Category: Sudan

Citation: 2022 RLLR 31
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 3, 2022
Panel: Siobhan Yorgun
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Jacques Beauchemin
Country: Sudan
RPD Number: VC1-06798
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01960
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

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

INTRODUCTIONS

[2]       These are the reasons for the decision in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, a citizen of Sudan who is claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refuge Protection Act.

ALLEGATIONS

[3]       The claimant’s allegations were fully set out in his Basis of Claim form. To briefly summarize, the claimant is a 41-year-old citizen of Sudan and no other country. The claimant is a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for a contracting company, was working on a road project for local government in South Sudan starting in 2009. In XXXX 2010, he received a substantial payment in cash for completion of the project from XXXX XXXX. He requested XXXX XXXX office manager XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to keep the money for him, as there was fighting in the area at the time, until it was safe for him to travel with the payment back to his company in Khartoum. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX failed to return the money to the claimant. After the claimant complained that he would take the matter up with XXXX XXXX, he was assaulted at his home and threatened not to approach XXXX XXXX office and to keep his mouth shut.

[4]       The claimant returned to Khartoum and explained the situation to his boss. His boss was disbelieving and threatened to file a suit against the claimant. The claimant said his manager could follow the matter up with the governor in question. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX then called the claimant saying he had only himself to blame for failing to keep his mouth shut. The claimant was informed by a neighbor that two (2) men came looking for him at his house, whereupon he fled to his uncle further north in Atbara, after which he fled to Egypt and then on to Oman when his uncle told him three (3) men had come looking for him at his uncle’s house in Atbara. When his job was terminated in Oman, and the claimant could not find another to prevent the cancellation of his work visa, he fled to Canada via the US, where he had a visa to attend an international civil engineering conference. The claimant fears for his life at hand of security forces under the influence of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.

DETERMINATION

[5]       I find the claimant is a Convention refugee the pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[6]       I find the claimant’s personal identity and identity as a national of Sudan has been established on a balance of probabilities by his Sudanese passport and birth certificate.

Nexus

[7]       I find the claimant’s allegations establish a nexus to the conventional ground of imputed political opinion because he claims to fear persecution (inaudible) his conflict with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the next spokesperson for the ruling Military Transition Council, will be considered or construed as opposition to the government. Opposition to corruption or criminality may constitute a perceived political opinion when it can be seen to challenge the state apparatus, and indeed the claimant’s personal knowledge of the wrongdoing of a senior political and military figure has been identified as a challenge to the state apparatus, and the state apparatus engaged in addressing this perceived threat. As such, I have examined this claim under section 96 of the IRPA.

Credibility

[8]       When a claimant swears to the truth of certain allegations, this creates presumptions that those allegations are true unless there is reason to doubt their truthfulness. Claimant’s testimony was forthright, and he provided spontaneous detail and testimony that was fulsome and consistent with his BOC and supported by the documentary evidence submitted. Which included, the letters confirming his employment in Sudan and Oman, and educational qualifications as a civil engineer. Birth certificates of his immediate family, supporting letters from family and friends attesting to their knowledge of certain events, and information on the conference for which he received a US visa. The claimant also submitted two (2) news articles from 2019, which include reference to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as a spokesperson for the Transitional Military Council. Having assessed these documents, I have no reason to doubt their authenticity and find on a balance of probabilities that they and are genuine and give them full weight as they corroborate the claimant’s narrative.

[9]       In light of the claimant’s credible testimony and the corroborative evidence, I therefore find that the claimant entrusted a considerable sum of money to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, then XXXX XXXX for the local government for safekeeping while in Malakal and the south of Sudan during a period of fighting. That this money was intended as payment for XXXX XXXX to the claimant’s company for completion of the (inaudible) project. And that when the claimant asked XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to return the funds so that he could deliver it to his company in the north, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX failed to do so. When the claimant threatened to report the matter to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX superior, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX threatened him and had two (2) men dressed in local suits assault the claimant.

[10]     I find the claimant on return to Khartoum had a court case initiated against him by his company for the loss of money. A company which the claimant testified was owned by the brother of then President, al-Bashir. I find the claimant was warned by his neighbour in Khartoum that two (2) men not in uniform, but in smart suits, the neighbor understood as indicating they were government security, had been looking for him. After the claimant had fled from his uncle further north in Sudan in Atbara to Egypt, his uncle called him with a similar description of three (3) men wearing suits, who appeared to be government security, looking for the claimant.

[11]     I find XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is both a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and currently in a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, described by the claimant as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in Sudan. I find that the claimant has established on a balance of probabilities that he has personal knowledge of threatening behavior of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and that official’s theft of monies from local government intended for a politically connected company. And I find the claimant has been personally threatened twice by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to silence him, and is on balance of probabilities, being sought by security apparatus of the state at the instigation of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. And that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX has a continued interest in the claimant remaining silent, as his reputation and influence grow.

Well-founded Fear of Persecution

[12]     The claimant fears returning to Sudan as he alleged he will be on a wanted list and immediately captured by security and made to disappear to maintain the security and reputation of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. As well as having a subjective fear of persecution, I also find that the objective evidence before me establishes that the claimant’s fear of by persecution by security agents of the state are objectively well-founded.

[13]     The country condition evidence has outlined in the National Documentation Package for Sudan supports the claimant’s allegations regarding the treatment of perceived opponents to the state in Sudan by state agents. Corruption is endemic throughout Sudan and occurs with impunity. Those who speak out against it are punished. US Department of State report from the NDP for Sudan states that the World Bank rates corruption as a severe problem in the country. Officials found guilty of corrupt acts could often avoid jail time if they returned ill-gotten funds.

