you are indeed – you were lesbian, you’re transcending into being a transgender male.

[8]       Now I have also taken into consideration the Chairperson’s Guideline 9: Proceedings Before the IRB Involving Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression, that is the SOGIE Guidelines. I’m satisfied and accept your personal identity as a citizen of Bahamas since there is a true, certified copy of your Bahamas passport and you recently provided your birth certificate.

[9]       There was – I had to consider country of reference because of the reference made to your father being from Turks & Caicos (ph). However, according to the birth certificate it indicates that your father was from Bahamas. So I’m not going to address further than that on that issue. I accept that you are who you say you are. You ‘re transcending into a transgender male.

[10]     You have testified – you have clarified the facts and you have testified spontaneously. There were certain times that you corrected the counsel and me. However, when a claimant swears that certain facts are true this creates a presumption that they are indeed true unless there is a valid reason to doubt their voracity.

[11]     You identified that there was discrimination and that your family also did not accept the way you were and in the SOGIE Guidelines it’s stated that: “Some individuals with diverse SOGIE may face different risks due to additional factors such as race, ethnicity, religion, faith or belief system, age, disability, health status, social class and education. Where appropriate, these intersectional factors should be considered when determining whether an individual has established a well-founded fear of persecution.”

[12]     In your case you did not embellish or exaggerate.

[13]     The issues identified, one of the issues was failure to claim in the U.S. You have visited U.S. two times or three – more than three times and you had a visa to go to U.S. You did not file a claim and your reasoning was that you did not know what to do. There were several ways – your counsel and I asked you why would you not ask some people and your basic answer was that you did not know, you didn’t – second time you said people – the way – when counsel asked you did you know the way people can stay permanently in U.S. you said that they were there on student visa and as student then you could stay. However, you returned back several times, but I do accept your explanation about that.

[14]     And there was a re-availment from Canada two times and your explanation was that your current partner at that time you were going to – XXXX (ph) I believe was – you were going to marry her and the marriage didn’t go through. She said she didn’t love you anymore and the marriage fell apart.

[15]     You were asked about sponsorship and you said you were not aware of it. You were asked whether – XXXX XXXX (ph) who is here (inaudible) you said that you only spent few hours with her that you didn’t know.

[16]     Now the documentary evidence which counsel quoted and the documentary evidence from NDP package which is our number BHS104686.E, it tells us about what the legal situation in Bahamas is. Sources indicate that homosexuality was decriminalized in Bahamas in 1991.

[17]     However, it also states the Bahamas is the only English-speaking Caribbean country where same­ sex acts are legal.

[18]     However, the same document states that protection against discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation is not addressed in the Employment Act of 2001 of Bahamas.

[19]     Now in the same document there’s a quotation from the Cari-FLAGS coordinator providing the following Caribbean context to explaining homophobia in Bahamas. “In the British Caribbean, hyper-masculinity is valued and black men especially are expected to perform their masculinity in compliance with the hegemonic norm. Openly gay men, effeminate men or transgender people are seen as betraying manhood. These values are rigidly policed and it is culturally acceptable to exert physical violence against men who betray these gender norms.”

[20]     This same document goes on to state that: “Majority of LGBT people are not ‘out’ in the traditional sense, they balance degrees of visibility and invisibility in their personal and professional circles. Physical and psychological violence is typically directed towards ‘out’ LGBT people like activists, and others who declare publicly their orientation or gender identity.”

[21]     And the same documents indicates that LGBT people in the Bahamas have been subject to violence, including killing.

[22]     There are further indication in this document which indicates that considering – now failure to claim in and of itself is – does not negate your claim. So I’m accepting your explanations for that and the documentary evidence supports your claim and you have presented your psychological reports and the reports from Sherbourne Clinic that you are advancing to your next stage of taking treatment.

[23]     So reviewing all the – considering all the evidence and your counsel’s submissions I find on a balance of probabilities that you are a transgender man, you were lesbian going to transgender and that your testimony was credible and the documentary evidence supports your claim. Therefore, I accept your claim. Good luck.

CLAIMANT: Thank you.

COUNSEL: Thank you.

PRESIDING MEMBER: Thank you.

—- REASONS CONCLUDED —–

Citation: 2021 RLLR 18
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: June 8, 2021
Panel: David Jones
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Nicholas Woodward
Country: Bahamas
RPD Number: VC0-03417
Associated RPD Number(s):
ATIP Number: A-2022-00665
ATIP Pages: 000074-000077

DECISION

[1]     On June 8, 2021 the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) heard the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX aka XXXX XXXX, who claims refugee protection under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). On that same day, the panel rendered its oral POSITIVE decision and reasons for decision. This is the written version of the oral decision and reasons that have been edited for clarity, spelling, grammar and syntax, where appropriate. At the request of counsel for the claimant and with the direction of the presiding member, paragraph 1 of the decision was amended to correct an error in the spelling of the claimant’s name. The error in the spelling of XXXX has been corrected with thestrikethrough function and has been underlined to note the amendment of the transcript and replaced with the correct spelling of XXXX

[2]     MEMBER: This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX, originally filed under the name XXXX XXXX XXXX (ph) who is a citizen of the Bahamas seeking refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I also reviewed and applied the Chairperson’s Guideline on Proceedings Before the IRB Involving Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression.

