Category: Ethiopia

Citation: 2021 RLLR 82
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 4, 2021
Panel: Erin Doucette
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Tshiombo Achille Kabongo
Country: Ethiopia
RPD Number: TC1-07766
Associated RPD Number(s): TC1-07767 / TC1-07768 / TC1-07769
ATIP Number: A-2022-01778
ATIP Pages: N/A

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

[1]       XXXX XXXX XXXX (principal claimant), his wife, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (associate claimant) and their children, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (female minor claimant), and XXXX XXXX XXXX (male minor claimant), claim to be citizens of Ethiopia and claim refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).^[1]

[2]       Their claims for refugee protection were heard jointly, pursuant to Rule 55 of the Refugee Protection Division Rules (RPD Rules).^[2] The minor claimants relied on the Basis of Claim (BOC) narrative of the principal claimant. The panel appointed the principal claimant as the minor claimants’ designated representative.

ALLEGATIONS

[3]       The details of the claimants’ allegations are fully set out in their BOC forms as amended.^[3] To summarize, the principal claimant alleges a fear of persecution from the Ethiopian authorities based on his imputed anti-government political opinion and activity in support of the Raya ethnicity and because of his ethnicity as Tigrayan. The associate claimant and minor claimants allege a fear of persecution based on their membership in a particular social group as the family of the principal claimant. They allege that state protection is not available to them nor is there anywhere safe to relocate within Ethiopia.

DETERMINATION

[4]       The panel finds that the claimants are Convention refugees pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA. The claimants face a serious possibility of persecution based on the principal claimant’s imputed anti-government political opinion, activity, and Tigrayan ethnicity.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[5]       The personal identities of the claimants are established on a balance of probabilities by their Ethiopian passports.^[4]

Credibility

[6]       A claimant’s sworn testimony is presumed truthful unless there are reasons to doubt the veracity of their allegations.^[5]  The presumption of truthfulness is rebuttable and a claimant bears the burden of establishing their claim.^[6] In assessing credibility, the panel is mindful of the many difficulties faced by the claimant in establishing a claim, including nervousness, cultural factors, and the setting of the virtual hearing room. The claimants relied on an Amharic interpreter during the hearing.

[7]       In assessing the principal and associate claimants’ testimony, the panel has taken into consideration the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX both dated October 3, 2021.^[7] The respective assessment reports document self-reported sleep disruption and self-reported memory and concentration problems. The XXXX recommends that questions be posed to the claimants in a sensitive manner and that frequent breaks be provided. In light of the XXXX recommendations, the panel offered to repeat questions if required and encouraged the claimants to let the panel know if they required a break, so that breaks could be arranged as needed.

[8]       The principal claimant testified in a straightforward manner and there we no material inconsistencies or omissions between his testimony and the other documents in evidence that were not reasonably explained. Overall, the panel finds the claimants credibly established their allegations on a balance of probabilities.

Principal claimant credibly established profile as Tigrayan

[9]       The panel finds that the principal claimant has credibly established his ethnicity as Tigrayan as alleged.

[10]     A Tigrayan speaking interpreter was provided for the hearing, as this is the mother tongue of the principal claimant, and they did speak in Tigrayan on the recorded. However, the associate claimant, who is not Tigrayan, does not speak Tigrayan. It was determined that the mutual language of communication between the principal claimant and the associate claimant is Amharic, which the interpreter speaks as well. The hearing proceeded in Amharic; nevertheless, it was confirmed on the record that the principal claimant speaks Tigrayan.

[11]     The principal claimant has provided a copy of his kebele identification card which confirms his ethnicity as Tigray.^[8] The panel finds that the principal claimant’s kebele is a reliable document in credibly establishing the claimant’s ethnicity as Tigrayan because its details and appearance are consistent with the objective documents regarding identity cards issued in Addis Ababa and as such the panel has no reason to doubt the genuineness of this document.^[9]

[12]     The panel also gives weight to the affidavit from the principal claimant’s father and kebele from the principal claimant’s sister in credibly establishing his ethnicity as Tigrayan.^[10] These documents confirm the ethnicity of the principal claimant’s father and sister as Tigrayan as well. These documents do not present credibility concerns, as such the panel finds them to be reliable and gives them weight in credibly establishing the principal claimant’s ethnicity as Tigrayan as alleged.

The principal claimant has credibly established his allegations of imputed anti-government political opinion

[13]     The panel finds on a balance of probabilities, that the principal claimant has credibly established imputed political opinion and activity perceived as anti-government which brought him to the attention of the Ethiopian authorities.

[14]     The claimant explained that he was employed with XXXX XXXX a government owned national XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. During work meetings management attempted to recruit employees to the Prosperity Party. The principal claimant explained that during these meetings he voiced his opposition to the Prosperity Party. He also testified that his manager and party members asked him on separate occasions to join the Prosperity Party and he refused.

[15]     The panel finds that the claimant did not embellish his testimony and was clear that although he held an anti-government opinion, he was not himself politically active other than belonging to a committee dedicated to supporting the Raya people.^[11] He explained that his mother is of Raya ethnicity and his one brother still lives in the city of Alamata, in the Rayan area, which is not formally recognized by the government nor surrounding Tigray and Amara regions. He said that his committee activities came to the party recruiters’ attention, and they asked him to recruit people from his committee to the party, which he also refused to do. He also provided a letter of support form his friend and colleague who was aware of his committee activities.^[12] He testified in a detailed and spontaneous manner about the committee and his activities and there were not material inconsistencies and omissions. Any concerns raised by the panel were reasonably explained by the principal claimant.

[16]     The panel finds on a balance of probabilities that the claimant has credibly established an imputed political opinion based on having voiced his opposition to the government of the day, the ruling Prosperity Party and for refusing to join and aid in recruiting people to the party.

The principal claimant has credibly established allegations of police persecution in Ethiopia

[17]     The panel finds that the principal claimant has credibly established his allegations of police persecution in Ethiopia because of his perceived political opinion. The claimant testified in a straightforward and genuine manner about his arrest and detention in Ethiopia from XXXX XXXX 2019. His testimony was consistent with his BOC. He testified that he was interrogated and beaten during his detention. He was never officially told why he was arrested or detained, but that during his interrogation comments were made about his anti-government political opinions. The panel accepts his testimony on a balance of probabilities as credible.

[18]     The principal claimant also provided documentary evidence to corroborate that he was arrested and detained and released on bail as alleged. He provided a letter from his sister and while the letter does not expressly say that she witnessed his arrest, the panel finds the claimant’s explanation for this clarification reasonable noting that they reside in the same home which has been credibly established by comparing the addresses on their respective kebeles which the panel finds genuine.^[13] The details in his sister’s letter are consistent with the claimant’s evidence and BOC. The panel finds this document to be reliable in credibly establishing the claimant’s allegations of arrest and detention by the Ethiopian authorities and subsequent release on bail.

[19]     The letter from the principal claimant’s friend and former colleague, contained some material additions as compared to his BOC and BOC amendment.^[14] Specifically, the principal claimant does not mention in either his BOC or BOC amendment the name of his friend or that this friend paid his bail, witnessed the state he was in when released and drove him home. The principal claimant acknowledged that he did not include this information and explained that he did not know he had to. The panel does not find this to be a reasonable explanation noting these details are material to his allegations, especially concerning the bail conditions under which he was released. Furthermore, the BOC instructions clearly state that the claimant is to provide such evidence that may support their claim. Rule 11 of the Refugee Protection Division Rules also applies to material aspects of the claim.^[15] Nonetheless, the letter from his sister and the medical documentation, discussed below, remedy any credibility findings in relation to these omissions not reasonably explained.

[20]     The panel finds that the medical documentation provided corroborates the injuries the principal claimant alleges he sustained while being detained by Ethiopian authorities from XXXX XXXX 2019.^[16] While the report does not indicate the accident or injury history, the objective medical findings are consistent with the injuries the principal claimant alleges he received at the hands of the Ethiopian authorities while being detained. The panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the medical report credibly establishes the principal claimant’s allegations of arrest, detention, and physical abuse by the Ethiopian authorities as alleged.

The principal claimant has credibly established his ability to leave Ethiopia after his arrest and detention while released on bail conditions

[21]     The panel finds on a balance of probabilities that the claimant has reasonably explained how he was able to leave Ethiopia by airplane despite having been arrested and released on bail conditions. He testified that he bribed a security agent with $50,000 Birr. The panel finds that, as an airline employee, the principal claimant, would on a balance of probabilities have knowledge of this as an option for airport exit. He explained that he asked around to learn that he could do this. Furthermore, the objective documents credibly establish that bail conditions do not necessary prevent someone from exiting Ethiopia by air.^[17]

The principal claimant has credibly established his allegations of forward-facing persecution from the Ethiopian authorities

[22]     The principal claimant has credibly established a forward-facing fear or persecution from the Ethiopian authorities. He explained that one of his bail conditions was that on the first of every month of the Ethiopian calendar he was to report to the police station. Since he absconded and essentially reneged on his bail conditions the police have come to his home looking for him, questioning his family members, and have deposited summons notices.^[18] The police notices are consistent with the information reported in the letter from the principal claimant’s sister and with the country documents specific to delivery methods and appearances of police summons.^[19] The panel finds that the principal claimant has credibly established his allegations of forward-facing persecution from the Ethiopian authorities on a balance of probabilities.

