Category: Bangladesh

Categories
All Countries Bangladesh

2020 RLLR 10

Citation: 2020 RLLR 10
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: September 29, 2020
Panel: Ana Rico
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Md Wazir Hossain
Country: Bangladesh 
RPD Number: TB8-19236
Associated RPD Number(s): TB8-19239, TB8-19247, TB8-19248, TB8-19249
ATIP Number: A-2021-00540
ATIP Pages: 000066-000071

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]       These are the reasons for decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claim for protection filed by [XXX], [XXX], [XXX], [XXX], and [XXX] under sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[2]       The Board appointed Mr. [XXX] as the designated representatives of the minor claimants.

ALLEGATIONS

[3]       The allegations are fully set out in the Basis of Claim forms (which can be found at exhibit 2.1-2.5). In short, the claimants allege that they face a risk to their life at the hands of Awami League and Communists cadres because they seek to extort them for [XXX]. If returned to Bangladesh, the claimants fear that they will be subjected to further assaults, kidnappings, and ultimately lose their lives.

DETERMINATION

[4]       The panel determines that the claimants are persons in need of protection as they face a risk to their lives in Bangladesh because of extortion threats from criminal elements.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[5]       The claimants’ identities as nationals of Bangladesh are established, on a balance of probabilities, through the certified true copies of their passportsi, and other government issued documentsii that were submitted to the Board.

Nexus- Section 97(1) Claim

[6]       The panel finds, for the reasons outlined below, that the fear alleged by the claimants fall under section 97(1) of the IRPA and has assessed it as such. Though the claimants are targeted by a politically motivated organization, the reasons for them being targeted is not tied to a Convention ground. The claimants indicate in their evidence that they are targeted because of their wealth, and social standing. While the claimant believes that the targeting may also be tied to a future political bid, the claimant indicated that he had no aspirations for politics. Moreover, in none of the incidents of persecution do the persecutors allude to any political reasons for targeting the claimants. It is clear in the agent of persecutions’ threats and actions that the reasons for targeting the claimants is tied to their wealth. A person’s socioeconomic status is not an innate or immutable characteristic as contemplated by the ground of membership in a particular social group. Given that the claimants are targeted because of their wealth, the panel finds that they have failed to establish a nexus to a Convention ground.

Credibility

[7]       Testimony given under oath is presumed to be true unless there are reasons to doubt its veracity. The claimants have given the panel no valid reasons to doubt the veracity of their evidence. There were no significant, unexplained inconsistencies, implausibilities or omissions from the principal claimant’s testimony. The principal claimant appeared to testify in a spontaneous and forthright manner.

[8]       The principal claimant provided realistic detail about the incidents of persecution that remained largely consistent with his Basis of Claim and other evidence contained in the record. The claimant provided significant detailed testimony concerning the first extortion event, the kidnapping of his sons, as well as, the agent of persecutions ability to locate them after relocating within Bangladesh.

[9]       While the principal claimant’s police report regarding the kidnapping of his son omitted the actual kidnapping, the panel finds the explanation given to be reasonable. It is entirely reasonable that the principal claimant would omit the kidnapping to shield the children from any greater violence, as he was threatened with death if he reported the kidnapping to the police. Given the threats made, and the police’s past inability to protect, that the principal claimant would not provide these details to the police.

[10]     Overall, the principal claimants’ evidence remained internally consistent and consistent with the other evidence in the record. Moreover, the allegations are well supported with a plethora of evidence whose authenticity the panel has no reasons to doubt. The corroborative evidenceiii, including police reports, witness statements, proof of sale of properties/assets to pay ransoms, proof of hiding in Bangladesh, is persuasive evidence that the allegations are, on a balance, true.

[11]     For the reasons state above, the panel finds that the claimants claim is credible, and that they have established that the allegations are true on a balance of probabilities.