ALLEGATIONS

[3]     The claimant fears persecution if she were to return to the Bahamas as a transgender person. Details of the claimant’s allegations can be found in the narrative attached to her Basis of Claim form and amendment to her narrative found at Exhibit 6. The following is a summary of allegations and testimony.

[4]     The claimant knew from a small child that her gender identity was not accurate, and she always saw herself as a girl. In 2016, the claimant came out to her family. I’m not going to detail all the incidents of abuse and discrimination described in her narrative, but I will note that it includes physical abuse from her father, receiving death threats after being in a documentary called the ‘The Underneath Transgenders in the Bahamas,’ numerous incidents of abuse at a workplace and being threatened with a knife while on a bus.

[5]     On XXXX XXXX 2019, a week after being threatened on the bus, the claimant applied for an ETA to come to Canada. The claimant did not have money to travel until she received assistance from a friend. On XXXX XXXX 2019, the claimant flew to Toronto. In June 2019 the claimant applied for refuge protection.

DETERMINATION

[6]     I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[7]     The claimant’s identity as a citizen of the Bahamas has been established on a balance of probabilities by her Bahamian passport located at Exhibit 1.

[8]     The claimant was born in the Bahamas to Haitian parents. When the claimant was 18, she applied for Bahamian citizenship and in the process, she had to renounce her Haitian citizenship. A copy of her renunciation of Haitian nationality dated XXXX XXXX 2018, can be found at Exhibit 5. As such I find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant is a citizen of the Bahamas and no other country nor does she have status substantially similar to citizenship in any other country.

Nexus

[9]     The allegations establish a Nexus to a Convention ground for the claimant based on her particular social group, namely as a transgendered person.

Credibility

[10]   I find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant is a transgender person. In making that finding, I’m relying on the principle that a claimant who affirms, to tell the truth, creates a presumption of truthfulness unless there are reasons to doubt their truthfulness. In this regard, the claimant testified in a consistent and straightforward manner that was consistent with her Basis of Claim form narrative and supporting documents. The claimant was able to speak about her experience with the difference between Canada and the Bahamas, her experiences with transphobia including violence in the work, at school, at home, and out in the public. The consequences of living openly in the Bahamas, the lack of legal protection against discrimination, the transphobic attitudes of the police, and the claimant answered specific questions when asked. There are no relevant inconsistencies in her testimony or contradictions between her testimony and the other evidence. I find that the claimant was a credible witness.

[11]   The claimant also provided documents to support her claim. For example, Exhibit 5 contains eight (8) letters in support of the claimant including from the claimant’s doctor in the Bahamas as well as friends and colleagues both in the Bahamas and in Canada. Exhibit 5 also contains (inaudible) news articles of the claimant participating in a pride event, Ontario documents related to her name change and change of gender designation, and other photographs of the claimant. I have no reason to doubt the genuineness of these documents as it relates to the claimants’ gender identity and expression which is what puts her at risk. I give great weight to these documents to support the claimant’s allegations and overall claim. As such I find that the claimant has established on a balance of probabilities the facts alleged in the claim including a subjective fear of return to the Bahamas.

Objective Basis

[12]   The objective evidence supports the claimant’s fears of returning to the Bahamas. As background, the US Department of State Report for the Bahamas found at Item 2.1 in the National Documentation Package as found at Exhibit 3 indicates that the law does not provide anti-discrimination protections to LGBTI individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or characteristics and that LGBTI individuals face a social stigma and discrimination and were not adequately protected by law enforcement authorities. A response to information request found at Item 6.1 quotes a source that describes the Bahamas as a place where “hypermasculinity is valued and black men especially are expected to perform their masculinity in compliance with the hegemonic norm. Openly gay men, feminine men, or transgender people are seen as betraying manhood. These values are rigidly policed, and it is culturally acceptable to exert physical violence against men who betray these gender norms.”

[13]   That RIR cites other sources to indicate that the LGBTQ people feel being open about their gender identity or sexual orientation in the Bahamas due to fear of ostracization and physical violence. The RIR also indicates that LGBTQ people have been subject to violence including killings and that a lot of that violence goes unreported. Finally, the RIR further indicates that the police do not have any specific anti­LGBT policies. Individual officers often deride ridicule and abuse to LGBTI people who attempt to report violence against themselves and community members. The claimant also provided 14 news articles and reports found at Exhibit 5 to support her claim. These include articles about the Canadian government warning LGBTQ people about traveling to the Bahamas given the anti-LGBTQ sentiments in the country and the risk of violence. Other news articles describe specific incidents of violence including murder and attempted murder charging LGBTQ people in the Bahamas. Based on the totality of the evidence, I find that the claimant has established a well-founded fear as well as a serious forward-facing risk of persecution if she were to return to the Bahamas.

State Protection

[14]   With respect to state protection, the state is presumed capable of protecting its citizens and the claimant must establish on a balance of probabilities through clear and convincing evidence that the country’ s protection is inadequate. Given the country conditions noted above including the indifference of the authorities to crimes against LGBTIQ persons, I find that there is adequate state protection available to the claimant. The claimant’s testimony and narrative reflect the country’s conditions and its regard as the claimant has successfully attempted to obtain protection from the police and she described in her testimony that there is no one that she can seek protection from and that she has never been protected in the Bahamas. I find that the claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence.

Internal Flight Alternative

[15]   Give the country conditions outlined and above and the claimant’s testimony regarding the conditions being the same throughout the Bahamas and the small size of the country. I find that the claimant would face a serious possibility of persecution throughout the country. Currently, I find there’s no internal flight alternative available to the claimant.

