Categories
All Countries Turkey

2020 RLLR 40

Citation: 2020 RLLR 40
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 25, 2020
Panel: J. Kim
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Aleksandar Jeremic
Country: Turkey
RPD Number: TB8-27767
Associated RPD Number: TB8-27831
ATIP Number: A-2021-00655
ATIP Pages: 000071-000075


DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: Okay, this is a decision for the following claimant’s [XXX] File number TB8-27767. I’ve considered your testimony and other evidence in the case and I’m ready to render my decision orally.

[2]       You are claiming to be citizens of Turkey and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to Section 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[3]       I find that you are Convention refugees for the following reasons.

[4]       You allege the following; that you are citizens of Turkey and are Alevi’s and that if you were to return you will face persecution due to your active involvement with HTP and CHP. You allege that there is no state protection for you or an internal flight alternative.

[5]       You allege that you were detained multiple times by the police and that even after you left Turkey people who knew you were being asked about you by the police when they themselves were detained.

[6]       Your personal identity as citizens of Turkey has been established by your testimony and the supporting documents including your passports and your identity as Alevi has been established by your testimony and the supporting documents including a support letter from your father, [XXX] and a letter from Canadian Alevi Culture Centre.

[7]       I find that on a balance of probabilities that your personal and religious identities have been established.

[8]       I find that there is a link between what you fear and one of the five convention grounds specifically political opinion. I therefore assessed your claims under Section 96.

[9]       In terms of your general credibility I have found you to be credible witnesses and I therefore believe what you have alleged in your oral testimony and in your basis of claim forms. Your testimony was straightforward and was in keeping with your basis of claim form and there are no significant inconsistencies or omissions that went to the heart of the claim.

[10]     I therefore find the following to be credible; that you are people who face persecution due to your involvement with the oppositional parties, namely HTP and CHP, at the hands of the state authorities.

[11]     Your oral testimony today included details regarding your involvement with HTP and CHP and the incidents you experienced with the police. You testified how you became involved with both parties and the roles and responsibilities you had.

[12]     You also describe the number of protests and rallies you attended as well as the work you did helping with referendum and election campaigns which lead to a house raid where your parent’s house was raided by the police and all of your sisters including yourself was taken into the police station and was interrogated.

[13]     You testified prior to the house raid that you experienced violent encounters with the police and were detained multiple times after protests. You also testified that you received phone calls that threatened you to stop your political engagements.

[14]     Your sister the associate claimant also testified regarding her involvement in political parties and rallies and the subsequent detainment and the house raid she also experienced.

[15]     You also provided documents in support of your testimony that you have been active members and supporters of HTP and CHP and that you have been experiencing threats and risk from the police and these documents include letters of support from your friend, father and sister, photographs of the associate claimant as she was campaigning for the referendum and a letter from Canadian centre for victims of torture.

[16]     You also submitted social media posts that were critical towards the government, the letter from your sister and your friend who was detained and interrogated after you left Turkey which describes how police were still looking for you and harassing your family members and friends to get information about you.

[17]     Your testimony and the supporting documentation all establish that you have been actively involved in the HTP and CHP and therefore have been targeted by the state authorities.

[18]     The objective documentation supports your allegations that individuals in your circumstance face persecution at the hands of state authorities and society at large.

[19]     According to the national documentation package Item 1.6, 2.1, 2.3, 13.1 and 13.3 the persecution that the HTP supporters and those who voice criticism against the government face, they face discrimination and violence.

[20]     National documentation package Item 13.1 speaks to it by stating that the anti Kurdish sentiment is high in Turkey and permissive political environment turns this sentiment into violence in some cases.

[21]     Item 13.3 describes that the anti terrorism legislation led members of the Kurdish community to be vulnerable to violence and that there are significant restrictions on their rights to freedom of expression and association as well as (inaudible), arrest and detention and persecution.

[22]     In your case it’s not that the state authorities identify you as Kurdish people but as those who are active in supporting HTP and their goals.

[23]     Item 2.3 describes the correlation between the heightened conflicts between the resurgence and how the Turkish government has been using these conflicts to justify a crackdown on Kurdish political parties, media outlets and civil society organizations.

[24]     NDP Item 1.6 and 2.3 also describe how the different laws such as anti terror and defamation laws have been used to stop political opponents as well as ordinary citizens from voicing criticism by filing criminal charges against and persecuting a wide range of individuals.

[25]     According to the national documentation package Item 2.1 during the year of 2018 the government opened investigations into thousands of individuals including minors for insulting the president and the detainees charged against anti terror laws had no substantial link to terrorism and that they were detained to silence critical voices or weaken political opposition to the ruling AKP particularly the HTP members and officials.