Personalized Risk to Life

[12]     The panel must consider whether the claimants face a personalized risk to their life that is not faced generally by others in Bangladesh. The panel finds, for the reasons outlined below, that the claimants face a personalized risk to their life in Bangladesh. While kidnappings and extortion of wealthy persons is commonly faced by citizens in Bangladesh, the specific and repeatedly increased violent targeting of the claimants escalated the risk from that faced by others generally in the country to that of a personalized targeting of the family. It is evident from the claimants’ evidence that the targeting escalated from extortion threats, to threats of violence, to kidnappings. The steady increase of violence meted against the claimants, as well as the agent of persecutions pursuing the claimants to other parts of Bangladesh, clearly demonstrates that the targeting, and ultimately risk to the claimants’ lives, was very personal in nature. As such, the claimants face a personalized risk to their lives that this not face generally by others in Bangladesh.

State Protection

[1]       There is a presumption that States can protect its own citizens; however, it is open for a claimant to rebut this presumption with clear and convincing evidence of an unwillingness or inability of the State to protect them.

[13]     In the present case, the claimant sought state protection on four occasions. The claimants’ actions of seeking state protection is corroborated by the General Diaries contained in the record.iv While the police did record the claimant’s recounting of the incidents, the police did not investigate further, nor did they offer the claimants any protection, despite promising to take steps to follow up. Despite the claimants’ repeated attempts to follow up regarding the open investigation, the police failed to respond or provide any concrete information as to the state of the open investigations. The claimants above described personal experiences demonstrate that the police failed to provide adequate state protection to the claimants.

[14]     The objective documentary evidence also demonstrates that, in this case, state protection at an operational level remains inadequate. The National Document Package for Bangladesh contains many reports of extortion, kidnappings, and threats made by Awami League cadres, and their counterparts. The NDP for Bangladesh also highlights that the crimes go largely unpunished, and under-reported. There are reports of impunity for crimes committed by Awami League cadres, and their supporters. There are also instances in which the police collaborate with Awami League cadres to perpetuate these very same crimes against citizens in Bangladesh.v

[15]     Given the claimants’ own experiences with the police, and the level of impunity documented in the objective evidence, the panel finds that there is no adequate state protection for the claimants in Bangladesh at this time.

Internal Flight Alternative

[16]     As the agent of persecution is active throughout Bangladesh and has located the claimants even after relocating within Bangladesh, the panel finds that there is no viable internal flight alternative for the claimants.

CONCLUSION

[17]     Based on the totality of the evidence, the panel concludes that the claimants are persons in need of protection. The panel accepts their claims.

(signed)           Ana Rico

September 29, 2020

i Exhibit 1.
ii Exhibit 6; items 1.1-1.4.
iii Exhibits 6 and 7.
iv Exhibit 6, items 8.1-8.2, and items 9.1-9.2.
v Exhibit 3, National Document Package for Bangladesh, March 32, 2020, tab 2.1, tab 2.3, 2.7, and 2.9.

Categories
All Countries Bangladesh

2019 RLLR 70

Citation: 2019 RLLR 70
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: October 24, 2019
Panel: Kristina Genjaga
Counsel for the claimant(s): Aleksandar Jeremic
Country: Bangladesh
RPD Number: TB8-26458
ATIP Number: A-2020-01274
ATIP Pages: 000204-000206

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: I have considered your testimony and the other evidences in this case and I’m ready to render my decision orally. I would like to add than in the event that written reasons. You could do it at the same time. Okay? I would like to add that (inaudible) in the written reasons are issues. A written of these reasons may be edited for spelling, syntax and grammar and references to the applicable case law and documentary evidence may also be included.

[2]       The claimant, [XXX], claims to be a citizen of Bangladesh. He is claiming refugee protection pursuant to Section 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration Refugee Protection Act. In deciding their claim and have considered your testimony and the documentary evidence filed. In addition, I have considered Guideline number 9, the SOGIE Guidelines, in this particular case.

[3]       Your allegations are set out in your Basis of Claim Form in (inaudible )tive. The following is a brief summary of your allegations. You alleged that you ‘re a bisexual man and that you work for an [XXX] that supported the LGBTQ community. You fear the authorities. A same-sex relationships are considered illegal in Bangladesh and you also fear the Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen, the JMB, that you be killed by them due to your activities in support of the LGBTQ community.