CONCLUSION

[16]   For the foregoing reasons, I determine the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to Section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Board, therefore, accepts the claim.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Citation: 2021 RLLR 16
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 9, 2021
Panel: Hannah Gray
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Preevanda K Sparu
Country: Bahamas
RPD Number: VC0-03669
Associated RPD Number(s): VC0-03670
ATIP Number: A-2022-00665
ATIP Pages: 000061-000065

DECISION

[1]     MEMBER: This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division, the RPD, in the claim ofXXXX XXXX XXXX, the principal claimant, and her partner, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the associate claimant of the Bahamas, who are claiming refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the IRPA. I have considered and applied the Chairperson ‘s guidelines on women refugee claimants fearing gender-related persecution. And I have also applied and considered the Chairperson’ s guideline nine (9) proceedings before the IRB involving sexual orientation and gender identity and expression in this decision. I find that the claimants are Convention refugees pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA based on their well-founded fear of persecution in the Bahamas.

ALLEGATIONS

[2]     The specifics of the claims are stated in the claimants’ Basis of Claim forms and narratives and evidence. The claimants are a common-law couple from the Bahamas, who are aged XXXX and XXXX respectively. The principal claimant identifies as a masculine and transgender and the associate claimant identifies as a lesbian. While living in the Bahamas, the principal claimant realised that they were non-gender conforming at a very young age and later began to date women as they got older. The associate claimant began to identify as a lesbian around the age of XXXX. They experienced threats and harm while living in the Bahamas and most of their family members did not accept their sexuality.

[3]     The associate claimant was robbed in her home and her private photographs were leaked publicly. The principal claimant was threatened and physically assaulted in a nightclub in 2019, causing her to Jose vision in her eye.  The associate claimant and principal claimant both reported these incidents to the police. However, the police did not help. The associate claimant fled to Canada in XXXX 2019 as they feared for their safety and her godsister informed her that Canada was a safe haven for the LGBTQ community. She made her refugee claim at this time. The principal claimant had to recover from the assault in the Bahamas and then locate their passport and then they fled to Canada in XXXX 2019. They made their refugee claim in December 2019. They both fear returning to the Bahamas and being threatened or harmed by all of society due to their sexual orientation and gender identity.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[4]     I am satisfied with the identity of the claimants as citizens of Bahamas, which is established by their testimonies and the copies of their passports in evidence.

Credibility

[5]     When a claimant swears to the truth of allegations, this creates a presumption that those allegations are true unless there is reason to doubt their truthfulness. I find no reason to doubt the truthfulness of the claimants. They testified in a straightforward, forthright, detailed and candid manner. There were no material inconsistencies, omissions or contradictions between the claimants’ testimonies and the other evidence in this case that were not reasonably explained, and they did not exaggerate or tailor their evidence. In summary, their testimonies were consistent with the other evidence on central aspects of their claims. I find the claimants also provided ample details to expand upon their allegations and they provided documentary evidence, which included medical reports and photographs from the physical assault of the principal claimant in 2019, XXXX assessments, photographs of them as a couple as well as with their friends from the LGBTQ community, letters of support from family and friends as well as support organisations, and country condition articles to name a few.

[6]     Both of the claimants travelled to the USA to visit family and friends between 2017 and 2018. When they were asked, if they considered making a refugee claim in the USA, the claimants testified that they did not. The associate claimant testified that she feared making a refugee claim in the USA as there had recently been a shooting at a gay club in Florida State and she feared that it would not be safe for them in the US. She further testified that her godsister who lived in Canada informed her that Canada was a country that offered refuge for the LGBTQ community. Based on their credible testimonies and reasonable explanation, I do not draw a negative inference on the claimants’ credibility based on their failure to claim refugee protection in the USA.

[7]     Given the principle claimant’s careful testimony and supporting documents, as well as the associate claimant’s testimony and supporting documents, I find that both of the claimants have established on a balance of probabilities the facts alleged in their claims, including that the principal claimant identifies as masculine and non-gender conforming and that the associate claimant is a lesbian and they are in a lesbian relationship. I accept on a balance of probabilities that they have faced discrimination, a robbery, and an assault due to their sexual orientation, as well as general mistreatment from family members due to their sexual orientation and gender identity. I therefore accept the subjective fear they have of returning to the Bahamas. In sum, I find that the claimants are credible witnesses.

Nexus

[8]     To qualify for refugee status under the refugee convention, an individual must demonstrate that they have a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, or membership in a particular social group or political opinion. Based on the totality of the evidence, I find that the claimants have established a nexus to a convention ground, namely their membership in a particular social group as a lesbian woman and a non-gender conforming woman. Further, I find that the claimants face more than a mere possibility of persecution if they return to the Bahamas now. I will therefore assess this claim under section 96.

Well-Founded Fear of Persecution and Risk of Harm

[9]     I find that the claimants have a well-founded fear of persecution based on their sexual orientation and gender identity as a common-law couple who are non-gender conforming and in a same-sex relationship. In addition, the principal claimant testified that they are non-gender conforming and have intentions to undergo gender-affirming surgery in the future. The claimants both face threats and harm in the Bahamas in the form of a robbery, exposure of private information such as photographs, and an attack in a bar due to their sexual orientation. They also testified that they faced mistreatment from family members when they disclosed their sexual identities.