[14]     Journalists who reported on government corruption were sometimes intimidated, detained, and interrogated by security forces. Freedom House similarly reports that citizens who exposed public malfeasance faced arrest. And the rule of law is increasingly perceived as conditional on political connections. According to the US Department of State, the Sudanese government engages in arbitrary or unlawful killings, including of detainees. There are disappearances by or on behalf of the government authorities. Security forces continue to beat and torture detainees. Even without torture, prison conditions in Sudan are harsh, overcrowded, and life threatening. Arbitrary arrest and detention is common and for extended periods.

[15]     I find that the country conditions evidence establishes that those who have evidence of government corruption and perceived opponents of the state are arrested, tortured, and killed, amounted to persecution. I find that this threat remains ongoing for any person such as the claimant identified as a political reputational risk. As such, I find that there is more than a mere possibility of persecution should the claimant return to Sudan.

State Protection

[16]     There is a presumption that unless in complete breakdown, states are capable of protecting their citizens. However, I find that presumption has been rebutted in this case, as the agent of persecution in this case is the state, and the NDP is clear on a politically dependent inability to take action against corruption. Accordingly, I find that there is no effective state protection available to the claimant.

Internal Flight Alternative

[17]     I find that the claimant does not have a viable internal flight alternative, that there is nowhere within Sudan that the claimant will be able to relocate without fear of persecution. The state of Sudan has effective control over its territory. The claimant would not be able to enter into or move within Sudan without coming to the state’s attention. There is no evidence before me to suggest that there are adequately independent state authorities in Sudan who claimant could approach for protection in any part of the country. The claimant does not have an area within Sudan safe from persecution, and so does not have an internal flight alternative.

CONCLUSION

[18]     Based on the analysis of both, I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA. and I accept this claim.

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———

Citation: 2021 RLLR 101
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 1, 2021
Panel: Sarah Acker
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Stéphanie Valois
Country: Sudan
RPD Number: TC1-08877
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01778
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: We are back on the record. The time is 11:47 a.m. This is the decision for the following claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, who claims to be a citizen of Sudan and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The file number is TC1-08877.

[2]       Mr. XXXX, I have considered your testimony and the other evidence in this case, and I’m ready to render my decision orally. I find that you are a Convention refugee on the grounds of your imputed anti-government political opinion pursuant to s. 96 of the IRPA.

[3]       The details of your claim are set out in your Basis of Claim form and are supplemented by your testimony at today’s hearing. I should add that the details of your claim are also found in the amendments to your Basis of Claim form. In summary, you fear persecution in Sudan at the hands of the Sudanese coup d’état leaders and the Sudanese security forces due to your imputed political opinion. You also allege that there is no state protection or internal flight alternative available to you in Sudan.

[4]       Your country of reference and personal identity as a citizen of Sudan has been established on a balance of probabilities by your testimony and the following supporting document filed in Exhibit 1, namely a certified true copy of your Sudanese passport that was submitted.

[5]       I find there is a nexus between what you fear in Sudan and one of the five grounds enumerated in s. 96 of the IRPA. Therefore, your claim is assessed under s. 96 of the IRPA and there is no need to conduct a s. 97(1) analysis.

[6]       In terms of your general credibility, I found you to be a credible witness with regard to the material issues in your claim. There were no significant inconsistencies or omissions between your Basis of Claim forms, your testimony, and the other evidence before me. You testified in a spontaneous, detailed manner. I therefore believe what you have alleged in support of your claim.

[7]       You testified today from 2010 to 2019 you lived outside of Sudan: first in India to attend university on a student visa, and then in the United Arab Emirates on a work permit that ended with the termination of your employment in 2019. Your university certificate and Indian student visa can be found in Exhibit 11 at pages 6 through 8. Your UAE E visa is found at Exhibit 11 at page 9. When I asked you why you did not live in Sudan after completing your studies abroad, you explained that your mother feared for your life if you returned to Sudan because your father and brothers were both targeted by the Sudanese regime because of their political opinions. You heeded her advice and stayed out of the country. I therefore find on a balance of probabilities you lived outside of Sudan from 2009 through 2019 as a non-permanent resident in India and the United Arab Emirates because you feared being targeted by the Sudanese authorities if you returned to Sudan and lived there.

[8]       You explained that while living outside of Sudan, you only returned to Sudan a handful of times, mostly to look after your mother who was suffering from cancer. This information aligns with the stamps in your passport. You explained that in XXXX of 2017 you were in Sudan to comfort your mother on her deathbed. Her dying wish was that you try to find your two brothers who had been arrested while protesting the Al-Bashir regime in 2013 and had not been seen or heard from since that time. You submitted a letter from your neighbours in Sudan with accompanying identity documents that attest to your brothers’ arrest in 2013 while protesting. This letter is found in Exhibit 11 at page 20. The details of the letter correspond to the details in your Basis of Claim form and the testimony that you provided concerning your brothers’ disappearance. I therefore find this evidence credible. After your mother’s passing on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017 — and you provided her death certificate at Exhibit 11, pages 15 through 16 — you saw to honour your mother’s wish and you started looking for your brothers at different prisons and NISS centres in Sudan. Your testimony explained that on 26th of August 2017 you attended the NISS compound in the Shendi district in search of your brothers. When the NISS official said your brothers were not there and to stop looking for them, you accused the NISS of killing your brothers as they had killed your father who had been active in a Sudanese opposition party in the early 2000s. As a result, you were detained at the station for three days, physically assaulted, and interrogated about your alleged political activities against the Sudanese government and alleged affiliations with Darfuri movements because you are an ethnic Darfuri. Upon your release, you were made to sign empty documents. NISS officials told you to leave Sudan and that if you ever returned, they would fill in the documents with alleged offences and arrest you. You left Sudan a few days later and you never returned. This is confirmed by the stamps in your passport.