[23]     In light of the foregoing, the principal claimant has credibly established his subjective fear as related to his imputed political opinion. He has also credibly established his profile as an ethnic Tigrayan.

Well-Founded Fear of Persecution

[24]     The panel finds that there is an objective basis for the claimants’ subjective fear. In making this finding the panel gives weight to the following:

[25]     While the US DOS report reflects some of the positive changes in the human rights climate in Ethiopia as a result of Prime Minister Abiy’s assumption of office, it also notes that as a result of a lack of institutional capacity, often the government was impotent in prosecuting officials who committed human rights abuses resulting in impunity.^[20] However, more recently Amnesty International acknowledges that recurrent unrest and violence led to increased political polarization along ethnic lines, and largely prevented the realization of political and human rights reforms initiated in 2018.^[21]

[26]     The security and human rights situation in Ethiopia deteriorated as Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed struggled to maintain order amid growing unrest and political tensions. The rights landscape was defined by ongoing abuses by government security forces, attacks on civilians by armed groups, deadly violence along communal and ethnic lines, and a political crisis.^[22]

[27]     While the DFAT report notes that violence based on ethnicity is not common in Addis Ababa, where the claimants resided in Ethiopia before they left, it does note that anti-Tigrayan sentiment has become more overt since 2018 and hate speech against ordinary Tigrayans has increased in this time.^[23]

[28]     More recent country condition updates; however, reflect the deteriorating conditions in Ethiopia, for Tigrayans throughout the country more broadly.^[24] After the outbreak of the armed struggle between the Tigray region and the federal government in early November 2020, anti­ Tigrayan sentiments in Ethiopia increased. According to various sources, both confidential and open, there have been cases of ethnic profiling of people with a Tigrayan background even in Addis Ababa.^[25]

[29]     Counsel provided updated and reliable country condition documents that are consistent with the objective documents with respect to risks to Tigrayans outside Tigray and specifically in Addis Ababa.^[26]

[30]     With regards to actual or imputed political opinion, Abiy’s ruling Prosperity Party (a reconfiguration of the ethno-regional coalition that ruled Ethiopia since 199) has partly reverted to authoritarian tactics, jailing opposition leaders and limiting media freedom in the face of growing regional and intercommunal violence.^[27]

[31]     A January 2020 revision of the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation (ATP) law improved upon the previous ATP, but has continued to draw criticism from many groups, including Amnesty. International, that it could be used against those critical of the government noting provisions that restrict rights to freedom of expression.^[28]

[32]     Lastly, the US DOS report confirms torture and abuse of detainees, arbitrary arrests and deplorable detention center conditions consistent with the principal claimant’s allegations.^[29]

[33]     In light of the foregoing, the panel finds that there is an objective basis for the principal claimant’s subjective fear. The principal claimant has credibly established a well-founded fear of persecution from the Ethiopian authorities based on his imputed political opinion. His forward­ facing risk is further augmented by his profile as an ethnic Tigrayan. The associate and minor claimants face a serious possibility of persecution in Ethiopia based on their membership in a particular social group as family members of the principal claimant.

State Protection

[34]     The claimants have rebutted the presumption of state protection. The panel finds that state protection would not be available to the claimants if they were to seek it in Ethiopia noting the state is an agent of persecution which the claimants have credibly established on a balance of probabilities.^[30]

[35]     In coming to this finding, the panel notes the following country condition information related to state protection which confirm ethnic profiling of Tigrayans by police, that arbitrary arrests and detentions occur, and that due process rights and rights to a fair trial are not generally respected all of which are occurring in a rapidly devolving political climate heightened by increased ethnic tension and violence throughout Ethiopia.^[31]

Internal Flight Alternative (IFA)

[36]     The panel considered whether a viable IFA exists for the claimants in Ethiopia. However, when considering the totality of their personal evidence and the objective documentary evidence, and the fact that they are from Addis Ababa, which until recently was considered low risk for ethnic violence, the panel finds that a viable IFA in Ethiopia does not exist for the claimants. Simply put, they face a serious possibility of persecution anywhere in Ethiopia based on the principal claimant’s imputed political opinion, the credibly established forward-facing risk of persecution from the Ethiopian authorities and the principal claimant’s profile as an ethnic Tigrayan.

CONCLUSION

[37]     Having considered the totality of the evidence, the panel finds that the claimants, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX are Convention refugees pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA.

[38]     Their claims are accepted.

(signed) Erin Doucette

November 4, 2021

^[1] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), SC 2001, c 27, as amended.

^[2] Refugee Protection Division Rules, SOR/2012-256, Rule 55.

^[3] Exhibits 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, and Exhibit 9.

^[4] Exhibit 1, Exhibit 5.

^[5] Maldonado v. Canada (MEI) (1994), 23 1mm LR (2d) 220 (FCTD).

^[6] Gill v. Canada (MCI), 2004 FC 1498, at para. 25.

^[7] Exhibit 8.

^[8] Exhibit 7, pgs. 26-27.

^[9] Exhibit 3, NDP for Ethiopia (25 October 2021), Item 3.7.

^[10] Exhibit 7, pgs. 13-14 and pgs. 29-30.

^[11] Exhibit 7, pgs. 2-5.

^[12] Exhibit 7, pgs. 16-19.

^[13] Exhibit 7, pgs. 20-25, Supra notes 8 and 10.

^[14] Supra note 10.

^[15] Refugee Protection Division Rules (SOR/2012-256), Rule 11.

^[16] Exhibit 7, pg. 1.

^[17] Exhibit 3, NDP for Ethiopia (25 October 2021), Item 14.2 at pg. 2.

^[18] Exhibit 7, pgs. 6-12.

^[19] Supra note 13, pgs. 20-25, Exhibit 3, NDP for Ethiopia (25 October 2021), Item 10.2.

^[20] Exhibit 3, NDP for Ethiopia (25 October 2021), Item 2.1 at pg.2.

^[21] Exhibit 3, NDP for Ethiopia (25 October 2021), Item 2.2.

^[22] Exhibit 3, NDP for Ethiopia (25 October 2021), Item 2.3.

^[23] Exhibit 3, NDP for Ethiopia (25 October 2021), Item 1.5.

^[24] Exhibit 3, NDP for Ethiopia (25 October 2021), Item 2.4 at pg. 18.

^[25] Exhibit 3, NDP for Ethiopia (25 October 2021), Item 1.23 at pgs. 62-63.

^[26] Exhibit 10.

^[27] Exhibit 3, NDP for Ethiopia (25 October 2021), Item 2.4 at pg. 2.

^[28] Supra notes 21 and 23.

^[29] Exhibit 3, NDP for Ethiopia (25 October 2021), Item 2.1 at pgs. 4-5.

^[30] See para. 22.

^[31] Exhibit 3, NDP for Ethiopia (25 October 2021), Items 2.1, 2.3, 2.4.

Citation: 2020 RLLR 32
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 4, 2020
Panel: Antoine Collins
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Ian D Hamilton
Country: Ethiopia 
RPD Number: TB9-09989
ATIP Number: A-2021-00655
ATIP Pages: 000008-000015

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]       This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division in the claim of [XXX], who claims to be a citizen of Ethiopia, and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to section 90 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Act).¹

Determination/Nexus

[2]       I find that you, the Claimant, are a Convention Refugee, pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, as you have a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground, because of your anti-government political opinion and your membership with the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF).

Allegations

[3]       Your allegations are set out in your Basis of Claim Form (BOC)².

[4]       In summary, you allege fear of persecution in Ethiopia at the hands of the Ethiopian authorities due to your anti-government political opinion and being a member of the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF).

ANALYSIS

Identity

[5]       I find that your personal and national identity has been established on a balance of probabilities by way of your testimony and a Certified True Copy of your Ethiopian Passport, found at Exhibit 1.

Credibility

[6]       The onus rests on the Claimant to establish his/her allegations on a balance of probabilities. When a Claimant swears/affirms to tell the truth, this creates a presumption that those allegations are true unless there be reasons to doubt their truthfulness.³ However, standing alongside this is the recognition that I am entitled to make reasonable findings based on inconsistencies, omissions, implausibilities, common sense, and rationality. I am also entitled to reject un-contradicted evidence if it is not consistent with the probabilities affecting the case as a whole.

[7]       In assessing your credibility, I have considered several factors, including your age, level of education and experience, cultural and social factors, the unfamiliar hearing environment and the challenges inherent in responding to questions through an interpreter. As such, I find that your testimony was in-line with what I would reasonably expect of a Claimant with your particular profile regarding your support and membership with the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) and your anti-government political opinion.

[8]       You testified in a forthright, genuine, and voluntary manner. I found your testimony to be detailed, and you intelligently described the political landscape in Ethiopia. Furthermore, I find that you were a credible and reliable witness as to your personal and political circumstances in Ethiopia. There were no relevant contradictions, omissions or inconsistencies between your testimony and the other evidence before me that were not satisfactorily explained.

[9]       Overall, I find you to be credible witnesses and therefore I believe what you have alleged in support of your claim.