[10]   The SOGIE guideline states under section 8.5.9.1 that individuals with diverse SOGIE may also face instances of harassment or discrimination that cumulatively amount to a well-founded fear of persecution. The SOGIE guideline goes further to provide a non-exhaustive list of factors to consider regarding cumulative discrimination amounting to persecution, including restrictions, unemployment, social services, health care, and harassment by the police. The objective evidence in the National Documentation Package for the Bahamas at item 6.1 indicates that there are no constitutional protections for sexual minorities in the Bahamas and no protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in employment legislation.  This report further states that same-sex marriage is not recognised in the Bahamas.

[11]   Homophobia permeates throughout cultural attitudes and it is culturally acceptable to exert violence against sexual minorities. This objective evidence also indicates that sexual minorities face violence, including killings in the Bahamas.

[12]   Sources in the NDP at item 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 further indicate that LGBT people are generally afraid to be open about their sexual orientation and gender identity in the Bahamas and they don’t live out in the sense. Activists and openly LGBTQ people are often perceived as having nefarious international agendas to spread and normalise homosexuality. They are marginalised from mainstream employment and other social and civic spaces, and young people who are LGBTQ reportedly are in many instances subjected to psychological, spiritual and physical violence at the hands of their parents, guardians, teachers, and peers.

[13]   These sources indicate that the LGBTQ people in the Bahamas have been subject to violence, including killings and physical attacks. And indeed, the claimants provided a substantial amount of detail about some of the violence that they experienced or their friends experienced in the Bahamas. Therefore, I find that the claimants have demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution on both a subjective and objective basis. I find the claimants would face a serious possibility of persecution in the Bahamas based on their membership in a particular social group.

State Protection and Internal Flight Alternative

[14]   I find that there is clear and convincing evidence in the documentation that the state is unable or unwilling to protect… to provide the claimants with adequate protection. Homosexuality was decriminalised in the Bahamas in 1991. However, the government officials have conceded that a significant stigma against homosexuality still persists and there is no official mechanism to document and monitor human rights violations and no recourse available to victims of discrimination and violence based on sexual orientation.

[15]   The objective evidence at item 6.1 of the NDP further indicates that there are no training programs or policies to counteract homophobia and sexual minorities do not have equal access to the law. There are also reports that the police insult and ridicule sexual minorities if they report crimes to them and their sexual orientation is discovered. Based on the totality of evidence, I find that, although there are some mixed evidence and some evidence of efforts by the state to make improvements, there continues to be an absence of operationally effective state protection available to sexual minorities such as the claimants.

[16]   Further, the objective evidence indicates at NDP item 5.3 that, in addition to the high levels of violence against women in the Bahamas, interlocutors noted that concern the apparent normalisation of violence against women and girls across the country. This normalisation of violence against women often leads to underreporting, as well as ridicule and stigmatisation of victims who do come forward. Ending such violence against women is one (1) of the most serious challenges facing the Bahamas today and where underreporting remains a concern reflecting a lack of trust in the justice system, as well as fear of ridicule and stigmatisation.

[17]   Given the absence of operationally effective state protection, as well as the small geographical size of the island country and the prevalence of homophobia and violence against sexual minorities and violence against women in the Bahamas, I find that the claimants would face a serious possibility of persecution throughout the Bahamas and it is not objectively reasonable in all the circumstances including those particular to the claimants for them to relocate. Accordingly, I find that there is no internal flight available to the claimants.

CONCLUSION

[18]   For these reasons, I find that the claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 of the Act and I accept both of their claims. Thank you and thank you for sharing your experiences with me today.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Citation: 2021 RLLR 7
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: June 10, 2021
Panel: Kristy Sim
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Johnson Babalola
Country: Bahamas
RPD Number: VC1-03028
Associated RPD Number(s): VC1-03029
ATIP Number: A-2022-00210
ATIP Pages: 000214-000220

DECISION

This transcript constitutes the member’s written reasons for decision.

[1]       MEMBER: This the recording of a reserved decision of the Refugee Protection Division in the claim of XXXX XXXX, the principal claimant, and XXXX XXXX XXXX, the minor claimant, file numbers VCl-03028 and VCl-03029. In assessing this claim, I have considered and applied the Chairperson’s Guideline on Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution and the Guideline on Proceedings Before the IRB Involving Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression (or the SOGIE Guideline).

[2]       The principal claimant provided a letter of consent from the minor claimant’s father as well as a copy of the minor claimant’s birth certificate, Exhibit 6. The claimants are citizens of the Bahamas are claiming refugee protection pursuant to Section 96 and Subsection 97 (1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Their allegations are set out in full in the Basis of Claim forms at Exhibit 2.1, 2.2, and amended BOC narrative in Exhibit 10.

[3]       In summary, the principal claimant is a XXXX XXXX year-old woman who grew up in a Christian family. While she was in school, she found women beautiful but suppressed these feelings out of fear as her family, her religious community, and Bahamian culture is deeply homophobic. She found high school difficult due to her struggles over her own sexuality and her fear of being rejected. The principal claimant came to realize that she was bisexual and had her first romantic relationship with a woman in XXXX 2014. They met at work and kept their relationship secret. ln 2015, she entered a romantic relationship with a man with whom she had a child, the minor claimant, in XXXX XXXX. This relationship ended shortly thereafter. In XXXX 2016, when the claimant started her job at the XXXX XXXX she met XXXX XXXX (ph) whom I will refer to as her ex-partner throughout. They soon began a relationship; she did not discuss her bisexuality with him as she feared how he would react. The principal claimant said she was very much in love and the two of them moved in together along with the minor claimant over whom the principal claimant had full custody.