[9]       Your submitted evidence from your friend, XXXX (ph), who had accompanied you on your search for your brothers after your mother passed away and who picked you up from the NISS office in Shendi upon your release from detention. You explained when and how you obtain XXXX letter of support, and its accompanied by an identity document. The letter confirms the details in your BOC narrative and your testimony. I therefore find this letter credible. It can be found at Exhibit 12. The testimony about your detention, how it occurred, when and why it occurred, and what happened during it, all aligned with the details in your BOC narrative. You testified in a spontaneous, clear, and direct manner. I therefore find on a balance of probabilities you were detained by the NISS in August of 2017 while searching for your brothers who were arrested in 2013, that you were interrogated about suspected political affiliations against the Sudanese government, that you were threatened and instructed to leave the country.

[10]     You testified that you avoided involvement in politics in Sudan because you feared the regime’s brutality if you spoke out. You explained that upon arriving in Canada in XXXX of 2019, you felt safe to begin raising your voice against the atrocities committed by the current head of the Sudanese military government, General Al-Burhan and General Hemetti. You have attended rallies in Montreal and Hamilton since arriving here. You post videos on your Facebook profile about protests against the Sudanese regime, including those that took place since the coup d’état of October 25th, 2021, in Sudan. You showed me your Facebook account during the hearing and its contents confirm your testimony. You also submitted photographs of yourself attending protests against the Sudanese regime in Montreal and Hamilton in 2019 and 2021. The photos from these protests are found in Exhibit 11, pages 24 through 27. I therefore find on a balance of probabilities that since arriving in Canada, you have felt safe enough to actively voice your opposition to the Sudanese leadership and its security services as you allege.

[11]     I asked you whether you would continue to speak out against the Sudanese government if you return to Sudan. You testified that you would not because you fear the consequences of voicing your political opinions, especially given the physical and psychological injuries you sustained at the hands of the Sudanese authorities during your detention in August of 2017. I therefore find on a balance of probabilities that in addition to the Sudanese regime perceiving you to be a political opponent, you hold actual political opinions that opposed the current Sudanese regime.

[12]     I noticed that at the time you left the UAE you had a valid United States visitors visa. I asked you why you did not choose to make it an asylum claim in the United States and instead use that US visa in order to travel from the United States immediately to Canada. You explained that you were aware of the former Trump administration’s attitude towards Sudanese asylum seekers at the time and you were worried you would not have a fair asylum hearing. I find this explanation reasonable. I also asked you why you did not seek asylum in Ireland or other parts of Europe, as your passport shows you had valid visas for those locations at the time that you left the United Arab Emirates for Canada. You explained that having done research online, you felt Canada would be the safest option for you, specifically given your profile as a person of colour. I accept that this is your genuine belief and the reason why you came to Canada instead of seeking refuge elsewhere.

[13]     I therefore find on a balance of probabilities that you have a subjective fear of persecution in Sudan because of your real and perceived political opinions. As a result, and as mentioned previously, this claim is being assessed under s. 96 of the IRPA, and I find that you have established a nexus to a Convention ground.

[14]     In addition to your credible testimony and the other evidence before me today, the objective evidence in this case supports your claim. With respect to your detention by the Sudanese security forces in August of 2017, the documentary evidence in the National Documentation Package, the NDP, is quite clear that the Sudanese authorities under the previous Al-Bashir government targeted real and perceived critics of the regime. Security forces detained such critics, often keeping them for days before releasing them without charge. Many were held even longer, facing maltreatment and torture during their detention. This is mentioned in NDP item 1.4 among other items in the NDP. NDP 1.11 also notes the risk you faced as a perceived political critic under the Al-Bashir regime given your identity as a Darfuri. In December of 2018 the regime still described the protests in Sudan as a plot engineered by Darfur rebels backed by the West. In a January 2019 report on “The Risk on Return for Darfuris in Sudan,” the source states that Darfuris were being used as scapegoats and accused of instigating the uprising on instructions from foreign agents. I therefore find on a balance of probabilities that your subjective fear or persecution in Sudan at the time you left the country had an objective basis and was well-founded.

[15]     However, my risk assessment must be a forward-looking one, so I now turn to the evidence of whether the risk you faced in August 2017 in Sudan is indeed ongoing and forward-looking. In April of 2019 President Omar Al-Bashir was removed from office after decades of authoritarian rule in Sudan and replaced by a military council. Shortly after that, following negotiations between military leaders like Generals Al-Burhan and Hemetti and opposition groups, a transitional government led by a sovereign council of military and civilian members replaced the military council in August 2019. From that time until October of this year, 2021, positive changes were made with respect to human rights in Sudan, including opening space for political opposition and voices critical of the Al-Bashir regime and the improvement of other rights like women’s rights. However, on October 25th, 2021, the military wing of the civilian-led transitional government commandeered by General Al-Burhan staged a coup d’état in Sudan. The Sudanese army arrested key government officials, including President Minister Hamdok. When Sudanese civilians protested the coup, Sudanese military forces, including General Hemetti’s Rapid Security Forces, used excessive and lethal force against peaceful protesters. The individuals who held leadership roles in Sudan state security forces under Al-Bashir, including those who controlled state security forces at the time of your arrest and detention in August 2017, now once again hold power in Sudan. This leads me to find on a balance of probabilities that the positive steps taken by the Sudanese civilian-led transitional government regarding, among other issues, treatment of real or perceived regime critics are not durable. I therefore find on a balance of probabilities that your subjective fear of persecution in Sudan has an objective basis, is well-founded, and is forward-looking.