Supporter and Member of the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF)

[10]     Mr. [XXX], you testified that you were a supporter of the OLF since [XXX] of 2014 and became an official member on [XXX], 2018. You indicated that your support and your membership stems from the longstanding mistreatment of the Oromo people that you witnessed firsthand. You testified that growing up you used to hear about the struggle of the Oromo people from your parents and other relatives. I asked what prompted you to become an official member of the OLF at the time when you did. You responded that even though you were a supporter of the OLF since 2014 your knowledge about politics was rather general and that you decided to become an official member of the OLF because you wanted to contribute to the human rights struggle of the Oromo people in whatever way you could. You were able to give me details as to the history of the OLF, and the process to become an official member. In support of your claim you tendered your Oromo Liberation Front Membership Identification document.

[11]     I find that you have established, on a balance of probabilities, that you were a supporter and member of the Oromo Liberation Front while in Ethiopia.

Attended Human Rights Demonstrations in Support of the Oromo Community

[12]     You testified that while in Ethiopia you participated in three public demonstrations. You were able to give fulsome details as to the peaceful nature of the protests, what they were about, the location, size, and how government authorities used violence to disperse the crowds. You testified that after each demonstration you witnessed many participants who were either injured or killed. I questioned you as to why you would continue to participate in these demonstrations when there was a possibility that you could be injured or killed. You indicated that since you are part of the Oromo community and know the injustice and human rights violations against your community you could not just sit home and do nothing.

[13]     I find that you have established, on a balance of probabilities, that you attended three demonstrations in Ethiopia: two in November of 2018 and one in December of 2018.

Claimant was Detained

[14]     Your testimony as to your detention on two separate occasions was spontaneous, detailed, and consistent with the information you provided in your BOC and narrative. You were able to describe the circumstance surrounding your detentions, including the appearance of the detention rooms, the questions asked during your interrogations and the circumstances surrounding your releases, in a manner consistent with your BOC.

[15]     Regarding your first detention on [XXX], 2019, you testified that you went to the municipality to renew your business license, however, instead you were stopped and taken to a hidden location by two government security officers. You testified that a second arrest/detention occurred on [XXX], 2019, when you went back to the municipality to inquire about your business license and was told that your business license had been cancelled because you were a supporter of the OLF and that you could no longer run a business in the country. You indicated that when you were leaving the municipality you were stopped by city police and taken to [XXX] Prison.

[16]     You testified that during both your detentions you were physically abused, accused of facilitating and inciting anti-government movements and organizing Oromo youth to act against the government. You indicated that after you were released from the second arrest on [XXX] 2019 you had to pay a [XXX]-birr bail with the condition of not being involved in any activities of the OLF.

[17]     In support of your claim, you provided two witness statements, including one from your wife, [XXX] which confirms your two arrests, and how she accompanied you during your hospital stay after your first detention. Your sister, [XXX] also provided a witness statement, which attests to the action she took to find you after your detentions and what she observed regarding your appearance and physical condition when she was allowed to visit you during your second arrest at [XXX] Prison. You also provided, your Business License Certificate along with a Commercial Registration. I find that these documents are consistent with your testimony and with what you have alleged in your claim.

[18]     I asked why you did not provide the board with any documentation regarding your hospital stay and any medical treatment that you alleged to have received. You testified that you were not given any discharge papers and when your wife went to retrieve your medical records, she was unsuccessful. Given the current political climate in Ethiopia, in particular, the treatment of individuals within the Oromo community, I find this answer reasonable and take no issue with it.

[19]     I find, on a balance of probabilities, that you were arrested and detained on [XXX] 2019 to [XXX] 2019 and again on [XXX] 2019 to [XXX] 2019.

Political Activities in Canada

[20]     You testified that since your arrival in Canada on [XXX], 2019, you have been involved with the Oromo community by attending meetings at the Oromo Canadian Community Association, by joining the Oromo Christian Church of Toronto and participating in several peaceful protest demonstrations in downtown Toronto. You were able to give details as to the peaceful nature of the protests, what they were about, the location, size, and a list of dates that they took place. You testified that you spoke at a number of these demonstrations on how the Ethiopian government is abusive, divisive, and violates human rights. To support your claim, you tendered a letter of support from both organizations⁴, several photographs⁵ of you attending demonstrations in Toronto and a compelling video of you attending and speaking at a demonstration held in Toronto after the killing of an Oromo singer/activist.⁶

[21]     I find that you have established, on a balance of probabilities, that you have been actively involved within the Oromo community here in Canada and continue to hold an anti-government opinion.

[22]     I find on a balance of probabilities, that you have established that you hold an anti­government opinion and therefore risk being persecuted by the Ethiopian authorities if you were to return to Ethiopia. As such, you have established a subjective fear.

OBJECTIVE BASIS

[23]     The objective evidence is consistent with your accounts of fearing persecution because of your anti-government political opinion in Ethiopia.⁷

[24]     The evidence establishes, on a balance of probabilities, an objective basis for your fear of persecution upon return to Ethiopia. Specifically, Item 2.1 of the National Documentation Package (NDP), the US Department of State 2019 Human Rights Report for Ethiopia which indicates, that authorities arrested and detained opposition party members. It also states that the government uses a widespread system of paid informants to report on activities of individuals, such as opposition members, who report intimidating visits to their homes and offices. Furthermore, Ethiopian police are widely known to engage in serious human rights abuses against actual and perceived government opponents, including arbitrary arrest and detention, excessive use of force, and torture.

[25]     Reports from Human Rights Watch 2.3 of the NDP and Amnesty International 2.2 of the NDP still show that there are problems relating to opposition figures. However, in making my independent analysis, I have also looked to the International Criss Group (ICG) report found at 4.1 of the NDP. To summarize the ICG report, it states that “Prime Mister Abiy Ahmed had taken important steps to move the country toward more open politics. But his efforts to dismantle the old order have weakened the Ethiopian state and given new energy to ethnonationalism. Hostility among the leaders of Ethiopia’s most powerful regions has soared.” The report goes on to say “such tensions could derail Ethiopia’s transition. Meanwhile, reforms Abiy is making to the country’s powerful but factious ruling coalition anger opponents, who believe that they aim to undo Ethiopia’s ethnic federalist system and could push the political temperature still higher.”

[26]     The objective evidence is consistent with your testimony and what you have alleged in your claim. Especially, your testimony regarding the treatment that you witnessed and suffered because you were a supporter and member of the OLF. Your testimony was clear that anyone who speaks out against the government becomes a target. You provided several news articles in your country document evidence⁸ that is in-line with what is seen in the NDP.

[27]     The situation in Ethiopia is still evolving, and while significant changes are certainly underway, I must consider the circumstance as they are right now. When doing so, I find the risk of persecution of those with anti-government opinions still stands as a serious possibility⁹. The stated intentions of those in control is not enough, the change needs to be durable.

[28]     I find that on a balance of probabilities, the country condition evidence establishes an objective risk.

[29]     I further find that your profile, specifically, as an individual who has already come to the attention of Ethiopian authorities through past detentions, who is actively involved in protesting the Ethiopian government here in Canada, and as someone who will continue to hold an anti­government political opinion, is consistent with your subjective fear.

[30]     Accordingly, I find that you have established a well-founded fear of persecution.

STATE PROTECTION

[31]     Ethiopian authorities are responsible for widespread human rights violations committed with impunity throughout the country, including arbitrary arrest, excessive use of force and torture.¹⁰

[32]     Given that the state is the agent of persecution, I find that it would be objectively unreasonable for the you to seek protection of the State in your circumstances, and that adequate State protection would not be reasonably forthcoming.

INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE

[33]     The Ethiopian government exercises its power throughout the whole of its territory and those who oppose the Ethiopian State are unlikely to be able to avoid attracting the attention of officials by relocating.¹¹

[34]     Given that the State is the agent of persecution with control over the entire country, I find that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Ethiopia, and therefore that a viable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) does not exist.

CONCLUSION

[35]     Having considered the totality of the evidence, I find that you, Mr. [XXX], would face a serious possibility of persecution upon return to Ethiopia due to your anti-government political opinion pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA.

[36]     Accordingly, I accept your claim.

(signed)           Antoine Collins

November 4, 2020

¹ Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
² Exhibit 1.
³ Maldonado [1980] 2.F.C. 302 (C.A).
⁴ Exhibit 3
⁵ Ibid.
⁶ Provided at the hearing a recording of the video on Claimant’s phone.
⁷ National Documentation Package, Ethiopia, June 30, 2020.
⁸ Exhibit 6.
⁹ Item 4.1, National Documentation Package, Ethiopia June 30, 2020.
¹⁰ National Documentation Package, Ethiopia, June 30, 2020.
¹¹ Ibid.

Citation: 2020 RLLR 12
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: September 23, 2020
Panel: S. Seevaratnam
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Teklemicheal A. Sahlemariam
Country: Ethiopia 
RPD Number: TB7-14076
Associated RPD Number(s): TB7-14126, TB7-14127
ATIP Number: A-2021-00540
ATIP Pages: 000076-000089

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]       The principal claimant, [XXX] and her daughters, [XXX] and [XXX] (the minor claimants), claim to be citizens of Ethiopia and they are claiming protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)¹.