[4]       You alleged that you started working with this [XXX] in 2011 called [XXX], that you’re a [XXX] for this [XXX], that you helped secret meetings for members of the LGBTQ community in houses and as a result you started to receive threatening phone calls that you believe came from the JMB. You also wrote an article in the newspaper, I believe, [XXX], as regarding [XXX], dated [XXX] of 2015. You also started subsequently to receive threatening phone calls and letters in your mail box that came from the JMB. You reported this to the police but they did not assist you. You continue to have problems with the JMB. You had to go into hide or leave actually [XXX] and go into hiding in several places before you eventually went back to Dhaka in [XXX] 2016. In subsequently, five (5) men with machetes came to your home and you were able to escape. You stayed at a friend’s house and subsequently left for the United  States in [XXX] 2016, and you made your way to Canada in October 17, 2018, and made a claim for refugee protection.

[5]       I find that you’re a Convention refugee based on two (2) grounds. First, base on the ground of your sexual orientation as a bisexual individual and also, base on the ground of membership in a particular social group that being a former [XXX] worker for the LGBT community.

[6]       For the following reasons, your identity is established by your testimony and the supporting documentation filed found in Exhibit 1. I believe a certify copy of your passport is in Exhibit 1. I find you to be a very credible witness and therefore believe what you have alleged in support of your claim. You have testified in a straightforward manner and there were no inconsistency and your testimony and the materials before me. You did not exaggerate or embellish your claim and you have provided an extensive collaborative personal documents in Exhibit 6, 7 and 8 that support your claim, and they include quite a few letters of support from you, the police report, general diary entries. Heavy remaiance was placed on the-, all your documents showing that you work for [XXX] and also the threatening letters from the JMB and also the newspaper article that you wrote in title [XXX]. All these documents support your allegations.

[7]       The Panel did have a concern regarding the revelment and also why your failure to claim for the United States. However, the Panel has accepted your explanation in terms of the first time returning back to Bangladesh because your wife was ill and also your explanation for why you didn’t claim because you couldn’t afford the fees and also the fact that, entered Canada due to the changes in the United States under the Trump administration. Therefore, the Panel did not go on negativity inferences to the credibility of the claimant and accepted his explanation in that regard.

[8]       Now, as for the objective documentary evidences that appear in Exhibit 3, 5 and 6, it indicates there’s a problem for the LGBTQ and the homosexual community in Bangladesh and it indicates, it is well supported that concentral say in same-sex sexual activity is illegal under Section 7377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the police uses the law as a pretext to bully individu-, LGBTQ individuals as well as to limit registrations of LGBTQ organizations.

[9]       Some group social report harassment under suspicious behaviour provision of the police code and this is all in Exhibit 12.1, the DOC report, sorry, 2.1 of Exhibit 3. In Exhibit, sorry, 2.2 of Exhibit 3, the World report 2000-, it stated that, January 2018, it indicates that they’re continued problems for gay rights activists and the-, it indicated that in May, the Rapid Action Battalion raided a gathering in Dhaka, arresting 28 men for homosexuality and drug possession.

[10]     In Exhibit 1 believe, that there are several documents in Exhibit 3 also indicate that various groups target the lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender and intersex people, in the name of Islam, killing dozens of them in targeted attacks and that the police did not offer enough protection to people and also the LGBT community was reluctant to apperse the police fearing they would be charged to harass.

[11]     In a Exhibit 6.1 of Exhibit 3 is an excellent summary of the situation of the LGBTQ community. It says over the last three (3) years Bangladesh has becoming increasingly   torned   by violence, extremists and there are evidences pointing growing threats of extremist serment in mosques throughout Bangladesh and that routinely condemn homosexuals as heretics and they are to be punished or kill and this is echo the local social media posts condemning homosexuality and justifying these attacks. And the fear of the LGBT community was realized last year when two (2) activists were brutally murdered by attackers associate with Al-Qaeda and the revilement was slow to condemn their motives and the prime minister suggested those of challenging suicidal norms and religions, and sexuality should be considering leaving the country.

[12]     This lack of-, and they are more documents in our package supporting the problems of the LGBT community faces. So it is clear from the documentary evidence that you may face a severe problem if you return back to Bangladesh not only because of your sexual orientation but also because of your activism in to help the LGBT community.