[4]       The principal claimant eventually learned that her ex-partner was having a relationship with another woman; however, she felt unable to leave him. They eventually worked out their differences and got engaged in XXXX 2017, although she describes this relationship as emotionally abusive and him as obsessive. The principal claimant got a second job in the XXXXof a XXXX where she met XXXX XXXX in XXXX 2018. They quickly formed a close friendship and eventually it became romantic. XXXX XXXX XXXX identifies as a lesbian. The two women professed their love for each other in XXXX 2018 but kept the relationship a secret. A few friends of theirs suspected them of being romantically involved, however, they were careful to socialize in a group usually after work and with other co-workers. The principal claimant is not aware of any safe spaces for members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (or LGBTI) community.

[5]       The claimant went to Florida in XXXX 2019 with XXXX XXXX XXXX and some other friends. They were secretly intimate with each other on this trip but were not open about it to their friends. The principal claimant’s relationship with her ex-partner was deteriorating primarily due to her desire to be with XXXX XXXX XXXX. In XXXX 2019, her ex-partner went through her phone and saw messages between her and XXXX XXXX XXXX. He asked who it was, and the principal claimant brushed it off and responded that it was a misunderstanding. However, they argued, and the principal claimant left the home to clear her head and also to see XXXX XXXX XXXX. When the principal claimant returned late that evening, her ex-partner confronted her, and she confessed to being in love with XXXX XXXX XXXX. He was enraged and violently assaulted her. The minor claimant witnessed much of the violence including his mother being choked and her ex-partner saying that he would kill her. The principal claimant eventually grabbed a knife from the kitchen to defend herself, but her ex-partner knocked out of her hands and slapped her until she fell to the ground, then he walked away. She ran out of the home with her son and had a friend take her son to his grandmother’s house and her to the police station. The police were nonchalant and told her to first get treatment at the hospital. She went to the hospital and received stitches to her face. She returned to the police station to report the assault the police did not take a report but offered to take her back to the house to get her clothes which she did. There was no discussion of a restraining order or a protection order and the police told the principal claimant to find somewhere to stay that night.

[6]       The principal claimant followed up with the police by telephone, in person, and with emails as she intended to follow through on the assault charges against her ex-partner. However, nothing happened, and the police did not take the matter seriously. The principal claimant immediately moved into her mother’s home, stopped working at the XXXX XXXX and blocked all contact with her ex-partner. He stalked her wanting to know why she was not talking to him and demanding that she return to him and their relationship. He also followed her and XXXX XXXX XXXX as they left work one night until the principal claimant drove into the parking lot of the police station at which point, he left. He repeatedly tried to contact her on Facebook using different identities and demanding that she return to him. The principal claimant took her son to Disneyland with some friends in XXXX 2019 for a short trip. Her ex­ partner intercepted her as she attempted to board the flight as he had access to the XXXX XXXX and to this area of the airport through XXXX XXXX. He grabbed her arm and told her not to run as he would find her and make things bad for her if she continued to avoid him.

[7]       The night the principal claimant returned from Florida her ex-partner went to her mother’s house screaming at her to return to him and insulting XXXX XXXX XXXX, he also vandalized her car. The principal claimant called the police, but they did not come. XXXX XXXX XXXX convinced the principal claimant to go to the police station several days later, on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, to report these additional incidents. In explaining what her ex-partner had said and done, the police referred to the principal claimant and XXXX XXXX XXXX in a derogatory way, saying that they did not want to encourage this type of relationship. The principal claimant felt unsafe in Nassau and believed that her ex­ partner would be able to find her if she moved given how small the Bahamas are and his broad community connections through the XXXX XXXX. She also did not want to have to hide and deny her sexuality any longer.

[8]       Feeling like she had no option but to leave the Bahamas, she purchased a flight for her and her son and departed the Bahamas a few days later, on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019. Her ex-partner accessed her private accounts and sent personal and explicit photographs and videos of her with XXXX XXXX XXXX and a previous same-sex partner to friends and family members including her parents. The principal claimant’s family members reacted with anger and told her that she was a disgrace. She is still estranged from her father and her siblings as a result of their learning about her sexual orientation. While her mother struggled with accepting the principal claimant, they eventually were able to re-establish a relationship. The principal claimant’ s sexual orientation was disseminated more broadly throughout the community as well. She fears that if she returns to the Bahamas she would be assaulted or killed by her ex-partner.

[9]       The principal claimant also fears mistreatment by members of the public on account of her sexual orientation. She fears that the minor claimant will be harmed by her ex-partner either directly or in witnessing her being abused and harmed by him and that her son will also be mistreated due to her sexual orientation. I find that the claimants are Convention refugees as they have a well-founded fear of persecution in the Bahamas. My reasons are as follows.

Identity

[10]     I find that the claimants’ identity as Bahamian nationals is established on a balance of probabilities by the principal claimant’s testimony and a copy of each of their passports in evidence at Exhibit 1.