[16]     While states are presumed to be capable of protecting their nationals, it’s open to a claimant to rebut the presumption of protection with clear and convincing evidence. In this case, the agent of persecution is the state because the forward-facing persecution you would face in Sudan is at the hands of state authorities. Based on your personal circumstances as well as the objective country documentation, I find on a balance of probabilities that you have rebutted the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence. Given that the state is the agent of persecution and there was no objective evidence that shows the state does not have control over the entire country of Sudan, I find on a balance of probabilities that you would face a serious possibility of persecution throughout Sudan, and therefore a viable internal flight alternative does not exist for you.

[17]     Having considered your testimony, the documentary evidence presented, and the objective evidence before me, I find there is a serious possibility that you would face persecution in Sudan at hands of the Sudanese security forces if you return there. For the aforementioned reasons, I conclude that you are a Convention refugee for pursuant to s. 96 of the IRPA, and I accept your claim. This concludes my reasons for decision.

——————–REASONS CONCLUDED ——————–

Citation: 2020 RLLR 110
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 6, 2020
Panel: Carol-Ann Gibbs
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Mohamed Mahdi
Country: Sudan
RPD Number: TB9-22298
Associated RPD Number(s):
ATIP Number: A-2021-00945
ATIP Pages: 000176-000178

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: This is a decision in the claim of refugee protection made by [XXX]. The claimant is a citizen of Sudan and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act based on a political opinion. I find that you are a Convention refugee for the following reasons.

[2]       Regarding the allegations, these are noted in your Basis of Claim form, the following is just a very short summary. You are a young man from Khartoum having studied and worked as a [XXX]. You have recently­, last summer been involved-, been interviewed by the BBC and critically spoke of the government, the Sudanese Government. At the time you were temporarily living in Cairo, you heard from your family member shortly after that interview that the authorities were aware of your comment and you were then afraid to return back to your country. You traveled to the US and then shortly after that you came to Canada and made a refugee claim. You’ve provided many more details in your file, that’s just a short summary for the purpose of the reasons.

[3]       Regarding your identity. Your identity as a national of Sudan was established by your testimony and the supporting documents filed such as your passport. Your identity as a [XXX] was established by documents provided such as [XXX] that you were involved in and some [XXX] of that [XXX] on the [XXX] that you did in [XXX]. Your identity as political opponent was established by your testimony, you clearly detailed your position regarding the Sudanese Government in various recent events in the country. As well your interview transcript, I think you provided and some of your social media postings also reflects that opposition to the government.

[4]       Regarding credibility, I found you to be a credible witness. The only concern I had was your failure to claim in the US. You know, your brothers there, your safe in the US, they do have a functioning asylum system, not that speedy but still its there. But that’s not enough to fail your claim. Okay, it’s the only concern that I had. As well as I’ve mentioned you provided proof of your activities as a journalist and your position is clear regarding the government. And your fear of returning to Sudan is supported in the documentary evidence, this is the objective reports that I have on the human rights situation in Sudan today. I note from the documentary evidence and this is at Exhibit 3, Item 2.1 that the Sudanese government re-

[5]       MEMBER: Can you understand my English? Do we still need the interpreter or do you want him?

[6]       CLAIMANT: No, I understand you.

[7]       INTERPRETER: Okay.

[8]       MEMBER: Okay. Mr. Interpreter you can take off if you want? Do you want to go and have your break now?

[9]       INTERPRETER: That’s fine, I can go.

[10]     MEMBER: Okay, okay. It’s up to you.

[11]     INTERPRETER: If you want to remain just in case of something.

[12]     MEMBER: Sure, sure. We are almost finished anyway but you don’t need to interpret. I knew that his English was-, was pretty good.

[13]     Okay, so along as you can understand me, I’m just going to let you know and you already know this anyway that Sudanese Government restricts political participation, uses lethal force against demonstrators and detainees. Security force has detained and physically abused political opponents without charge. Recent reports in our NDP package at Exhibit 3 talks about the Sudanese authorities monitoring-, this is at 4.18, authorities monitor online political activity. I also have many, many reports from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch that talk about Jack of freedom for [XXX] and that [XXX] who were speaking out are harassed, are arrested, are detained without charge, are taken to unknown locations and really treated quite harshly if they are speaking out publicly regarding the government. So, your fear of returning to Sudan given the person that you are and are known to be is supported in the objective evidence.

[14]     Regarding state protection, I find that you have rebutted the presumption of state protection. In your case, the agent of persecution is the State. And we know from the documentary evidence that the Sudanese Government ranks very, very poorly internationally under freedoms and they certainly haven’t been able to deal with abuses committed by their authorities. So even if you were to complain about how the security forces were treating you, it doesn’t seem that there’s any recourse available for you that’s adequate in Sudan today.

[15]     Regarding an internal flight alternative, again I don’t find that there’s anywhere safe or reasonable that you could locate in Sudan where you would be safe from the State. Again, the agent the persecution in the State.