[13]     I find that, on the balance of probabilities, there is more than a reasonable possibility of persecution if you go back to Bangladesh. I also find you rebuted the presumption of state protection as of the police are also sometimes the perpetrators and are unable to protect you. I also find that unreasonable for you to seek state protection in this case. I also find that there is no internal flight alternative for you because the situation would be the same wherever you are in Bangladesh.

[14]     Therefore, I concluded that you’re a Convention refugee and I accepted your claim.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Categories
All Countries Bangladesh

2019 RLLR 65

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

DECISION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Categories
All Countries Bangladesh

2019 RLLR 64

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– – – DECISION CONCLUDED – – –

Categories
All Countries Bangladesh

2019 RLLR 49

Citation: 2019 RLLR 49
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: April 10, 2019
Panel: James Waters
Counsel for the claimant(s): Yasmine Abuzgaya
Country: Bangladesh
RPD Number: TB7-22737
ATIP Number: A-2020-01274
ATIP Pages: 000060-000068

REASONS FOR DECISION

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

[2]       In assessing her claim, I considered Chairperson’s Guideline 4, Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution.2

ALLEGATIONS

[3]       After a brief courtship, the claimant entered into an arranged marriage in Bangladesh with a permanent resident of Canada, in [XXX] 2015.3

[4]       Her husband returned to Canada shortly after the marriage, and in [XXX] of 2016, he submitted an undertaking to sponsor the claimant’s spousal application for permanent residence in Canada.

[5]       Her husband returned to Bangladesh to visit her in the spring of 2016. Problems over dowry issues between the respective families surfaced during this visit, escalating from heated arguments to threats of physical violence.

[6]       The claimant alleges that she was verbally, physically and sexually abused by her husband during this visit.

[7]       The spouses attempted to reconcile, and made a trip together to India in [XXX] of 2016. Her husband returned to Canada at the end of [XXX] of 2016.

[8]       The claimant alleges that she was stalked and threatened by her husband’s family and friends after he returned to Canada.

[9]       The claimant arrived in Canada on [XXX], 2016 with a visa authorizing her to enter Canada, and told the immigration officer she wished to reconcile and reside with her sponsor.

[10]     Her husband was notified of her arrival by an immigration official and attended at the airport, where he advised IRCC that he had withdrawn his undertaking to sponsor her and did not want to reconcile and have her reside with him.

[11]     She made her refugee claim inland on November 3, 2017, after being advised that she was in breach of a condition requiring her to reside with her sponsor. The admissibility hearing was cancelled after she made her refugee claim.

IDENTITY

[12]     The national identity of the claimant as a citizen of Bangladesh was established by her oral testimony in the Bengali language, and the supporting documentation filed.4

[13]     The supporting documentation included copies of her valid passport, birth certificate and school records.5 Originals of the birth certificate and school records produced by the claimant were made available to the RPD prior to the hearing.

[14]     In the statutory declaration the claimant’s sponsor alleged that the claimant had filed a falsified birth certificate as part of her application for permanent residence to conceal that she was born on [XXX], 1998, rather than [XXX], 1997.6 A translated copy of a birth certificate showing the claimant’s birthdate as [XXX], 1998 was attached to the statutory declaration.7

[15]     An affidavit of a lawyer at the [XXX] described the online searches performed by that lawyer to confirm that the [XXX], 1997 birth date in the birth certificate produced by the claimant matched that in the online records searched by the affiant.8 The affiant described the similar searches she conducted, unsuccessfully, on the online registry to verify the [XXX], 1998 birthdate indicated in the copy of a birth certificate produced by the sponsor in his statutory declaration.

[16]     Having regard to the evidence submitted the claimant established on a balance of probabilities that she is the person she says she is, and that she was born on [XXX], 1997.9

[17]     There were discrepancies between the claimant’s consistent oral and written testimony, and the inconsistent information in the spousal Sponsorship Questionnaire.10 as to when the couple met. The claimant explained that she had signed blank spousal sponsorship forms and returned them to her sponsor who hired an immigration consultant to fill them in and submit them.