Credibility

[11]     With respect to the claimant’s sexual orientation, she provided testimony that was candid and direct. She testified in a spontaneous and natural fashion about her sexuality and her same-sex relationships. She explained in detail how she met previous girlfriends, how they were able to be together, and why their relationships ended. I find that this testimony was genuine and consistent. The claimant provided corroborative documentary evidence of her sexual orientation including a letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX attesting to their relationship and how they are currently taking a break but remain in love. As well as messages exchanged between her and XXXX XXXX XXXX, photographs, and videos of the principal claimant and XXXX XXXX XXXX as well the principal claimant with a previous same-sex partner in the Bahamas. Letters of support from close friends of the principal claimant about how and when they learned about her sexual orientation. Messages exchanged between the principal claimant and women she was chatting with within Canada and a screen capture of the principal claimant’s registration with The 519 organization in Toronto and those are found in Exhibits 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10. The principal claimant also provided numerous articles about serious issues faced by the LGBTI community in the Bahamas and those are found at Exhibits 1 and 9.

[12]     With respect to the domestic abuse aspect of the claim, the principal claimant provided a detailed account of her ex-partner’s attack in her BOC narrative as well as in her oral testimony. The principal claimant explained what the minor claimant experienced and witnessed during this attack. She also testified about what she believes would happen if she were to relocate to another area in the Bahamas. The principal claimant’s response to my questions were emotional, genuine, and credible. The principal claimant also provided documentary evidence which corroborated her allegations of abuse including: a police report from XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019; an email sent by her to the police reiterating that she had been in several times with no progress and stating that she wants the matter to proceed, which was dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019; a video showing the damage to the principal claimant’s car by her ex-partner on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019; a letter of support from a friend the night of her attack about having received several missed calls from the principal claimant; letters of support from friends and co-workers saying that the principal claimant never returned to work at the XXXX after the assault and that her ex­ partner was angry about her wanting to be with XXXX XXXX XXXX; messages in which the principal claimant was trying and locate the hospital records from the night of her assault; and photographs and videos of the principal claimant and her ex-partner; as well as a referral for XXXX treatment and support, and a XXXX report detailing the XXXX effects of domestic violence, Exhibits 5,7, and 9.

[13]     There were no material inconsistencies or contradictions within the principal claimant’ s evidence that caused me to question her credibility. I find her testimony was credible and was supported by corroborative documentary evidence as such I accept that the principal claimant is bisexual and that she has experienced domestic violence as a result of her relationship with XXXX XXXX XXXX and that her ex-partner stopped, threatened, and harassed her following his assaulting her in XXXX 2019.

Well-Founded Fear of Persecution

[14]     The principal claimant fears persecution in the Bahamas on account of her identity as a bisexual woman. The principal claimant also fears persecution from her abusive ex-partner. According to the Gender and SOGIE Guidelines, bisexual women and women facing domestic violence both constitute a particular social group. As such, I find that her claim for protection has a Nexus to the refugee convention ground of membership in a particular social group. The principal claimant fears the minor claimant would face persecution in the Bahamas as the son of a bisexual woman. The sexual orientation of a family member in an overtly homophobic country can result in adverse consequences and here I refer to the Federal Court case Corneille which is found at 2014 FC 901. I also find that if the minor claimant returns to the Bahamas, he would be at risk of witnessing his mother’s ex-partner subjecting her to further abuse or even murder. There is a Federal Court authority in the Modeste case at 2013 FC 1262 that children witnessing the abuse of a parent constitutes persecution in itself.

[15]     I find that the minor claimant’s fear of persecution relates to the Convention ground of membership in a particular social group namely children of bisexual women in an overtly homophobic country and children subjected to domestic violence. The objective evidence in the NDP indicates that sexual minorities including bisexual women face serious mistreatment in the Bahamas. Furthermore, I find that the principal claimant’s identity as a bisexual woman intersects with the risks that she faces from her ex­ partner in a way that elevates her overall risk of persecution. While same-sex sexual activity is not criminalized in the Bahamas, individuals who identify as LGBTI face widespread stigmatization and discrimination in the country and l refer here to NDP Items 2.1, 2.3, and 6.3. According to NDP Item 6.1, there is strong anti-gay attitudes in the Bahamas as “homophobia is permeated through cultural attitudes and is expressed in religion, music, and other expressions”. The same source notes that due to the strong stigma against homosexuality. Sexual minorities generally hide their sexual orientation out of fear of ostracism, exclusion, ridicule, and violence.

[16]     The claimants provided recent media reports about homophobia in the Bahamas even against tourists and that’s an Exhibit 5. Discrimination based on sexuality is not prohibited by law, so LGBTI individuals have no mechanism to seek redress from marginalization, systematic discrimination in the areas of employment and housing and that’s NDP 2.3, 6.1, and 6.2. Sexual minorities face discrimination without redress and cannot live openly without facing various forms of mistreatment including violence and I find this amounts to persecution. Moreover, the principal claimant faces an additional risk of persecution from her ex-partner who attacked and threatened to kill after learning that she’s bisexual and in love with a woman. He was infuriated, he continued to stalk and threaten her, and he refused to accept that she wanted to leave him for a woman. I find on a balance of probabilities that the principal claimant’s ex­ partner felt rejected and threatened by her sexuality and that this elevates the risk he poses to her and by extension the minor claimant who is at risk of witnessing the principal claimant being further assaulted or even killed by her partner.