[2]       This matter is a hearing de nova referred back on November 18, 2019, by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD), for redetermination by a differently constituted panel.²

[3]       The mother and principal claimant, [XXX], consented to be the designated representative for her minor daughters, [XXX] and [XXX], for the purposes of the hearing.

[4]       The principal claimant alleges that she fears returning to Ethiopia because of her perceived political opinion in opposition of the Ethiopian regime since she critiqued the government.³

[5]       The minor daughters allege they fear returning to Ethiopia due to their gender.⁴ They are being forced by the family members of their father, who are ethnic Gurages,⁵ to undergo female genital mutilation (FGM)⁶.

[6]       The panel has also carefully considered the Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution, prior to assessing the merits of this claim.⁷

ALLEGATIONS

[7]       In [XXX] 2016, the principal claimant voiced her criticism of the actions of the Ethiopian government at a meeting held at the Ethiopian consulate in Qatar. High level government officials were present including the Ambassador. The claimant explained that she opposed the killing of innocent civilians who were protesting peacefully. She further explained that she opposed the ethnic divisions among the Tigrayan, Oromo, and Amhara people that were exacerbated by government policies and action. In addition, she opposed the lack of religious freedom and tolerance by the government.

[8]       On [XXX], 2017, the principal claimant travelled to Ethiopia to visit her family during Easter. The principal claimant was arrested, detained, and interrogated upon arrival at the airport. The principal claimant and her daughters were terrified and feared for their lives. Ultimately, family members paid an exorbitant bribe for the claimant’s release on the condition that she depart Ethiopia on a specific date authorized by the Ethiopian government and she was denied the right of return.

[9]       The principal claimant believes that there is no protection for persons who are critical of the Ethiopian government since political opposition is not tolerated. She fears re-arrest, detention, and even death since the security forces suspect her of being a political opponent of the government of Ethiopia.

[10]      The principal claimant further fears that if she is incarcerated by the security forces, her husband’s family would have a larger influence and control over her daughters and subject them to FGM in keeping with their ethnic Gurages traditions. Thus, fearing for their safety, the claimants fled to Canada. The principal claimant testified that she had a strained marital relationship and her husband. He chose to remain in Qatar as a [XXX] and refused to join his wife and children in initiating a refugee claim in Canada. The principal claimant further testified that she and her husband have separated, but he consented to giving her sole custody of their minor daughters.⁸

[11]     In Canada, the principal claimant continues to participate in political activities such as demonstrations⁹ in opposition to the Ethiopian government actions and policies.¹⁰

DETERMINATION

[12]     The panel finds the claimants to be Convention refugees. The panel’s reasons are as follows.

IDENTITY

[13]     The claimants submitted copies of their passports issued by the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, which was certified to be true copies by an Immigration Officer with Citizenship and Immigration Canada on July 24, 2017.¹¹

[14]     The principal claimant also provided copies of the minor children’s birth certificates,¹² her Ethiopian identification card,¹³ her educational certificates,¹⁴ a letter of employment,¹⁵ letters of support from friends and family,¹⁶ letters from the Ethiopian community association in Qatar, a letter from the Unity for Human Rights and Democracy in Toronto,¹⁷ and photos of the principal claimant participating in protests against the Ethiopian government.¹⁸

[15]     The claimants have provided copies of their State of Qatar Residency Permits, which expired on [XXX], 2017.¹⁹ The principal claimant explained that their temporary resident status in the State of Qatar was dependent on the employment of the principal claimant’s husband, [XXX], an Ethiopian national, who was employed on contract as a [XXX]. He was issued a residency permit by the State of Qatar.²⁰ The principal claimant testified that they lived as a family unit in Qatar from 2013 until 2017 when there was a breakdown of their marital union. Accordingly, the principal claimant further explained that she and her daughters have no right of return or legal status in Qatar.

[16]     The panel is satisfied that the claimants do not have a right to nationality or permanent status in the State of Qatar. The panel finds that the claimants are citizens of Ethiopia.

CREDIBILITY

[17]     The panel is guided by the leading jurisprudence on the issue of credibility. Maldonado stands for the principle that when a claimant “swears to the truth of certain allegations, this creates a presumption that those allegations are true unless there be reason to doubt their truthfulness.”²¹

[18]     The principal claimant responded to all questions clearly and directly. Her sworn viva voce evidence was consistent with her Basis of Claim form (BOC),²² her personal documents,²³ letters of support from friends, family, and community organizations,²⁴ as well as the documentary evidence.²⁵

[19]     The principal claimant’s brother, [XXX], provided a letter that corroborated the claimant’s arrest in Ethiopia.²⁶ Other Ethiopian nationals who were residents of Qatar, namely, [XXX]²⁷ and [XXX]²⁸ witnessed the claimant’s criticism of the Ethiopian government and are cognizant of her arrest and harsh treatment by the Ethiopian authorities.

[20]     The panel finds the principal claimant to be a credible and trustworthy witness. Accordingly, she has established her own subjective fear of persecution and for her daughters.

WELL-FOUNDED FEAR OF PERSECUTION

Imputed Political Opinion

[21]     The panel has carefully reviewed reputable, objective, and reliable sources in assessing the objective basis of this claim.

[22]     The Ethiopia. Freedom in the World 2020 Report, states in its overview that,

Ethiopia is undergoing a transition set off by the 2018 appointment of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, who came to power after Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn resigned the face of mass protests at which demonstrators demanded greater political rights. Abiy has pledged to reform Ethiopia’s authoritarian state, ruled by the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) since 1991, and is in the process of rewriting the country’s repressive electoral, terrorism, media, and other laws. However, Ethiopia remains beset by political factionalism and intercommunal violence, abuses by security forces and violations of due process are still common, and many restrictive laws remain in force. A major reorganization of the ruling party, growing conflict between ethnic communities, and new claims for self-determination have created a fluid political situation as the country prepares for elections in 2020.²⁹

[23]     The United Kingdom Home Office Fact-Finding Mission. Ethiopia: The political situation report dated March 2020 states as follows:

We are trying to make people aware that they are being targeted due to bad politics and their ethnic background, simply for being Amhara. Abiy is not working in a way that he said he would. We had a team of brilliant lawyers who are representing Amhara prisoners of conscience at the courts. They challenged “evidences” by the police and government Attorneys. However, the problem is that the final decision is a political one and not a legal one. The farmers in different parts of Oromia were detained for at least 2 weeks, brought to court, the court investigated and ruled that they should be released with a 5,000 Birr bail. This is a lot of money. It is to discourage them economically, they cannot afford that, if they are arrested again.³⁰

[24]     The United State. Department of State (DOS) Ethiopia 2019 Human Rights Country Reports indicates the following:

Significant human rights issues included: reports of unlawful or arbitrary killings by security forces; citizens killing other citizens based on their ethnicity; unexplained disappearances; arbitrary arrest and detention by security forces; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; unlawful interference with privacy; censorship, and blocking of the internet and social media sites; criminalization of same-sex sexual conduct; and child labor, including the worst forms.³¹

[25]     The DOS report further states that:

There were numerous reports that the government and its representatives committed arbitrary and unlawful killings. Security forces used excessive force against civilians.³²

The constitution and law prohibit arbitrary arrest and detention and provide for the right of any person to challenge the lawfulness of his or her arrest or detention in court. Authorities, however, detained persons arbitrarily, including activists, journalists, and opposition party members.³³

[26]     According to a report by Human Rights Watch titled Ethiopia: Communications Shutdown Takes Heavy Toll indicates as follows:

“The Ethiopian government’s blanket shutdown of communications inOromia is taking a disproportionate toll on the population and should be lifted immediately,” said Laetitia Bader, Horn of Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “The restrictions affect essential services, reporting on critical events, and human rights investigations, and could risk making an already bad humanitarian situation even worse.”

Under Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s administration, communication blackouts without government justifications has become routine during social and political unrest, Human Rights Watch said.

A ruling party regional spokesman told the media in January that the communications shutdown had “no relationship” to the military operations but then said that it had contributed to the operation’s success. The federal government offered no explanation for the shutdown until February 3, when Abiy told parliament that restrictions were in place in western Oromia for “security reasons.”³⁴

Instead of indefinite, blanket shutdowns and repressing peaceful dissent, Ethiopian authorities should use the media to provide transparent information that can discourage violence and direct security forces to act according to international human rights standards, Human Rights Watch said.