[16]     In conclusion, having considered all of the evidence, I find you have established a serious risk of persecution. I find that you are a Convention refugee and I accept your claim.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Citation: 2020 RLLR 105
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 4, 2020
Panel: Sudabeh Mashkuri
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Vincent De Paul Wafo
Country: Sudan
RPD Number: TB9-08215
Associated RPD Number(s):
ATIP Number: A-2021-00945
ATIP Pages: 000148-000151

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: I have considered your testimony and the other evidence in the case and I’m ready to render my decision orally to you now. When you do get the written reasons for your case, the written form of these reasons will no longer be edited for spelling, syntax and grammar. However, I have, I want to reassure you that I have considered all the applicable case law and the documentary evidence which I have before me and although there may be some grammatical mistakes, the essence of this decision is what I’m going to say right now.

[2]       The claimant, [XXX], you claim to be a citizen of Sudan and you’re claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[3]       You were born on [XXX] of [XXX], which makes you [XXX] years old when you came into Canada and therefore, a designated representative has been provided to, the designated representative being [XXX], who was present today as well as assisting you for your claim. In deciding your claim, I’ve considered the Chairperson’s Guideline number 3 with regards to Child Refugee Claimants specifically, unaccompanied minors who have sought protection in Canada.

[4]       This is my determination.

[5]       After considering the totality of the evidence before me, I find that you are a Convention refugee based on your perceived political opinion for the following reasons.

Allegations

[6]       Your allegations were set out in your Basis of Claim form, which is Exhibit number 2, which today was amended to also include the designated representative’s signature since she was not designated prior to you providing your Basis of Claim form.

[7]       To summarize, you are, you were born as I said in [XXX] in Khartoum, Sudan. You were a high school student in Khartoum and who went to a demonstration in [XXX] 2019 with some neighborhood friends. At that point, you were detained and beaten by the security forces and when you were released, your sister who’s a dentist, helped you with the bruises and your injuries and you went back for another demonstration a week later and at that point afterwards, the police or the security forces came looking for you and you went into hiding. Your parents obtained a visa to United States and you were sent out of Sudan to United States by your parents. You were for two days in United States and you crossed a border into Canada in [XXX] 2019 and you sought protection in Canada as a minor unaccompanied claimant.

ANALYSIS

[8]       Your identity. Your identity as a national and a citizen of Sudan is established, on a balance of probabilities, by your testimony and the supporting documentation, specifically, your passport which was seized by CBSA when you entered Canada. I also had some issues with regards to your age, which I will talk about in the credibility section.

[9]       However, I find that you have on a balance of probability, established who you say you are.

[10]     As for, as credibility is concerned, I have used the Child Guidelines with regards to assessing your credibility. There’s a presumption of truth unless there are inconsistencies, contradictions and omissions in your written evidence and I did not find that, except there was a very minor problem with regards to your birth certificate. There was a discrepancy about your age, the translated document said that you were born in [XXX], however, I find that you provided a reasonable explanation. I did have Madam interpreter here also look at the original document, which according to her it isn’t [XXX], that it was translated by mistake as to being, you being born in [XXX].

[11]     I found you to also be credible for a young person. I did use, as I said, the Gender gui-, sorry, the Child Guidelines, we had many conferences. I found it, the DR to be very helpful in trying to provide evidence with regards to your identity and your relatives here. You also, there was corroborating evidence from doctors here and a [XXX] report. I also took into consideration your family and your friends corroborating evidence. I had some family members here in Canada, that was a witness here, [XXX], who’s also a con-, a, a, a, a claimant as well, as I had your friend here who was a witness with regards to going to Sudan and bringing the documentary evidence to Canada for your claim.

[12]     I do note that you have, as a young person, as a minor, you had family here in Canada and that is why you did not ask for protection in United States and that is reasonable tome.

[13]     I find that also your, your own oral testimony and your written testimony to be credible. You did state that you would be, it would be ok that educational documents are available from Khartoum if I needed to have those to be sent to me.

[14]     Therefore, I find that you are a credible witness that, as I stated also there were two witnesses here as well.

[15]     Fear in refugee protection is forward-looking and it’s the perception of the persecutor and I do find that you would be, there would be a reasonable chance of persecution, that you have met the subjective element of, of your claim, that you were perceived to be anti-government if you were to return. The documentary evidence also speaks of massive demonstrations in the last few years in, in Khartoum, that these were led by many young people, there were university students, high school students who also participated in these massive demonstrations. As far as the objective documentary is concerned, I have taken into consideration Exhibit number 3 which is the NDP with regards to the DOS report, there are many Human Rights Watch reports, Amnesty International and UN documents with regards to what is happening in Sudan. And Sudan has been under an oppressive government for many years, although there have been some changes in the last year, I find that based on the objective documentary evidence, as well as what you did testify to that these changes are not durable or substantive. I say this because although al-Bashir was overthrown in April 2019, the military in June 2019 attacked and killed peaceful demonstrators that were camping outside of the military and the court houses, this is what you said as well as what I have in the documentary evidence. I also find that the documentary evidence talk about the interim government which is headed by someone who has been involved in genocides in Darfur, specifically I’m speaking about Hemetti NISS is still monitoring and pursuing those who are deemed to be anti-government. Although you are a young person, I have to look at the future, you have some future plans that you articulated that includes being able to live freely and with purpose and being able to, to live a life in that, does not include being oppressed. I do find that you’re too young to be expected to give eloquent, I guess your future plans but I am, as I said I’m using the, the Child Guidelines. Having said that, I find that your evidence is, it should not be deemed to be the same as an adult. There’s some things you didn’t know about. For example, with regards to surrounding your past experiences and your fear of future pers-, persecution, I do find that the documentary evidence specifically, psychological report states what you fear, what you have experienced previously and I find that using the, the Guidelines, that there might be some gaps with regards to who you came here to stay with but I don’t think that is central to the claim.