State Protection

[17]     In all refugee claims, the state is presumed to be capable of protecting its citizens unless a claimant presents clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. In this case, I find that this presumption has been rebutted and that the protection would not be forthcoming. NDP Item 6.1 notes that LGBTI people experience difficulties if they turn to the police for protection that they faced smirking, ridicule, and insults if they are open about their sexual orientation which is certainly reflective of the experience of the principal claimant when she went to the police with XXXX XXXX XXXX. This same source reports that “if an LGBTI reports an incident of violence openly to the police, the police will come down against the victim and will say the person got what they deserved.” The US Department of State Report found at NDP Item 2.1 also indicates there is inadequate protection by law enforcement authorities for members of the LGBTI community. Based on this evidence I find that the principal claimant would not have adequate state protection from persecution due to her sexual orientation. I also find that the claimants would not have adequate state protection from the principal claimant’s ex-partner. While there is anti-domestic violence legislation in the Bahamas and some support for women fleeing violence, women’s rights groups there report a hesitancy from law enforcement to intervene in domestic disputes and that’s NDP Items 2.1 and 5.8. In the present case, the principal claimant reported her abuser to the police several times and attempted to follow up and move forward with assault charges. The authorities helped her to return to her home to get her personal effects the night of the attack but did not issue a protective or restraining order or pursued charges against her ex-partner. While she attended the station with XXXX XXXX XXXX, the nonchalance of the police turned to derision. In light of the circumstances, I find that state protection was inadequate. As the principal claimant lacks state protection from her abusive ex-partner, I find that the minor claimant also lacks state protection from the harm she fears namely bearing witness to violence against his mother.

Internal Flight Alternative

[18]     Finally, I’ve considered whether an internal flight alternative available to the claimants. At the start of the hearing, I proposed San Salvador. The first prong of this assessment is to determine whether on a balance of probabilities there’s a risk of persecution, a risk to life, cruel or unusual treatment or punishment, or danger of torture in the proposed internal flight alternative location. According to the objective evidence, the situation for LGBTI individuals is consistent throughout the Bahamas as a result I find there is no location within the Bahamas where the principal claimant would not face a serious possibility of persecution due to her sexual orientation. I also find that the principal claimant’s ex-partner is likely motivated to pursue her throughout the Bahamas. Given the small size of the country, his ability to monitor her movements through his employment at the XXXX XXXX and his strong connections within the community through his membership in the XXXX XXXX XXXX. I find that the ex-partner would also likely have the ability to locate the principal claimant anywhere in the country. As the minor claimant lives with the principal claimant solely, I find that he would also face a possibility of witnessing violence against his mother which I have found amounts to persecution. For these reasons, I do find the claimants have a viable internal flight alternative within the Bahamas.

CONCLUSION

[19]     Having considered the evidence, I find the claimants are Convention refugees under Section 96 of the Act and I accept their claims for protection. This matter is concluded.

(signed)  Kirsty Sim

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Citation: 2019 RLLR 131
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: September 9, 2019
Panel: M. Schnapp, P. Gueller, D. Willard
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Pablo Andres Irribarra Valdes
Country: Bahamas
RPD Number: TB8-18513
ATIP Number: A-2021-00256
ATIP Pages: 000077-000081

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: Okay, we are back on the record, counsel I am not going to need any questioning or submissions from you, so I am going to read my decision, just to let you know we have accepted your claim and I am just going to read the decision.

[2]       This is the decision in the claim for refugee protection of [XXX] File Number TB8-18513, you are claiming to be a citizen of the Bahamas and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

[3]       The panel has considered your testimony and the other evidence in this case and we are ready to render our decision orally. In assessing your claim, the panel has applied the Chairpersons guidelines, Guideline 9 on sexual orientation and gender identity and expression called the SOGI Guidelines.

DETERMINATION:

[4]       The panel finds that you are a Convention refugee pursuant to Section 96 of IRPA on the grounds of your membership in a particular social group as a gay man. The panel finds that you would face a serious possibility of persecution in the future if returned to the Bahamas. The panel is accepting your claim.

[5]       Your allegations are set out in detail in your Basis of Claim Form. In summary, you allege a fear of pervasive discrimination including possible acts of violence from the community because of your sexual orientation as a gay man and also due to the community’s perception of you as a gay man.

[6]       You allege that if you return to the Bahamas, you will face stigma, social exclusion discrimination in many aspects of your life and from the community and this would include verbal insults and possible physical violence and that you cannot live openly and freely as a gay man in the Bahamas, without experiencing this kind of harassment, threats and discrimination and there is no safe place for you to live in your country.

[7]       In making this assessment, the panel considered all the evidence including oral testimony and documentary evidence entered as Exhibits.

IDENTITY:

[8]       The panel finds that your personal and national identity as a citizen of Bahamas has been established on a balance of probabilities by your testimony and the supporting documentation filed in Exhibits 1 and Exhibits 4, in particular the certified copy of your passport which was seized by CBSA when you started your refugee claim.

[9]       The panel finds that there is a link between what you fear on the refugee Convention grounds namely your membership in a particular social group as a gay man and someone who was perceived by the community and family members as being a gay man.

[10]     Therefore your claim falls under Section 96. In terms of your general credibility, the panel finds you to be a credible witness.

[11]     The testimony was straightforward and consistent with your Basis of Claim Form and other forms and there were no significant inconsistencies or omissions that went to the core of your claim.