“The lack of transparency and failure to explain these shutdowns only furthers the perception that they are meant to suppress public criticism of the government,” Bader said. “Amid ongoing unrest and ahead of critical national elections, the government should be seeking to maintain internet and phone communications to ease public safety concerns, not increase them.”³⁵

[27]     In its report titled Ethiopia: Political situation and treatment of opposition, the Danish Immigration Service states that:

…[M]embers of the diaspora community were, “without doubt” monitored closely by the government, wherever they might reside. This is, according to the interlocutor, no secret…

The editor noted that if Ethiopians participate in demonstrations against the Ethiopian regime in a foreign country, be it in Europe or in the USA, would be video-taped to document their activity. This would also be the case if members of the diaspora had gotten foreign nationality. Thus they would fear that they were to return to Ethiopia then something might happen to them upon return. As examples of what might occur, Mr. Giorgis mentioned that they could run the risk of being detained in the airport or jailed.³⁶

Female Genital Mutilation (FGM)

[28]     The United States Department of State (DOS) Ethiopia 2019 Human Rights Country Reports indicates the following indicates the following:

Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C): FGM/C is illegal, with punishment including imprisonment and a fine, depending on the crime. The government did not actively enforce this prohibition. The 2016 DHS stated that 65 percent of girls and women ages 15-49 were subjected to FGM/C. The prevalence of FGM/C was highest in the Somali Region (99 percent) and lowest in the Tigray Region (23 percent). It was less common in urban areas. The law criminalizes the practice of clitoridectomy and provides for three months’ imprisonment or a fine of at least 500 birr ($17) for perpetrators. Infibulation of the genitals (the most extreme and dangerous form of FGM/C) is punishable by five to 10 years’ imprisonment. According to government sources, there had never been a criminal charge regarding FGM/C, but media reported limited application of the law.³⁷

[29]     According to Ethiopia Social Institutions and Gender Index 2019, 65% of women in Ethiopia have undergone FGM.³⁸

[30]     The principal claimant testified that she was also a victim of the traditional cultural practice, and she opposes her minor daughters being subject to this painful and dangerous practice.

[31]     The Gender Index 2019 further finds that,

FGM rates have reduced significantly since 2000 for girls aged 0 to 14 years old (Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, 2014). However, despite measures and efforts by the Government and the notable decrease of FGM amongst younger girls and in urban areas, the CEDAW Committee (2011) stresses that FGM is prevalent in rural and pastoralist areas. FGM is a practice embedded in social constructs on gender roles and values and is practiced by different communities in Ethiopia. Its prevalence and the age girls undergo FGM vary across regions and communities. One of the reasons invoked by some communities for the practice of FGM is the preservation of women’ s chastity. It also occurs that parents encourage the practice as uncircumcised girls are likely to be marginalized and socially excluded in some communities, and would face difficulty to be married.³⁹ [footnotes omitted]

[32]     Counsel’s documentary evidence corroborates the principal claimant’s sworn viva voce evidence that FMG is still practiced among several rural communities including the Gurages.⁴⁰

[33]     Based on current country documentary evidence and the credible allegations, the panel finds that the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution in Ethiopia, by reason of the principal claimant’s perceived political opinion and the minor claimants’ gender.

STATE PROTECTION

[34]     There is a presumption that except in situations where the state is in complete breakdown, the state is capable of protecting its citizens.⁴¹ To rebut the presumption of state protection, a claimant must provide clear and convincing evidence of the state’s inability to protect its citizens.⁴²

[35]     The National Documentation Package (NDP) for Ethiopia states that “[w]here the person has a well-founded fear of persecution from the state, they are unlikely to be able to avail themselves of the protection of the authorities.”⁴³

[36]     According to the United Kingdom Home Office Fact-Finding Mission. Ethiopia: The political situation report dated March 2020,

Several sources noted the effect of ethnic politics on regional security services. William Davidson observed “There are complicated federal dynamics at play, we are seeing increasingly assertive administrations in certain regions.” Wondemagegn Goshu Addis Ababa University stated: “Abiy has not consolidated the regional states and their militias, there are some political groups against Abiy and his reforms and this is showing at the regional level… You can see the danger that arises from certain ethnic groups against each other.”⁴⁴ [footnotes omitted]

[37]     The Report further indicates that “Information on the effectiveness of security services varied between some regions.”⁴⁵

[38]     In addition, the report cites, Wondemagegn Goshu, from Addis Ababa University,

noted that the central government did not have effective control over regional security forces and the senior officials of EZEMA noted that “[t]he government does not have effective control over the local regional states. Wondemagegn Goshu and the Life and Peace Institute considered that regional areas had become increasingly assertive.⁴⁶ [footnotes omitted]

[39]     In addition, the report finds that,

The people who were in power previously are still very much there, the very same people who were against the social revolution but when it became reality they are a part of it. What should have happened was more people should have faced justice. If they do not put people before a justice system, the government will lose all the reformation progress they have made. The reformation for the public was always about whether there was rule of law or not. So, if the law is for everyone, including the military and prime minster and the public, let everyone face justice.

But the government have not been proactive in this area, therefore it can be assumed by some that they are against the reformation. There is a lack of commitment from the government.

There has been a high number [level] of corruption. Human rights abusers are still in power, for example at all levels. The public demand they be brought to justice.⁴⁷

[40]     The report discusses the extent to which the government has control over the security forces.

They have control but it in an issue of capacity especially security.

The intelligence and military in the past 90% was controlled by TPLF, Abiy purged them so quickly when he came to power, the change should have been more gradual and smarter. There has been no process put in place. This was a security that could not see members of the Army marching to the PM, they didn’t see it coming they weren’t prepared. We needed the structure. The alleged coup would never have happened under previous government.

There has been arise Amhara nationalism and militant groups is concerning. We haven’t seen the security doing anything because of lack of intel – not looking at the issues properly, regional areas have become more assertive.⁴⁸

[41]     The report further finds that,

In some cases of arrests or human rights abuses, police try to push their own agenda and avenge past crimes by abusing their power.

We hear about a lot of harassment from the police or security forces, which we think are genuine, but I do not think Abiy is involved in this. When it comes to rule of law, respecting human rights, respect for different languages etc, our culture is awful. There are definitely cases where individuals are arrested, beaten, refused to hold a press conference. The different groups fighting for their own status, for example the Amhara and Oromo.⁴⁹

[42]     The DOS report states that “[c]orruption, especially the solicitation of bribes, including police and judicial corruption, remained a problem.”⁵⁰ The report further finds that “[t]he law provides criminal penalties for conviction of corruption. The government did not implement effectively or comprehensively.”⁵¹

[43]     According to Ethiopia. Freedom in the World 2020,

The judiciary is officially independent, but in practice it is subject to political interference, and judgments rarely deviate from government policy. The November 2018 appointment of lawyer and civil society leader Meaza Ashenafi as president of the Supreme Court raised hopes for judicial reform, though no major improvements were registered in 2019.”⁵²

[44]     The 2020 Human Rights Watch report for Ethiopia indicates that:

Human rights reforms implemented by Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed during his first year in office were threatened in 2019 by communal, including ethnic, conflict and breakdowns in law and order.

The June 22 assassinations of several high-level government officials, which the government linked to an alleged coup attempt in the Amhara region – as well as political unrest and communal violence in the capital, Addis Ababa, and Oromia following an incident with a popular Oromo activist and media owner, Jawar Mohammed-highlighted increasing tensions ahead of Ethiopia’ s scheduled 2020 national elections.⁵³

[45]     Counsel’ s most recent country condition package⁵⁴ has a plethora of examples of human rights abuses by the Ethiopian security forces.

[46]     The principal claimant was arrested, detained, and interrogated by the Ethiopian security forces in Addis Ababa on [XXX], 2017.⁵⁵ The claimant fears that she would be re­ arrested, detained, and mistreated upon her return to Ethiopia. Given her previous arrest, the claimant would be perceived to be an opponent of the state, if she were to return to Ethiopia today.

[47]     The NDP for Ethiopia⁵⁶ and the documents submitted by the claimant⁵⁷ make clear that the state is the agent of persecution, and in these particular circumstances, is clear and convincing evidence that the state is unable or unwilling to protect the claimant.

[48]     Accordingly, the panel finds that the claimants have met the burden of proof, on a balance of probabilities, and the presumption of state protection has been rebutted.

INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE (IFA)

[49]     The Federal Court of Appeal established a two-part test for assessing an IFA in Rasaratnam and Thirunavukkarasu:

(1)       As per Rasaratnam, “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”⁵⁸ and/or the claimant would not be personally subject to a risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of torture in the IFA.

(2)       Moreover, the conditions in the part of the country considered to be an IFA must be such that it would not be unreasonable in all the circumstances including those particular to the claim, for him to seek refuge there.⁵⁹

[50]     The claimants bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that they would be persecuted on a Convention ground, or subject personally, on a balance of probabilities, to a risk to life, or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in all of Ethiopia.

[51]     The United Kingdom Home Office Report on Country Policy and Information Note: Ethiopia: Opposition to the Government cautions,

That decision makers must carefully consider the relevance and reasonableness of internal relocation taking full account of the individual circumstances of the particular person. However, where the person has a well-founded fear of persecution from the state, it is unlikely to be reasonable to expect them to relocate to escape that risk.⁶⁰

[52]     It is evident that the Ethiopian security forces operate with impunity throughout the country. The documentary evidence corroborates the claimant’s testimony that there is no state protection available to her since the state security forces are her agents of persecution. Regarding the minor claimants, their mother testified that FGM is practiced in the rural areas and there is no effective action by the government forces in prosecuting violations of the FGM prohibition act, As such, there is no safety for the claimants anywhere within Ethiopia.

[53]     The principal claimant is a single mother who is perceived as a political opponent by the Ethiopian regime with two minor daughters. The panel finds that an internal flight alternative is not reasonable given the particular profile and circumstances of the claimants.

