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
RPD Number: TB8-14259
Associated RPD Number(s): TB8-14258, TB8-14260
ATIP Number: A-2020-01459
ATIP Pages: 000154-000160
REASONS FOR DECISION
 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).
 The principal claimant was appointed the designated representative of the minor claimants pursuant to subsection 167(2) of the IRPA.
 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.
 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.
 The principal claimant remained active in Sudanese politics after relocating to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Egypt in 2013 and 2016, respectively.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 The principal claimant’s testimony did not contradict the declarations within the Basis of Claim form and there were no significant inconsistencies or omissions.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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
 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
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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
 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.
 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.
 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.