[12]     You provided spontaneous details of you coming to understand and coming to accept your sexual orientation of being a gay man. You also provided details of the discriminatory and threatening incidents that you experience in the Bahamas. These were details that you would expect of someone who lived the experience as described.

[13]     You provided corroborating documentation including letters from multiple friends who know of your sexual orientation and knew of the negative treatment you experienced in the Bahamas as a result of being a gay man, screenshots and messages being circulated on social media which exposed your sexual orientation and your counsel’s request for police records to the Royal Bahamas Police Force dated August 14^th, 2018, Your identity as an HIV positive individual that has been established on the panel’s view on the balance of probabilities by your oral testimony and corroborating medical documentation that was filed as corroborating evidence.

[14]     For someone who is grown up in the society where being on the LGBT spectrum is treated with contempt, ridicule by many as an abomination, the panel finds your testimony to be credible.

[15]     You testified without any obvious embellishments and in a fluid immediate way. Therefore the panel believes your core allegations of your refugee claim and your oral testimony and your Basis of Claim Form on a balance of probabilities.

[16]     The panel believes that you are a gay and due to homophobia in the Bahamas you struggled with this, and cannot lead a free and safe and open life in the Bahamas and that you face a serious possibility of persecution in the future in the Bahamas.

[17]     With respect to your subjective fear and in particular reavailment and delay in making a claim, you have established that you are subjectively fearful of returning to the Bahamas, therefore the panel finds you have a subjective fear of persecution in the Bahamas.

[18]     With respect to the two trips to the United States in 2016 and 2017, you explained that you accompanied your family members, including your mother and that you had not realized at that point that you were able to make an asylum claim in the United States based on sexual orientation.

[19]     With respect to you only claiming refugee status after approximately one month in Canada, your BOC indicated that you were concerned that you did so at the airport, you may be send back to the Bahamas and you needed time to find a lawyer to assist you with the process.

[20]     Therefore the panel accepts your explanations as reasonable and finds that this does not detract in any significant way from you holding a subjected well-founded fear that is forward-looking today and the fear of persecution would exist in the Bahamas.

OBJECTIVE BASIS OF RISK, PERSECUTION:

[21]     The panel finds that you have an objective basis for your fear because of the documented conditions for the Bahamas as per evidence in Exhibit 3 which is the National Documentation Package for Bahamas.

[22]     It states that based on the evidence in this package, that the claimant has his stated experience and instances of abuse for his sexual orientation in the Bahamas from strangers and homophobic attitudes you have experienced and from family members which is made out in the documentary evidence as well that this is an objective country reports in the situation of the Bahamas.

[23]     You described having to conceal your sexual orientation. Exhibit 3 of the NDP documents that LGBT people in the Bahamas are generally afraid to be open about their sexual orientation or gender identity. They fear if they are open about their sexual orientation they will be subject to ostracism, exclusion, ridicule and possibly violence.

[24]     Physical and psychological violence is typically directed to LGBT persons who lived openly in the Bahamas and LGBT persons have been subjected to violence including killings and physical attacks.

[25]     There are also reports of discrimination in various sectors such as employment and housing in Items 2.1, 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 of the NDP package.

[26]     Given that the panel finds the claimant credible as a gay man, we find that you will not be able to live freely and openly in the Bahamas without risk of experiencing the above noted harms.

[27]     Further Mr. [XXX] has the additional vulnerability of being an HIV positive man and the NDP speaks of discrimination and some abuse against persons who are HIV positive.

[28]     Item 2.1 which is the United States Human Rights Report, Department of State Report notes that children in Bahamas who are HIV positive face discrimination with authorities often and they often don’t tell teachers the child was HIV positive due to the fear of verbal abuse from both educators and peers.

[29]     Item 5.3 also speaks of discrimination and violence against people of HIV status and Item 6.1 is response to information request throughout the Bahamas which stated that LGBT groups in Bahamas who support people living with HIV have a difficulty getting international funding as it is supposed to be for their programs <inaudible> government does not want to be seen as supporting gay health initiatives.

[30]     This panel finds that as a person as a gay man living with HIV you would be even at heightened risk of discrimination and you may be harassed if you sought medical treatment for your condition.

STATE PROTECTION AND INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE:

[31]     The panel finds that there is a clear and convincing evidence that State protection would not be reasonably forthcoming in your case as per the evidence in Exhibit 3 of the National Documentation Package.

[32]     The NDP indicates that discrimination against LGBTQ members in the Bahamas is common place and the crimes against members of that community are rarely if ever resolved satisfactory.

[33]     Police do not take reporting of anti-LGBTQ crimes seriously, Item 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 reports that LGBT people often experience difficulties if they turn to the police for protection and the Bahamas because they share strong anti-gay attitudes with the rest of the British Caribbean. The police smirk, ridicule and insult LGBT people if they are open about their sexual orientation.

[34]     So, based on the above the panel finds there is clear and convincing evidence that there is no adequate State protection for you in the Bahamas.

[35]     Lastly, the panel has considered whether there is a viable internal flight alternative available for you and on the evidence before us we find risk of physical harm and homophobic attitudes exist throughout the Bahamas.

[36]     So, there is a possibility of persecution throughout the country, therefore the panel finds there is no viable internal flight alternative available to you.

[37]     So, based on the totality of the evidence, the panel concludes that you are a Convention refugee pursuant to Section 96 of the Act, and we therefore accept your claim, thank you.

[38]     COUNSEL: Thank you.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-