CONCLUSION

[54]     For the above-mentioned reasons, the panel finds [XXX] and her daughters, [XXX] and [XXX] are Convention refugees. The claimants have established that there is a reasonable chance of persecution if they were to return to their country of nationality Ethiopia, today.

(signed)           S. Seevaratnam

September 23, 2020

¹ The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), S.C. 2001, c.27, as amended, sections 96 and 97(1).
² Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) Decision – TB8-13557, TB8-13558, and TB8-13559, dated November 18, 2019.
³ Exhibit 2, Basis of Claim Form (BOC) – TB7-14076, received July 28, 2017.
⁴ Exhibit 9, BOC Narrative Amendment, received September 4, 2020, at para. 3 – 4.
⁵ Exhibit 10, Personal Documents and Documentary Evidence, received September 4, 2020, at p.14 [XXX] of [XXX].
⁶ Exhibit 9, BOC Narrative Amendment dated August 28, 2020, received September 4, 2020, at para. 3 – 4.
⁷ Chairperson’s 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.
⁸ Exhibit 11, Letter from [XXX] received August 17, 2017.
⁹ Exhibit 10, Personal Documents and Documentary Evidence, received September 4, 2020, at pp. 55 – 60.
¹⁰ Exhibit 12, Letter from Ethiopian Human Right and Community Organizations, 3 pages, received September 10, 2020.
¹¹ Exhibit 1, Package of information from the referring CBSA/CIC, Certified True Copy of Passport, received July 28, 2017.
¹² Exhibit 10, Personal Documents and Documentary Evidence, received September 4, 2020, at pp. 1 – 10.
¹³ Exhibit 13, Identity Documents, received August 30, 2017, item 4.
¹⁴ Exhibit 10, Personal Documents and Documentary Evidence, received September 4, 2020, at pp. 17 – 25.
¹⁵ Ibid., at p. 26.
¹⁶ Ibid., at pp. 27 – 44.
¹⁷ Exhibit 12, Letter from Ethiopian Human Right and Community Organizations, 3 pages, received September 10, 2020.
¹⁸ Exhibit 10, Personal Documents and Documentary Evidence, received September 4, 2020, at pp. 55 – 60.
¹⁹ Exhibit 13, Identity Documents, received August 30, 2017, items 6 – 9.
²⁰ Exhibit 10, Personal Documents and Documentary Evidence, received September 4, 2020, p. 2
²¹ Maldonado, Pedro Enrique Juarez v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-450-79), Heald, Ryan, MacKay, November 19, 1979. Reported: Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1980] 2 F.C. 302 (C.A.); 31 N.R. 34. (F.C.A.), at para 5.
²² Exhibit 2, BOC, received July 28, 2017; Exhibit 9, BOC Narrative Amendment, received September 4, 2020.
²³ Exhibit 10, Personal Documents and Documentary Evidence, received September 4, 2020.
²⁴ Ibid., Letters of Support, at pp. 27 – 44; Exhibit 12, Letter from Ethiopian Human Right and Community Organizations, 3 pages, received September 10, 2020.
²⁵ Exhibit 5, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Ethiopia (June 30, 2020); Exhibit 10, Country Documents, received September 4, 2020, at pp. 61 – 136.
²⁶ Exhibit 10, Personal Documents and Documentary evidence, received September 4, 2020, at pp. 27 – 28.
²⁷ Ibid., at p. 34.
²⁸ Ibid., at pp. 40 – 44.
²⁹ Exhibit 5, NDP for Ethiopia (June 30, 2020), item 2.4, s. Overview.
³⁰ Ibid., item 4.21, at p. 109.
³¹ Ibid., item 2.1, s. Executive Summary.
³² Ibid., s. 1 (a).
³³ Ibid., s. 1 (d).
³⁴ Ibid., item 11.1, at pp. 1 – 2.
³⁵ Ibid., at p. 3.
³⁶ Ibid., item 4.4, at paras. 140 – 141.
³⁷ Ibid., item 2.1, s. 6.
³⁸ Ibid., item 5.2, at. p. 1.
³⁹ Ibid., s. 2(e).
⁴⁰ Exhibit 10, Personal Documents and Documentary evidence, received September 4, 2020, at pp. 131 – 136.
⁴¹ Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, 103 D.L.R. (4th) 1, 20 Imm. L.R. (2d) 85.
⁴² Flores Carrillo, Maria Del Rosario v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-225-07), Létoumeau, Nadon, Sharlow, March 12, 2008, 2008 FCA 94. Reported: Flores Carillo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2008] 4 F.C.R. 636 (F.C.A.), at para. 38.
⁴³ Exhibit 5, NDP Ethiopia (June 30, 2020), item 1.10, at para. 2.5.1.
⁴⁴ Ibid., item 4.21, at para. 8.4.5.
⁴⁵ Ibid., at para. 8.4.6.
⁴⁶ Ibid., 8.4.2.
⁴⁷ Ibid., at p. 112.
⁴⁸ Ibid., at p. 126.
⁴⁹ Ibid., at p. 131.
⁵⁰ Ibid., item 2.1, s. 4.
⁵¹ Ibid.
⁵² Ibid., item, 2.4, s. F1.
⁵³ Ibid., item 2.3, at p. 1.
⁵⁴ Exhibit 10, Personal Documents and Documentary Evidence, received September 4, 2020, at pp. 61 – 130.
⁵⁵ Exhibit 2, BOC, Narrative, lines 44 – 78, received July 28, 2017.
⁵⁶ Exhibit 5, NDP for Ethiopia (June 30, 2020).
⁵⁷ Exhibit 10, Personal Documents and Documentary Evidence, received September 4, 2020, at pp. 61 – 130.
⁵⁸ Rasaratnam, Sivaganthan v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-232-91), Mahoney, Stone, Linden, December 5, 1991. Reported: Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (C.A.), at para 9.
⁵⁹ Thirunavukkarasu, Sathiyanathan v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-81-92), Heald, Linden, Holland, November 10, 1993. Reported: Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (C.A.); (1993), 22 Imm. L.R. (2d) 241 (F.C.A.).
⁶⁰ Exhibit 5, NDP for Ethiopia (June 30, 2020), item 1.10, at para. 2.6.1.

Citation: 2019 RLLR 111
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 6, 2019
Panel: T. Cortes Diaz
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Daniel Tilahun Kebede
Country: Ethiopia
RPD Number: TB9-12020
ATIP Number: A-2020-01459
ATIP Pages: 000193-000196

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: So, I have considered your testimony and the other evidence in the case and I am ready to render my oral decision.

[2]       I would like to add that when written decisions are issued, a written form of these reasons may be edited for spellings, syntax, and grammar and references to the applicable case law and documentary evidence may also be included.

[3]       So, the principal claimant [XXX] claims to be citizen of Ethiopia and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[4]       I find that you are a Convention refugee pursuant to Section 96 of the IRPA.

[5]       The claimant fears for her safety at the hands of Ethiopian authorities due to her perceived anti­ government profile and her profile as an Oromo.

[6]       She is perceived by the State to hold anti-State political views and view as a supporter of member of the OLF, Oromo Liberation Front. The details of your claims are documented in your Basis of Claim Form and were elaborated by you orally during the hearing.

IDENTITY:

[7]       Your personal and national identity as a national of Ethiopia has been established on a balance of probabilities through the passport on File at Exhibit 1 in your oral testimony.

CREDIBILITY:

[8]       With regard to credibility, I have found you to be a credible witness even though you were very general in the way that you answered the questions.

[9]       I found no relevant inconsistencies in your testimony or contradictions between your testimony and the other evidence before me. Given that I have found you to be a credible witness, I also accept what you have alleged in support of your claim including the following.

[10]     You work in Ethiopia in the [XXX] and you were subjected to discriminatory attitudes because of your ethnicity, reluctance to join the government party and for being a woman.

[11]     You were perceived as a supporter or member of the OLF, this is in part due to your friendship and closeness with Mr. [XXX] (ph), your reluctance join the EPRDF and your Oromo ethnicity.

[12]     Mr. [XXX] (ph) was incarcerated for his political beliefs and you visited him three times in the month of August in 2018.

[13]     Soon after you were detained, interrogated and beaten during these three interviews with the police where they accused you of having anti-government views. You were released with conditions to report to the police every week.

[14]     You also presented documents in support of your claim, I wont go through everything but includes the supporting letter your sister wrote, the letter from [XXX] (ph) and your [XXX] that attests your profession in [XXX], the harassment you experienced in Ethiopia and your incarceration.

[15]     Given your general credibility, I have no reasons to doubt the authenticity of the documentary evidence.

OBJECTIVE BASIS:

[16]     The overall objective evidence supports the claim. Items 1.5 and 2.1 among other indicate that in the past Ethiopian authorities regularly arrested, detained, and harassed persons including journalists in particular and their family members for criticising the government or for being supporters or perceived supporters of opposition groups.

[17]     In April 2018, there was a significant change in the political landscape of Ethiopia when Abiy Ahmed Ali became Prime Minister. Item 2.1 indicates that Abiy’s assumption of office was followed by positive changes in the human rights climate.

[18]     The government decriminalize political movements that had been accused of treason in the past, invited opposition leaders to return to the country and resume political activities, allow peaceful rallies and demonstration, enable the formation of new political parties and media outlets, continued steps to release thousands of political prisoner and <inaudible> provisions or repressive law.