[16]     Therefore, I find that you have provided credible evidence, that the objective and the subjective elements have been met.

[17]     As far as state protection is concerned, state protection would not be reasonably forthcoming in this particular case, since the State is the agent of persecution.

[18]     I also find that you do not have a viable internal flight alternative, since the State is in control of all of its territories in Sudan and also you are a minor claimant and you would not be able to live on your own without your family in Sudan.

[19]     I do find that you, you, one of your other fears, that is forward-looking, would be that you may be forced to go and serve in the military because military service is compulsory in, in Sudan.

[20]     Therefore, based on the foregoing analysis, I find that you are a Convention refugee and I accept your claim.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Citation: 2019 RLLR 105
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: April 5, 2019
Panel: Eric Omeziri
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Howard P Eisenberg
Country: Sudan
RPD Number: TB8-14259
Associated RPD Number(s): TB8-14258, TB8-14260
ATIP Number: A-2020-01459
ATIP Pages: 000154-000160

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]       The principal claimant, [XXX] and her daughter [XXX], allege that they are citizens of Sudan and no other county. The principal claimant’s daughter [XXX] is a citizen of the United States. They are claiming refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act¹ (IRPA).

[2]       The principal claimant was appointed the designated representative of the minor claimants pursuant to subsection 167(2) of the IRPA.

ALLEGATIONS

[3]       The details of the claimants’ allegations are fully set out in the principal claimant’s Basis of Claim (BOC) form.² To summarize, the principal claimant alleges a fear of persecution in Sudan based on her anti-government political opinion.

[4]       The principal claimant alleges past persecution at the hands of the Sudanese National Intelligence and Security Service (NISS), who have arrested her on multiple occasions due to her activities in opposition of the ruling government and in support of the Nubian people.

[5]       The principal claimant remained active in Sudanese politics after relocating to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Egypt in 2013 and 2016, respectively.

[6]       During a 2017 visit to Sudan, the principal claimant was arrested, detained for several days and physically mistreated due to her prior political activity. With the assistance of an individual within the Sudanese police, the principal claimant escaped Sudan for Egypt. Fearing that she may be returned to Sudan, as her status in Egypt was temporary, in [XXX] 2018, the principal claimant travelled to Canada via the United States (US) to seek refugee protection.

[7]       In addition to the claimants’ fear of persecution at the hands of Sudanese authorities. The claimants also fear that the female claimant’s family would force her daughters to undergo female genital mutilation if they were to return to Sudan. The panel makes no finding on this issue due to the disposition of the claim based on political opinion.

DETERMINATION

[8]       Having considered the totality of the evidence, the panel finds that the principal claimant and her dependent daughter, [XXX] are Convention refugees pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA. The principal claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution in Sudan based on her political opinion, while the dependent claimant has a derivative risk of persecution based on her membership in a particular social group-that of family member of the principal claimant.

[9]       The panel also finds that the principal claimant’s youngest daughter, [XXX], has not established that she faces a serious possibility of persecution under the Convention, nor has she established that, on a balance of probabilities, she would personally be exposed to a risk of torture, to a risk to her life, or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if she were to return to the US.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[10]     With respect to the principal claimant and her eldest daughter’s personal identities, the panel finds that on a balance of probabilities, their identities as a citizens of Sudan have been established by their passports and the principal claimant’s testimony.

[11]     Likewise, the personal identity of the principal claimant’s youngest daughter, has also been established, on balance, and the panel finds that her identity as a US citizen has been established by her passport and the principal claimant’s testimony.

Credibility

[12]     Overall, the claimants were found to be credible. The principal claimant provided testimony which was consistent and included spontaneous details not included in the Basis of Claim form.

[13]     The principal claimant’s testimony did not contradict the declarations within the Basis of Claim form and there were no significant inconsistencies or omissions.

[14]     The principal claimant provided credible testimony with respect to her anti-government political activity on behalf of the Nubian community, which began while she was attending high school in Sudan. She further detailed how she continued to advocate publicly for Nubian causes, protesting against dam building in the Nubian region, raising money for the anti-dam committee, participating in committee meetings, as well as participating in Nubian cultural activities and awareness campaigns.

[15]     The principal claimant’s anti-government political activity made her the subject of repeated arbitrary arrests and extra-judicial detention by the Sudanese National Intelligence and Security Service (NISS). The principal claimant provided credible testimony regarding the events leading up to her arrests, her experience in detention, as well as her activities following her release.

[16]     The panel has also considered the principal claimant’s testimony regarding her political activity online and since arriving in Canada. The principal claimant provided convincing testimony regarding her participation in anti-government protests in Toronto and St. Catharines, Ontario in late 2018. The principal claimant also provided testimony about her anti-government activity online and, using her mobile phone, she was able to spontaneously show the panel that she was subscribed to an anti-government message group on WhatsApp.

[17]     In addition to the principal claimant’s credible testimony, the claimants also provided supporting documents which I found to be credible, they include:

a.         Letter of support from the Secretary General of the Nubian House in Abu Dhabi

b.         Letter of support from the Anti-dam youth committee of Dal and Kajbar Dams

c.         Letters of support from friends and family which corroborate the claimants’ allegations

d.         Photographs of the principal claimant’s participation in anti-government protests in Canada

[18]     As such, the panel finds that, on a balance of probabilities, the claimants have established that the principal claimant has a subjective fear of persecution due to her anti-government political opinion.