[26]     Specifically Item NDP Item 11.3 and 11.4 describe the lack of freedom of speech on the internet and how the government recently started to crackdown on those who post, posted critical things against the government through criminal investigation and persecutions which have affected a wide range of people from journalists and human rights activists to high school and university students and construction workers.

[27]     I therefore find that you have a well founded fear of persecution. I find that you have rebutted the presumption of state protection because the state is the agent of persecution in this case and it would be unreasonable for you to seek state protection in this case.

[28]     According to the national documentation package Item 2.1 the government continues to take limited steps to investigate, prosecute and punish members of the security forces and other officials accused of human rights abuses and that impunity for such abuses remained a problem.

[29]     In Item 2.3 it describes that the issues of corruption remains a major problem in Turkey.

[30]     Based on your personal circumstances as well as the objective country documentation l find that the adequate state protection will not be available to you as the state will be unwilling to protect you in Turkey.

[31]     As you have rebutted the presumption of state protection and since the country documentation indicates that the situation for individuals in circumstances such as yours is the same throughout the country, I find that you do not have a viable internal flight alternative.

[32]     Based on the totality of evidence I find that you have established that there is a serious possibility of persecution on the convention ground namely the political opinion. I therefore find that you are Convention refugees and I accept your claims.

[33]     Thank you.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Categories
All Countries Turkey

2020 RLLR 24

Citation: 2020 RLLR 24
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 27, 2020
Panel: K. Khamsi
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Amedeo Clivia (Clivea Law)
Country: Turkey
RPD Number: TB9-12901
ATIP Number: A-2021-00540
ATIP Pages: 000143-0000145


DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: This is the decision in the claim for refugee protection made by [XXX]. So you claim to be a citizen of Turkey and you are claiming refugee protection pursuant to Section 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Your allegation are detailed in your-, in the narrative portion of your Basis of Claim form but to summarize, you fear persecution in Turkey due to your Kurdish ethnicity and your Alevi faith and also your support of the HDP. You mentioned that you have been discriminated and bullied because of your Kurdish ethnicity and also because of your religion.

[2]       You were arrested twice by the police in-, in Turkey. You were also involved with the HDP and you have relatives who were arrested and held in custody because of their involvement with the HDP. So, now you are afraid to return to Turkey and be discriminated because of your-, of your faith and also because of you are a supporter of the HDP and you are afraid that if you become involved in politics and you are arrested by the police, they find out that-, about your record and you would be in much more trouble. You also testified that you were involved in social media and that you have been criticizing the government and all that maybe held against you.

[3]       So, determination. I find that you are a Convention refugee based on your ethnicity and your political opinion.

[4]       Now, the identified issues are identity and credibility, your ethnicity. So, with respect to your personal identity, I find that you are a citizen of Turkey based on your testimony and documents that you have provided, including your passports.

[5]       With respect to your ethnicity and religious identity, I find on a balance of probabilities that you are of Turkish descent and Alevi faith. You needed prompting, your testimony was not that forthcoming when you were asked about your religion but you also provided some evidence with regarding the Alevi Cultural Centre here and a letter from the Kurdish Association. Too, you also explained that you did not speak Kurdish because your parents wanted to protect you, however, it’ s not something that you were hiding and that led to-, to-, to-, to travel as you have alleged in-, in your story.

[6]       Now with the regard to credibility, I find that your oral testimony did not contradict your written evidence. You needed prompting but there was no contradiction between your oral and written evidence. You were able to explain all the questions that I asked you. You have also provided evidence to support all your allegations. You have provided as I said, a letter from the Alevi Cultural Centre and from the Kurdish-, Toronto Kurdish Centre. You have provided evidence from your social media. I have a letter from your sister who corroborated your-, your story with regard to your arrest in [XXX] 2018.

[7]       I have reviewed also all country conditions documents that we provided in the NDP and by your counsel and the documentary evidence supports your allegations were always targeted and the information that we have in the NDP. They confirm that Kurds were already-, in Turkey, however, the situation has worsened since the-, the 2016 attempted coup and lots of people are-, were arrested in Turkey just because of-, of their background. Who-, so when you are Kurd and Alevi, it makes things worse and we have lots of evidence with regard to discrimination, with regards to Alevi.

[8]       Now, with regard to your political activities. The evidence indicates that if you are perceived to be a member or-, or of any political group, any opposition group sorry, in-, in Turkey, you may be subjected to human right violations and in-, in Turkey, those who are viewed as anti-government are subjected to lots of mistreatment. Specifically, Kurdish and Alevi’s, they are viewed as a threat to the government and as sometimes associated with the-, sorry, I’m trying to find the-, sometimes they can viewed-, be viewed as-, as associated to terrorist activities.

[9]       So, I find that your profile as a Kurdish and Alevi and your political activities may put you at risk of detention and torture at the hand of the government if you were to turn-, to return to Turkey, based on the objective evidence that we have on file. There were other issues that I did not touch, for example, delay in claiming and you went back to Turkey as well, it could have been considered as re-availment, however, you explained in your narrative and that’s I was-, the reason why that happened and you provided evidence with-, with regard to your delay. A letter from your friends who I did not held that against you.