[19]     However, objective evidence at Exhibit 4 indicated that despite these positive changes, there is not yet any fundamental and structural change in Ethiopian politics and the political atmosphere remains oppressive.

[20]     For example, we have the report from Ethiopian Human Rights Council dated July 18th, 2019, which your counsel submitted, which talks about the Ethiopian Government arresting and killing all suspects of having participate in the failed coup attempt which happened in the same year, 182 Ethiopians were arrested and many were killed as suspected of supporting this effort.

STATE PROTECTION:

[21]     With regard to State protection, given that the State is the agent of persecution, I find it will be objectively unreasonable for you to seek protection of the State in your circumstances.

[22]     With regard to internal flight alternative, given that the State is an agent of persecution with control over the entire country, I find there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Ethiopia and therefore a viable internal flight alternative does not exist.

[23]     My conclusion is having considered all the evidence I find there is a serious possibility that you will face persecution in Ethiopia.

[24]     I conclude that you are a Convention refugee and therefore I accept your claim. Welcome to Canada, thank you, counsel good work.

[25]     COUNSEL: Thank you.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Citation: 2019 RLLR 97
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 4, 2019
Panel: S. Seevaratnam
Counsel for the claimant(s): Paul VanderVennen
Country: Ethiopia
RPD Number: TB8-04005
ATIP Number: A-2020-01459
ATIP Pages: 000096-000106

REASONS FOR DECISION

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

ALLEGATIONS

[2]       The claimant alleges that he fears returning to Ethiopia because of his perceived political opinion in opposition of the Ethiopian regime, due to his ethnicity as a member of the Oromo tribe.

[3]       The claimant testified that his father is a prominent advocate for the equality and freedom of the Oromo people.² He is an active member and participant in the Oromo Federalist Congress (OFC).³

[4]       On October 8, 2017, the claimant participated in the Irecha Festival at Gefersa dam.⁴ The claimant testified that he and his friends enjoyed the celebrations until some young people turned the event into an anti-government protest. This resulted in an intervention by the anti-riot members of the federal police. The claimant and his friends quickly dispersed.⁵

[5]       The claimant testified that on October 9, 2017, around 7:00 a.m. he was awoken by his father who indicated that the police officers were waiting for him outside their family home. The claimant stated that his father advised him to be co-operative since they could become aggressive. The claimant explained that he was handcuffed and taken to Kolfe Keranyo sub-city police station where he was interrogated and accused of participating in the Oromo unrest.⁶ The claimant denied participating in the public protest as a consequence he was severely beaten with a rubber hose and threatened to confess.⁷

[6]       The claimant testified that he was detained for five days and finally released on bail that was posted by his mother on [XXX], 2017.  He was warned not to leave Addis Ababa and not to participate in any public gathering or meetings.⁸ He was told not to even attend church.⁹

[7]       The claimant believes that there is no protection for the Oromo people in Ethiopia since political opposition is not tolerated. He fears re-arrest and torture since the security forces suspect him to be a political opponent of the government of Ethiopia. Thus, the claimant fled to Canada in search of safety.

[8]       During his absence from Ethiopia, the claimant has been informed by his father that the police have attended at their family home, in search of the claimant.¹⁰

DETERMINATION

[9]       The panel finds the claimant to be a Convention refugee. The panel’s reasons are as follows.

IDENTITY

[10]     The claimant submitted a copy of his passport issued by the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, which was certified to be a true copy by an Immigration Officer on January 26, 2018.¹¹

[11]     The claimant also provided a copy of his birth certificate,¹² his Kebele identity which identifies his ethnicity as Oromo,¹³ his father’s membership card¹⁴ and membership dues paid with Oromo Federalist Congress (OFC).¹⁵ The panel was provided with the original identity documents for examination in advance of the hearing, which was helpful in assessing identity.

[12]     The panel is satisfied that the claimant is a citizen of Ethiopia and that he is a member of the Oromo community.

CREDIBILITY

[13]     The panel is guided by the leading jurisprudence on the issue of credibility. Maldonado stands for the principle that when a claimant “swears to the truth of certain allegations, this creates a presumption that those allegations are true, unless there is reason to doubt their truthfulness.”¹⁶

[14]     The claimant responded to all questions clearly and directly. He was straightforward. His sworn viva voce evidence was consistent with his Basis of Claim Form (BOC),¹⁷ the police statement,¹⁸ the bail receipt,¹⁹ and witness letters,²⁰ as well as the documentary evidence.²¹

[15]     The panel was provided with the original for each of the items in the claimant’s documents,²² in advance of the hearing.

[16]     The panel finds the claimant to be a credible and trustworthy witness. Accordingly, he has established his subjective fear of persecution.

WELL-FOUNDED FEAR OF PERSECUTION

[17]     The claimant participated in a celebration at Gefersa dam, which was turned into a public protest by a few young people. This resulted in the claimant being falsely accused of participating in activities against the government. Consequently, the claimant was arrested, interrogated, detained, and tortured by the security forces in Ethiopia.

[18]     The police report dated October 13, 2017, accuses the claimant of “causing public unrest on the Gefersa Irrecha festival.”²³ The police report corroborates the claimant’s arrest and detention. Furthermore, the bail money receipt issued by the Kolfe Keranyo police department confirms the claimant’s release upon payment of bail.²⁴

[19]     Current and reliable media reports submitted by counsel for the claimant indicates that “67 people were killed in Ethiopia’s Oromia sate this week as protests against Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed morphed into ethnic clashes.”²⁵ The report further states that according to Amnesty International, “since Abiy took office, there have been several waves of mass arrests of people in Oromiya perceived to be opposed to the government. Detainees were not charged or taken to court…”²⁶ This is similar to the predicament faced by the claimant when he was in Ethiopia.

[20]     Furthermore, a press statement by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) on the human rights situation in the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia finds that:²⁷

The Commission is gravely concerned by the escalation of protests which have been taking place in the Oromia region since the 23^rd October 2019. Those protests have spiraled into clashes amongst civilians and between civilians and security forces, and they are increasingly being fanned by ethnic and religious under­currents, with groups being mobilized to attack minority ethnic communities and churches.

[21]     In addition, the ACHPR reminds the Ethiopian government that:²⁸

… [I]t is obligated to take measures for restoring peace and reassuring the country. It should ensure that its security forces take appropriate measures to protect civilians, and that they do not use indiscriminate force in this regard. It should investigate arising human rights violations, prosecute perpetrators and provide effective remedies to victims.

[22]     The panel has carefully reviewed reputable and reliable sources in assessing the objective basis of this claim. According to the Bertelsmann Stiftung’s Transformation Index (BTI) 2018 Country Report for Ethiopia:²⁹

According to the constitution, individuals, and groups who want to protest only need to inform the government, not seek permission. The government often declines permits for protest that are not pro-government. Whenever protests go ahead without permits, the government uses violent means and coercive tactics to crack down on protestors. During the Oromo and Amhara protests, security forces allegedly killed well over 1,000 people, with the government admitting the death of over 500 people.

The government has increasingly curtailed the freedom of expression and organization of politicians, journalists, NGOs [non-governmental organizations] and human rights organization, thus making Ethiopia a de facto dictatorship.

[23]     According to a reputable report by Freedom House titled “Freedom of the Press 2017: Ethiopia Profile”:³⁰

Ethiopia’s media are dominated by state-owned broadcasters and government­ oriented newspapers. Many private newspapers, which generally have low circulation, report that officials attempt to control content through article placement requests and telephone calls to editors about stories that are critical of the government. Reporters who cover controversial topics risk being arrested or dismissed from their jobs.

…

Censorship and self-censorship are routinely practiced. Government control of the country’s primary printing press allows for prepublication censorship of newspapers. The risk of job loss, harassment, prosecution, and arbitrary arrest encourage journalists to self-censor.

[24]     Another Freedom House report for 2018 Ethiopian country conditions indicates that “[t]he Ethiopian government maintains, and exercises, the ability to censor critical or opposition websites.”³¹ The report further states that that “opposition members in Ethiopia and the diaspora have accused the government of tapping their phones or monitoring their electronic communications.”³²

[25]     The United States Department of State’s (DOS) “Ethiopia 2018 Human Rights Report” indicates the following:³³

Human rights issues included reports of unlawful or arbitrary killings by security forces and between citizens; forced disappearances by some government forces; torture; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention by security forces; political prisoners; interference with privacy; censorship and site blocking; substantial interference with the rights of peaceful assembly and freedom of association, such as overly restrictive nongovernmental organization laws; and significant restrictions on freedom of movement …

[26]     The DOS report further states that:³⁴

There were numerous reports that the government and its representatives committed arbitrary and unlawful killings. Security forces used excessive force against civilians.

A July 31 report from the independent nongovernmental organization (NGO) Human Rights Council (HRCO) that documented field investigations in 26 districts across seven zones in the Oromia and Somali Regions found that federal and regional security forces, as well as mobs of local youth, killed 733 citizens between January 2017 and January 2018.