Nexus Section 96

[19]     The panel finds that there is a link between the principal claimant’s fear of persecution and the Convention grounds, specifically that the principal claimant has been persecuted by the Sudanese Government because of her anti-government political opinion, therefore this claim has been assessed under Section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Objective Basis

[20]     The evidence before the panel establishes, on a balance of probabilities, an objective basis for the claimant’s fear of persecution. Item 1.4 of the National Documentation Package for Sudan states that the NISS is responsible for the management of operations for national security, and under Sudanese law individuals suspected of a threat to the State may be detained by the NISS indefinitely.

[21]     The same law provides NISS officials with impunity for acts involving their official duties and that its current human rights violations have reached unprecedented levels. The objective documentary evidence also cites examples of the NISS using excessive and sometimes lethal force in breaking up demonstrations, protests, and rallies as well as conducting raids and confiscations.

[22]     The NISS arbitrarily arrests and detains Sudanese citizens, often detaining these individuals for a few days before releasing them without charge. The Sudanese government often targets political opponents and suspected rebel supporters and the NDP also makes reference to several reports of individuals being detained for their actual or assumed political or anti­ government political opinion.

[23]     The panel has also considered the risk to the principal claimant’s Sudanese child. The NDP for Sudan provides evidence of the targeting of family members of political opponents. Item 1.7 describes the situation of the brother of [XXX] – a noted Darfuri Sudanese Human Rights Defender-who was kidnapped in Khartoum by members of the NISS and taken to a deserted location in Khartoum, and beaten and subsequently released.

[24]     Item 2.1 of the NDP also make reference to numerous reports of violence by Sudanese government authorities against the family members of Darfuri student activists.

[25]     Therefore, I find that the principal claimant’s Sudanese born child has a risk of persecution based on the membership in a particular social group, that of a family member of the principal claimant.

[26]     The panel has considered the documentary evidence in conjunction with the principal claimant’s credible allegations about her identity as an individual with an anti-government political opinion. Having considered these factors, the panel finds that the principal claimant and her eldest daughter do have a well-founded fear of persecution.

State Protection

[27]     As the agent of persecution is the State which, as mentioned above, does act with impunity, the panel finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that adequate State protection would not be available to the claimant.

Internal Flight Alternative

[28]     Likewise, since the Sudanese government is in control of the entirety of the country, the panel finds that there would be no safe place for the claimants throughout the country and that there is no viable internal flight alternative for the claimants anywhere in Sudan.

CONCLUSION

[29]     Based on the totality of the evidence before it, the panel concludes that the principal claimant, [XXX], and her daughter, [XXX], are Convention refugees and accepts their claim.

[30]     The minor claimant, [XXX], has not established she faces a serious possibility of persecution in the US and is not a person in need of protection without recourse to state protection. The panel must find the minor claimant is not a Convention refugee under section 96 or person in need of protection, under section 97(1) of the IRPA and rejects her claim.

(signed)           E. Omeziri

April 5, 2019

¹ Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), sc, 2001, c 27, as amended.
² Exhibit 2, BOC.

Citation: 2019 RLLR 96
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: September 10, 2019
Panel: S. Charow
Counsel for the claimant(s): Aishah Nofal
Country: Sudan
RPD Number: TB8-03866
Associated RPD Numbers: TB8-03910, TB8-03947, TB8-03948
ATIP Number: A-2020-01459
ATIP Pages: 000090-000095

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: This is the decision for [XXX] File TB8-03866 the associated adult claimant [XXX] File TB8-03910 and the associated minor claimants [XXX] File TB8-03947 and [XXX] File number TB8-03948.

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

[3]       You’re claiming to be citizens of Sudan and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[4]       The principal claimant has been appointed as the designated representative for the minor claimants, his children. I find that you are Convention refugees for the following reasons;

[5]       The allegations of your claims can be found in your basis of claims forms at exhibits 2 through 5 and the subsequent amendments at Exhibits 8 and 13.

[6]       In short you allege persecution from Sudan’s national intelligence and security service or NASS based on essentially two things. First you allege that you were arrested with a colleague for printing pro (inaudible) materials and that you were also the last one to see that colleague alive.

[7]       Secondly you allege that you’ve been politically active online after leaving Sudan and the NASS has been monitoring these posts. You allege receiving threats including threats of being met at the airport if you return to Sudan because of this online posting. You fear future physical harm or death for yourself or your family should you return to Sudan.

[8]       I note that there were allegations made about the risk of female genital mutilation for the female minor claimant. I will not consider that as it is not determinative because your political opinions and your family’s membership in a particular social group due to your political opinions are the determinative issue in this matter. You allege there’s no state protection for you nor any internal flight alternative.

[9]       Based on the Sudanese passports in exhibit 1 and your overall credible testimony I do find that identity and country of reference have been established on a balance of probabilities.

[10]     I further find that on the balance of probabilities you have established that you and your family will be at risk of persecution because of your political opinion.

[11]     I did note some issues with your testimony; specifically I noted a basis of claim or a basis of claim amendment, omission of someone assisting you in getting your passport when you first left Sudan.

[12]     I further note that there was very little mention of any social media activity at all in your basis of claim form or the subsequent amendment but very specifically you had allege that you received threats over Face book because of the way you were posting about Sudanese political issues, there was no mention at all of any threats in your basis of claim form or the subsequent amendments.

[13]     I did put these issues to you over the course of the hearing; although you’ve provided some explanation I was not satisfied that your explanations adequately explain these omissions. That does negatively impact your credibility.

[14]     However I do balance those issues with the other parts of your testimony which I did find to be credible. This includes detailed, spontaneous evidence about your arrest. I note that on this line testimony, your testimony was consistent with your basis of claim form and you were able to give details when asked to do so that went beyond your basis of claim description of these events.