[18]     There was abundant evidence in the form of a marriage certificate, wedding photographs11 as well as the statutory declaration of her sponsor to establish on a balance of probabilities the marriage ceremony and the registration of the marriage.12

[19]     A copy of a certificate of divorce was sent to IRCC by her sponsor, which indicates that her sponsor divorced her effective [XXX], 2017.13

[20]     A copy of a pending application and supporting affidavit to set aside the divorce judgment, based on improper service of the Petition for Divorce, was filed.14

CREDIBILITY

[21]     The standard of proof for assessing evidence as well as credibility is a balance of probabilities that the evidence is, more likely than not, true.15 When a claimant swears to the truth to certain allegations, this creates a presumption that those allegations are true unless there is a reason to doubt their truthfulness.16 In assessing the credibility of a claimant, the panel is entitled to make reasonable findings based on implausibility, common sense and rationality, and may reject evidence if it is not consistent with the probabilities affecting the case as a whole.

[22]     The claimant’s oral testimony as to the spousal abuse she suffered at the hands of her former husband was generally consistent with that described in her personal narrative17 and the description contained in a psychological assessment report filed.18

[23]     The claimant was confronted with the fact that her husband was not aware of her travel plans. She testified that she had tried to inform her husband, but he had discontinued contact. She hoped to reconcile with him after coming to Canada.

[24]     The claimant testified that while their relationship had broken down before she came to Canada, neither her husband, nor IRCC had informed her that he had withdrawn or wished to withdraw his sponsorship until after she had arrived in Canada.

[25]     A credibility concern explored at the hearing was why the claimant would chose to reconcile in Canada with an abusive spouse who had assaulted and sexually abused her on his previous trip to Bangladesh, and who apparently did not want her to come to Canada.

[26]     The claimant noted cultural and social mores, as well as family pressures in Bangladesh against a woman leaving a spousal relationship.

[27]     In her written submissions claimant’s counsel submitted that women facing domestic and intimate partner abuse chose to return to the relationship for a variety of cultural, religious and financial realities including fears of increased abuse post separation.19

[28]     The claimant’s counsel cited excerpts from the expert opinion letter of [XXX], outlining a number of factors influencing abused woman to stay in an abusive relationship.20 Claimant’s counsel also cited a Human Rights Watch Report that mentioned financial dependency amongst other factors relevant to abused woman in Bangladesh.21

[29]     The claimant testified as to her father being harassed and threatened in Bangladesh over unresolved dowry issues, and the breakdown of the marriage both before and after she came to Canada. This oral and written testimony was supported by a translated excerpt from a diary provided to the police.22

[30]     An affidavit from a relative in Canada, and a notarized statement and letters from family in Bangladesh and Canada supported her oral and written testimony as to her fear of harm from her husband and his family and friends, if she returned to Bangladesh.23

[31]     Having regard to all of the evidence submitted that did not include the oral testimony of her former spouse, the claimant established on a balance of probabilities, the allegations of verbal, physical, sexual and psychological abuse outlined in her narrative.

Objective Basis

[32]     The documentary evidence indicates that domestic violence is rampant in Bangladesh and that it “occurs for many reasons, most often connected to dowry demands.”24

[33]     The documentary evidence indicates that, in Bangladesh, violence within a relationship is generally seen as private matter, and that there is a general acceptance of violence against women and girls.25 Despite a raft of legislation, enforcement remains weak, and the few offenders who are prosecuted receive minor punishments if any at all.26

[34]     Corruption within the police and judicial system was identified in the United States Department of State Report as a general problem preventing fair trials.27 A United Nations Human Rights report on Bangladesh attributes a lack of faith in the court system and the failure to implement the laws as factors in the continued high incidence of acid attacks, rapes and dowry related violence.28

[35]     The claimant’s former spouse lives in Canada. Articles were filed to support the claimant’s fear of an acid attack if she returned to Bangladesh, from her husband’s family, or his associates who had stalked her while she was living in Bangladesh after her husband returned to Canada.29

[36]     The preponderance of the documentary evidence establishes an objective basis for the claim.

[37]     The claimant testified that her former husband is aware of where her family members live in Chittagong. She established a serious possibility of persecution should she return to there. Her nexus is as a member of a particular social group as a single divorced woman who has been subjected to domestic violence.

INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE (IFA)

[38]     An IFA arises when a claimant who has a well-founded fear of persecution in his or her home area of the country is not a Convention refugee because he or she has an internal flight alternative elsewhere in the country.

[39]     The test to be applied in determining whether there is an IFA is two pronged:

The Board must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that there is no serious possibility of the claimant being persecuted in the part of the country to which it finds an IFA exists.30

Conditions in the part of the country [considered to be an IFA] must be such that it would not be unreasonable, in all the circumstances [including those particular to the claimant] for [her] to seek refuge there.31

[40]     The Federal Court of Appeal sets a very high threshold for the ‘unreasonableness test’, requiring nothing less than the existence of conditions which would jeopardize the life or safety of the claimant. There must be actual and concrete evidence of such conditions.

[41]     Dhaka was identified as a possible internal flight alternative.

[42]     The claimant is a young divorced woman who was not employed while living in Bangladesh. She testified that she would be unable to get a job or housing in Dhaka. She testified that her father is an elderly man with health problems, who lives with a son in Chittagong, on whom he relies for financial and emotional support. She testified that none of her family members had the financial resources to support her relocation anywhere, never mind an expensive city like Dhaka.

[43]     Her counsel submitted that a divorced / single woman like the claimant cannot realistically relocate within Bangladesh due to three reasons:32

1.         an inability to secure housing;

2.         lack of employment opportunities; and

3.         lack of domestic violence shelters and other social services.

[44]     Counsel buttressed her written submission with references to documentary evidence indicating that:33

1.         divorced woman encounter huge difficulties in accessing housing;

2.         a grim employment situation for single and divorced woman;

3.         single and divorced woman, in general are looked down upon by society;

4.         the limited social services available were difficult to access.

[45]     The claimant established on a balance of probabilities that given the circumstances of single divorced woman in Dhaka, together with the particular circumstances of the claimant, it is not reasonable for her to seek refuge there.

CONCLUSION

[46]     I find that [XXX] is a Convention refugee. I therefore accept her claim.

(signed)             James Waters

April 10, 2019

1 The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c.27, as amended, sections 96 and 97(1).
2 Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution: Update, Guideline Issued by the Chairperson Pursuant to Section 65(3) of the Immigration Act, IRB, Ottawa, November 25, 1996, as continued in effect by the Chairperson on June 28, 2002, under the authority found in section 159(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
3 Exhibit 2, Basis of Claim (BOC).
4 Exhibit 9, Package 1; and Exhibit 10, Package I 0.
5 Exhibit 9, Package 1; at pp 1-12.
6 Exhibit 5, SIRU Part 2, at p. 22, para 2.
7 Ibid, at p. 24.
8 Exhibit 9, Package 1, at pp. 13-19.
9 Ibid.; and Exhibit 10, Package 2.

Categories
All Countries Bangladesh

2019 RLLR 42

Citation: 2019 RLLR 42
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: April 26, 2019
Panel: Daniel Carens-Nedelsky
Country: Bangladesh
RPD Number: MB7-18164
Associated RPD Number: MB7-18193
ATIP Number: A-2020-01274 
ATIP Pages: 000012-000016

[1]       This is the decision for the claimant [XXX] and [XXX], under principal file number MB7-18164. I note for the record these claims were initially joined with that of the minor claimant [XXX] (phonetic) [XXX]. Immediately prior to rendering my decision, the claimants withdrew the claim, as he is a US citizen. I have considered your testimony and the documents you have provided, and I am ready to render my decision orally. You are claiming to be citizens of Bangladesh and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97 sub 1 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[2]       BY THE INTERPRETER:

96 and… ?

[3]       BY THE PANEL:

97 sub 1.

DETERMINATION

[4]       I find that you are “Convention refugees” for the following reasons.

ALLEGATIONS

[5]       Your full allegations are set out in your Basis of Claim forms. In brief, you fear persecution because of Mr. XXXX status as a Bihari. You have faced discrimination through much of your life because you are a Bihari, or a stranded Pakistani. This discrimination reached a tipping point when members of an Awami League Cadre began extorting you for money. They assaulted you multiple times, and ultimately kidnapped your wife and child, during which time you, Madam, were treated very terribly. After this, they continued to threaten you and you sought refuge in another part of your country, but the threats continued, making you realize you would not be safe anywhere in Bangladesh and sought Canada’s protection.