[10]     Now I looked at state protection and given that the State is the agent of persecution, I find that, there is no state protection for you in Turkey and for the same reasons, I find that there is no internal flight alternative available to you in Turkey.

[11]     And to conclude, I find that you are Convention refugee and I accept your claim.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Categories
All Countries Turkey

2020 RLLR 16

Citation: 2020 RLLR 16
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 6, 2020
Panel: Jiyoung Kim
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Ashley Erin Fisch
Country: Turkey
RPD Number: TB8-24280
ATIP Number: A-2021-00540
ATIP Pages: 000107-0000110


DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: This is a decision for the claimant [XXX], file number TB8-24280. I have considered your testimony and other evidence in the case and I’m ready to render my decision orally.

[2]       You are claiming to be a citizen of Turkey and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to Section 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[3]       I find that you are a Convention refugee for the following reasons.

[4]       For making this decision and in formulating questions for the hearing, I considered Chairperson’s Guideline 9 with regard to proceedings before the Immigration and Refuge-, Immigration and Refugee Board involving claims of sexual orientation and gender identity and expression.

[5]       You alleged the following. That you are a citizen of Turkey and that if you were to return, you will face persecution as a member in a particular social group which is your gender identity and sexual orientation. You alleged that there is no stat-, state protection for you or an internal flight alternative.

[6]       Your personal identity as a citizen of Turkey has been established by your oral testimony and supporting documents, including your passport and the national identification card. I find that, on the balance of probabilities, that identity and country of reference have been established.

[7]       I find that there is a link between your-, what you fear and one of the five Convention grounds, specifically particular social group, namely your gender identity. Therefore, I assessed your claim under Section 96.

[8]       In terms of your general credibility, I have found you to be a credible witness and I therefore believe what you have alleged in your oral testimony and in your Basis of Claim form. Your testimony was straightforward and was largely in keeping with your Basis of Claim form. And there are no significant inconsistencies or omissions that went to the heart of the claim.

[9]       I therefore find the following to be credible. That you are a num-, queer non-binary person facing persecution in Turkey due to your gender identity and sexual orientation. Your oral testimony today included details regarding your aware-, awareness that you were different from other people. And then discovering and exploring the label for your gender identity.

[10]     You also provided details regarding your relationships with women and non-binary people in Turkey and in Canada. And the everyday discrimination and physical and psychological violence you’ve faced from the society in Turkey. You also provided details about your involvement with the LGBTQ+ organizations in Turkey and in Canada, such as being the [XXX] of the student group in Turkey. And the virus-, vari-, various involvement with groups in Toronto like the [XXX] and the [XXX].

[11]     You also provided documents in support of your testimony, that you are a queer non-binary person who has been active in LGBTQ+ communities in Turkey and in Canada. And a person who experienced violence and discriminations in Turkey. Those documents include letters of support from your friends in Turkey and in Toronto who have the knowledge of violent incidents you faced.  As well as your active involvement and advocacy work for your communities. As well as letters of support from your roommates, former partner and current partner.

[12]     You’ve also submitted letters from different LGBTQ+ focus organizations in Toronto and in Turkey, including the 519 and Supporting Our Youths, to name a few. You’ve also submitted Facebook messages and posts.

[13]     Your testimony and the supporting documentation all establish that you are a queer non-binary person who has been experiencing violence in Turkey due to their sexual orientation and gender identity.

[14]     The objective documentation supports your allegation that individuals in your circumstance face human rights abuse. Although there is no law that criminalize LGBTQ+ communities but the provisions of law on offense against public morality, protection of family and unnatural sexual behaviour are used as a basis for abuse according to National Documentation Package dated March 29th, 2019, Item 2.1.

[15]     Bans on LGBTQ+ events by the State officials in recent years has demonstrated in-, and National Documentation Package, Item 2.7 show that the LGBTQ+ communities and their members face discrimination and violence bail-, based on their sexual orientation and gender identity. Information in both the National Documentation Package and the country condition package submitted by the counsel in Exhibit 6 all corroborate the heightened level of violence against the LGBTQ+ communities and their rights by the State authorities.

[16]     In particular, the package provided inform-, package from the counsel provided information on the oppression on the student activists for LGBTQ+ rights, as well as the violence faced by transgender persons.

[17]     I therefore find that you have a well-founded fear of persecution. I find that adequate state protection would not be available to you if you were to seek it in Turkey. You testified that you never sought state protection because the State will be unwilling to protect you. And because the police were also the ones harassing you and targeting you. This is corroborated by the objective documentern-, documentary evidence. The objective documentary evidence indicates that in National Documenta-, Documentation Package, Item 1.14, that the government is unable or unwilling to protect vulnerable LGBTQ+ people from violence and discrimination.