[27]     According to a Freedom House report, “Ethiopia is an authoritarian state ruled by the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), which has been in power since 1991 and currently holds every seat in Parliament.”³⁵ The report further states that, “[o]pponents of the EPDRF find it nearly impossible to operate inside Ethiopia. Authorities frequently invoke antiterrorism legislation against dissenters.”³⁶

[28]     Moreover, this report indicates the following:³⁷

Intense government pressure opposition parties from winning political representation through elections. There are no opposition members in the national parliament, nor in regional parliaments… Opposition party members were intimidated, detained, beaten, and arrested ahead of the polls.

…

The authoritarian one-party system in Ethiopia largely excludes the public from any genuine and autonomous political participation.

[29]     In its report titled “Ethiopia: Political situation and treatment of opposition,” the Danish Immigration Service states that:³⁸

…[M]embers of the diaspora community were, ‘without doubt’ monitored closely by the government, wherever they might reside. This is, according to the interlocutor, no secret…

The editor noted that if Ethiopians participate in demonstrations against the Ethiopian regime in a foreign country, be it in Europe or in the USA, would be video-taped to document their activity. This would also be the case if members of the diaspora had gotten foreign nationality. Thus they would fear that they were to return to Ethiopia then something might happen to them upon return. As examples of what might occur, Mr. Giorgis mentioned that they could run the risk of being detained in the airport or jailed …

[30]     According to an EU representative, under the current regime “10,000 of political prisoners had been released, others were still arrested by the police on political grounds.”³⁹

[31]     In September 2018, the police commissioner of Addis Ababa indicated that nearly “3,000 youths were arrested in the capital Addis Ababa over the weekend, and that 174 would be charged and 1,200 others would be detained at the Tolay Military Camp for a ‘rehabilitation education.”‘⁴⁰ In response, Amnesty International stated that “[w]hile the Ethiopian authorities have in recent months made a commendable attempt to empty the country’s prisons of arbitrary detainees, they must not fill them up by arbitrarily arresting and detaining more people without charge.”⁴¹

[32]     Based on this country documentary evidence and the credible allegations, the panel finds that the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution in Ethiopia, by reason of the claimant’s ethnicity as Oromo and his perceived political opinion.

STATE PROTECTION

[33]     There is a presumption that except in situations where the state is in complete breakdown, the state is capable of protecting its citizens.⁴² To rebut the presumption of state protection, a claimant must provide clear and convincing evidence of the state’s inability to protect its citizens.⁴³

[34]     According to the 2018 Political Transformation Index Country Report for Ethiopia, “[t]he Ethiopian judiciary lacks both a structural and functional independence.”⁴⁴

[35]     The DOS report states that “[c]orruption, especially the solicitation of bribes, including police and judicial corruption, remained a problem.”⁴⁵ The report further finds that the “law provides criminal penalties for conviction of corruption. The government did not implement effectively or comprehensively.”⁴⁶ Moreover, the DOS report indicates that human rights issues have diminished, although “[t]he government at times did not take steps to prosecute officials who committed human rights abuses, resulting in impunity for violators.”⁴⁷

[36]     The 2019 Human Rights Watch report for Ethiopia indicates that:⁴⁸

Government officials often dismissed allegations of torture, contrary to credible evidence…

…

The government did not take any steps to carry out investigations into the killings [of] over 1,000 protesters by security forces during wide spread protests in 2015 and 2016 in Oromia and other regions…

[37]     The claimant was arrested, detained and tortured by the Ethiopian security forces in Addis Ababa on [XXX], 2017.⁴⁹ The claimant fears that he would be arrested, detained, and mistreated upon his return to Ethiopia. Given his previous arrest, the claimant would be perceived to be an opponent of the state, if he were to return to Ethiopia today.

[38]     The National Documentation Package,⁵⁰ and the documents submitted by the claimant⁵¹ make clear that the state is the agent of persecution and, in these particular circumstances, is clear and convincing evidence that the state is unable or unwilling to protect the claimant.

[39]     Accordingly, the panel finds that the claimant has met the burden of proof, on a balance of probabilities, and the presumption of state protection has been rebutted.

INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE (IFA)

[40]     The Federal Court of Appeal established a two-part test for assessing an IFA in Rasaratnam and Thirunavukkarasu:

(1)       As per Rasaratnam, “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”⁵² and/or the claimant would not be personally subject to a risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of torture in the IFA.

(2)       Moreover, the conditions in the part of the country considered to be an IFA must be such that it would not be unreasonable in all the circumstances including those particular to the claim, for him to seek refuge there.⁵³

[41]     The claimant bears the burden of proof to demonstrate that he would be persecuted on a Convention ground, or subject personally, on a balance of probabilities, to a risk to life, or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in all of Ethiopia.

[42]     It is evident that the Ethiopian security forces operate with impunity throughout the country. The documentary evidence corroborates the claimant’s testimony that there is no state protection available to him, since the state security forces are his agent of persecution. As such, there is no safety for the claimant anywhere within Ethiopia.

CONCLUSION

[43]     For the above-mentioned reasons, the panel finds [XXX] to be a Convention refugee. The claimant has established that there is a reasonable chance of persecution, if he were to return to his country of nationality, Ethiopia, today.

(signed)           S. Seevaratnam

December 4, 2019

¹ The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), S.C. 2001, c.27, as amended, sections 96 and 97(1).
² Exhibit 2, Basis of Claim Form (BOC), response to q.2(a), Narrative, line 3, received February 16, 2018.
³ Exhibit 6, Claimant’s Documents, pp.9-13, received November 6, 2019.
⁴ Exhibit 2, BOC, Narrative, line 3, received February 16, 2018.
⁵ Ibid., line 3-13.
⁶ Ibid., lines 15-22.
⁷ Ibid., lines 28-30.
⁸ Ibid., lines 32-35.
⁹ Ibid., line 35.
¹⁰ Exhibit 6, Claimant’s Documents, p.l, lines 43-44, received November 6, 2019.
¹¹ Exhibit 1, Package of information from the referring CBSA/CIC, Certified True Copy of Passport, received February 16, 2018.
¹² Exhibit 6, Claimant’s Documents, p.2, received November 6, 2019.
¹³ Ibid., pp.3-4.
¹⁴ Ibid., p.9.
¹⁵ Ibid., pp.10-13.
¹⁶ Maldonado, Pedro Enrique Juarez v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-450-79), Heald, Ryan, MacKay, November 19, 1979. Reported: Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1980] 2 F.C. 302 (C.A.); 31 N.R. 34. (F.C.A.), at para 5.
¹⁷ Exhibit 2, BOC, received February 16, 2018.
¹⁸ Exhibit 6, Claimant’s Documents, pp.5-6, received November 6, 2019.
¹⁹ Ibid., pp.7-8.
²⁰ Ibid., pp.15-25.
²¹ Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Ethiopia (March 29, 2019); Exhibit 7, Country Documents received November 6, 2019.
²² Exhibit 6, Claimant’s Disclosure, received November 6, 2019.
²³ Ibid., pp.5-6.
²⁴ Ibid., pp.7-8.
²⁵ Exhibit 7, Country Documents, p.12, received November 6, 2019.
²⁶ Ibid., p.13.
²⁷ Ibid., p.15.
²⁸ Ibid., p.16.
²⁹ Exhibit 3, NDP for Ethiopia (March 29, 2019), item 4.9, s.2.
³⁰ Ibid., item 11.1, Political Environment.
³¹ Ibid, item 2.4, s.D1.
³² Ibid., s.D4.
³³ Ibid., item 2.1, Executive Summary.
³⁴ Ibid., s.1(a).
³⁵ Ibid., item 2.4, Overview.
³⁶ Ibid., s.B1.
³⁷ Ibid., s.B2 & B3.
³⁸ Ibid, item 4.4, paras 140-141.
³⁹ Ibid., s.4.1.
⁴⁰ Ibid., item 2.7.
⁴¹ Ibid.
⁴² Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, 103 D.L.R. (4th) 1, 20 Imm. L.R. (2d) 85.
⁴³ Flores Carrillo, Maria Del Rosario v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-225-07), Letourneau, Nadon, Sharlow, March 12, 2008, 2008 FCA 94. Reported: Flores Carillo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2008] 4 F.C.R. 636 (F.C.A.), at para 38.
⁴⁴ Exhibit 3, NDP for Ethiopia (March 29, 2019), item 4.9, s.3.
⁴⁵ Ibid., item 2.1, s.4 – Corruption.
⁴⁶ Ibid., s.4.
⁴⁷ Ibid., Executive Summary.
⁴⁸ Ibid., item 2.3, Impunity, Torture, and Arbitrary Detention.
⁴⁹ Exhibit 6, Claimant’s Documents, pp.5-6, received November 6, 2019.
⁵⁰ Exhibit 3, NDP for Ethiopia (March 29, 2019).
⁵¹ Exhibit 7, Country Documents, received November 6, 2019.
⁵² Rasaratnam, Sivaganthan v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-232-91), Mahoney, Stone, Linden, December 5, 1991. Reported: Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] I F.C. 706 (C.A.), at para 9.
⁵³ Thirunavukkarasu, Sathiyanathan v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-81-92), Heald, Linden, Holland, November 10, 1993. Reported: Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (C.A.); (1993), 22 Imm. L.R. (2d) 241 (F.C.A.).