ANALYSIS

IDENTITY

[6]       I find on a balance of probabilities that your personal identity and identity as nationals of Bangladesh, have been established through your testimony and your documents, in particular your Bangladeshi passports.

CREDIBILITY

[7]       There were no significant omissions, errors, or contradictions in your testimony and you both testified in a spontaneous and forthcoming manner. I therefore accept that events have occurred as you allege. Sir, you testified credibly about your experience as a Bihari and the discrimination you faced. You testified in detail about a couple of the assaults you received from the Awami League, including who attacked you, where they attacked you, what they looked like, and what you did after you were attacked. Your wife credibly testified on how she met you, about what it was like to move into the neighbourhood where you lived, and why she felt unsafe there. You supported your testimony with a number of documents, including hospital and… hospital reports corroborating your claim, police reports you filed, a number of documents showing your parents’ and your status as a Bihari, psychological reports of your wife following her traumatic events, and affidavits from friends and family. I note there is…  was a minor inconsistency between the letter that your friend wrote in support of your testimony and your testimony and your Basis of Claim form. You explained part of this discrepancy, and given your otherwise wholly credible testimony and well-supported documenting evidence, I do not find that this minor inconsistency undermines your credibility. Based on your credible testimony, I find that you have a subjective fear of returning to Bangladesh.

NEXUS

[8]      I find that the persecution, you Sir, face has a nexus to the Convention due to your membership in a particular social group, specifically as a Bihari. And, Madam, I find that you have a nexus to the Convention also as a member of a particular social group, in this case as a woman fearing gender-based violence as well as being… as well as being targeted for being the family member of an individual facing persecution. In this case, for marrying a Bihari.

OBJECTIVE BASIS

[9]       The country condition documents support your allegation that Biharis face persecution in Bangladesh. Tab 1.15 of the National Documentation Package, states that Bihari tend to live in ghettos, that the government sees them as an enemy, and that…  and discusses that they only recently received citizenship in Bangladesh due to a Supreme Court decision. Tab 1.17 of the National Documentation Package notes that following independence, many Biharis faced reprisal including violence, that laws intended to manage properties caused many Biharis to lose their possessions and forced them into camps, and that many Biharis have reported difficulties obtaining passports as well as jobs in government. Item 9.3 of the National Documentation Package notes that in 2014, nine Biharis were burned alive and one killed by police shots, and that the first response of law enforcement was to pick up seven local Biharis

[10]     BY THE INTERPRETER:

Nine or seven, Sir?

[11]     BY THE PANEL:

Seven. And, that calls to bring the allegedly involved local Awami League leaders to justice remained unheeded. You also supported newspaper articles referring to these events. Based on this evidence, I find that there is an objective basis for your fear.

STATE PROTECTION

[12]     The individuals you fear have a connection with the government. One of those you fear is the nephew of a local Awami League member. You provided some documentary support of this with an online post that specifically mentions this member of parliament in relation to these events. And, you sought the protection of police on a number of occasions, and found that they were either unable or unwilling to help you as the persecution remained constant. In these circumstances, I find that adequate State protection would not be forthcoming to you if you were to return.

INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE

[13]     You credibly testified that you sought safe haven in Chittagong after the kidnapping of your wife and son, but that the (inaudible) discovered you there and threatened the friend you were staying with. You… you fear you will be found anywhere you go in Bangladesh, and you will be located because you will be forced to show your I.D. card that will also show your parents’ status. Given that your agents of persecution have already found you when you sought to flee quite far away from where you had lived, that they have a connection to the ruling party, and that there is a serious possibility you will face the same discrimination for being a Bihari anywhere you go in Bangladesh, I find that you do not have an internal flight alternative available to you.

CONCLUSION

[14]     Based on the totality of the evidence, I find that you face more than a mere possibility of persecution for the nexus reasons discussed above. I therefore find that you are “Convention refugees”. Your claims are therefore accepted. Thank you both for your testimony.