[15]     I did find this to be very persuasive. I also note that in support of your claim you provided additional documents to substantiate your allegations. I note pictures of the claimant’s attending protests here in Canada, pictures of attending an event which was essentially about a book that had been authored about corruption and other issues with the NISS, a letter from your brother explaining that you had discussed this event and you had sent him a photo of you in that author and that subsequently your brother had been arrested and questioned about this activity.

[16]     I further see the What’s app messages with your brother where you had discussed the event. I note photographs of your brother’s injuries after he had been arrested, letters from the brother of your co­worker who had been arrested at the same time as you in 2006, medical reports from here in Canada confirming scaring and getting the opinion that the presentation of your injuries is consistent with the allegations about how you received those injuries and I further note letters from your mother and sister and brother to confirm that they witnessed or experienced your arrest.

[17]     Today you also showed me on your phone that you under an assumed name on Face book but still one that could be connect to you and your family had made posts in groups entitled no to high prices, freedom to Sudanese people, no to greed hash tag independent justice system the revolution continues, the national movement group, republican brotherhood and the November 27^th movement civilian take over.

[18]     You did show me that directly through Face book and I was able to navigate through that, we were able to have that interpreted by cite by Madame Interpreter.

[19]     I’ve also considered whether your re-availments to Sudan negatively impact your credibility; however you’ve offered evidence that your mother was ill and you felt you needed to go back and went with the assistance of someone who worked at the airport.

[20]     In consideration of the supporting documents provided at Exhibit 10 which do establish your mother’s illness, I do find that you’ve offered a reasonable explanation for these re-availments, it does not impact your credibility.

[21]     I further considered whether your failure to claim asylum in the Netherlands impacts your credibility, however you’ve testified that at that time you had stable status in Oman and there was no risk of not, there was no risk should you have not made a claim there. I do find that’s a reasonable explanation for that failure to claim again it does not impact your credibility.

[22]     I further considered whether your failure to claim asylum in the United States after you had lost status in Oman negatively impacts your credibility. You explained that the intention was to claim protection in Canada. You spent four days in the United States before crossing irregularly into Canada.

[23]     You had also testified that you completed your own research into the situation in the United States and had learned that the United States had anti-immigrant policies at that time. In consideration of the current political climate in the United States and your relative short stay there again four days, I do find that you’ve offered a reasonable explanation for your failure to claim asylum in the United States. I will not draw any negative inference regarding your credibility from this issue.

[24]     I do find that the credible evidence available to me outweighs the negative credibility inferences I drew from the omitted allegations.

[25]     Therefore overall I do find you to be credible. I therefore find your allegations as outlined in your basis of claim form and your testimony to be credible. I find that you’ve established your subjective fear.

[26]     I find there’s a link between what you fear and two of the five convention grounds, specifically you have been persecuted by the Sudanese government and may be at risk of further persecution because of your antigovernment political opinions.

[27]     I also note that the associated claimants hold membership in a particular social group as the family member of someone with a political opinion. Therefore these claims have been assessed under Section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[28]     The objective documentation supports your allegations that individuals in your circumstance face persecution in Sudan. Before I discuss the available evidence I will note that I can take notice that there has been a change in the regime in Sudan, I can take notice from the available news that we can see on a regular basis, however when considering that I note that any report that I’ve seen suggests that this regime change is in name only. There’s no evidence before me to describe any improving situation in Sudan, rather there’s still evidence of people being persecuted for political opinions.

[29]     There’s no indication that this would stop just because the person at the head of the government has changed. Without that evidence I will still rely on the national documentation package as found at Exhibit 6 of the national documentation package for Sudan.

[30]     I specifically note Item 1.4 which states that the NISS is responsible for the management of operations for national security. Under Sudanese legislation individuals suspected to be a threat to the state may be detained without charge for up to forty five days without judicial review.

[31]     I also note that the same piece of legislation provides NISS officials with impunity for acts involving their official duties. This evidence suggests or states that though the NISS has for the last decade perpetrated human rights violations with impunity, its current human rights violations have reached unprecedented levels.

[32]     The NISS has used excessive and sometimes lethal force in breaking up demonstrations, protests and rallies as well as office raids and confiscation of newspapers, perpetrated arbitrary arrests and deliberately targeted ethnic and religious minorities.

[33]     There were also several reports of individuals detained due to their actual or assumed support of antigovernment forces.

[34]     I’ve considered this documentary evidence in conjunction with your credible allegations about your political opinions. I find that you have a well founded fear and that you face a serious possibility of persecution based on your political opinion.

[35]     I further note that the national documentation package states that there’s evidence of the Sudanese authorities targeting family members of people who are of interest to them. I refer to Items 1.4 and 1.7 of the national documentation package.

[36]     Therefore I find that there is a well founded fear and a serious possibility of persecution for the associated claimants in this matter, as family members of someone with a political opinion.

[37]     As the agent of persecution is the state which acts with impunity, I find that there is clear and convincing evidence that state protection would not be available to you. Likewise as antigovernment political opinions are persecuted throughout the country and the NISS operates across the country there would be no safe place for you anywhere in Sudan.

[38]     As the test for an internal flight alternative fails on the first prong I find there would be no internal flight alternative available.

[39]     Based on the totality of the evidence I find the claimant’s to be Convention refugees. Your claims are therefore accepted.

[40]     So this will conclude today’s hearing. I’d like to thank everyone for their participation. Thank you Madame Interpreter, thank you counsel and thank you both.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-