[18]     Impunity for crimes against LGBTQ+ individuals continue to be reported as a problem. That according to NDP 21-, 2.1 there’s no state-, there’s no protection based on sexual orientation or gender identity on the criminal code. In light of the objective country documentation, I find that the claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection.

[19]     Based on your personal scan-, circumstances as well as the objective country documentation, I find that the adequate state protection will not be available to you as the State will be unwilling and unable to protect you in Turkey.

[20]     As you have rebutted the presumption of state protection and since the country documentation indicates that the situation for individuals in circumstances suggests yours is the same throughout the country, I find that you do not have a viable internal flight alternative.

[21]     Based on the totality of evidence, I find that you have established that there is a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground, namely your membership in a particular social group as a queer non­binary person.

[22]     I therefore find that you are a Convention refugee and I accept your claim.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Categories
All Countries Turkey

2019 RLLR 33

Citation: 2019 RLLR 33
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 20, 2019
Panel: O. Adeoye
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Amedeo Clivio
Country: Turkey
RPD Number: TB9-19724
ATIP Number: A-2021-01124
ATIP Pages: 000186-000190


[1]       MEMBER: I’ve considered your testimony and your other evidence before me today, which includes your documentary evidence, and I’m ready to render my decision orally.

[2]       This is a claim for refugee protection made by [XXX], who claims to be a citizen of Turkey and is seeking refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Allegations

[3]       The summary of the claimant’s allegations are contained his Basis of Claim form and I will not repeat them all here.

[4]       In summary, the claimant alleges that he fears to return to Turkey because he’s involved in the Hizmet Movement, which is also known as the Gülen Movement.

[5]       He alleges that he supports the ideas of the movement’s leader or founder, Fetullah Gülen, and that these ideas deal with, among other things, religion, society, charity, and education.

[6]       He further alleges that due to his Kurdish ethnicity and his family’s longstanding history of being involvement with pro-Kurdish politics, he may be imputed to be a separatist Kurd or HDP supporter.

Determination

[7]       The Panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee because he faces a serious possibility of persecution on the Convention ground of his imputed political opinion in Turkey as a Hizmet follower.

Identity

[8]       The claimant’s identity as a national of Turkey is established by his testimony and certified true copy of his Turkish passport attached to Exhibit 1.

[9]       Also, the Panel finds that the claimant has established his Hizmet identity based on his affiliation with the Hizmet Movement, again through his testimony and supporting documentation attached to Exhibit 5.

Credibility

[10]     Overall, the Panel has found the claimant to be a credible witness on a balance of probabilities on what is core to his claim. In this case, his imputed political opinion as a follower of the Hizmet Movement.

[11]     The Panel therefore believes what he has alleged in support of his claim.

[12]     He testified in a straightforward manner and there were no relevant inconsistencies in his testimony or contradictions between his testimony and other evidence before the Panel that were not satisfactorily explained.

[13]     The claimant testified generally in a straightforward manner regarding his involvement in the Hizmet Movement, his reasons for becoming involved in the movement, his actions, his roles in support of the movement and affiliated institutions, and also he provided credible testimony regarding the movement as a whole, as well as providing information about members of the movement being mistreated by the Turkish authorities, which includes his family members.

[14]     Therefore the Panel finds on a balance of probabilities that the claimant has been able to -­ that the claimant was involved in the Hizmet Movement since he was a child and in 2003 when he attended — was a child when he attended meetings with his uncle, and 2003 when he attended Hizmet affiliated prep school, and finds on a balance of probabilities — also finds on a balance of probabilities that he volunteered with Hizmet affiliated charities, purchased Hizmet affiliated, and subscribed to Hizmet affiliated publications.

[15]     So the Panel therefore finds on a balance of probabilities that the claimant is credible, accepts his allegations as credible, and that he has established his subjective fear.

Well-Founded Fear of Persecution

[16]     As it relates to the well-foundedness of the claimant’s fear of persecution, the Panel finds that the claimant’s subjective fear has an objective basis based on the objective documentary evidence before the Panel.

[17]     There is ample corroborating evidence in the country condition documents about the Turkish authority’s harsh treatment of members of the Hizmet Movement, which was worsened after the attempted coup in July 2016, for which the Turkish regime held the Gillen Movement responsible.

[18]     Item 2.3 in the National Documentation Package titled, “Freedom in the World 2017” states that:

[19]     “Turkey has a large number of active non-governmental organizations. However, authorities have mentioned and harassed many NGOs in recent years. In particular, those affiliated with the Gillen Hizmet Movement.

[20]     In the aftermath of the coup, 1,229 foundations and associations and 19 trade unions were shut down without judicial proceedings.”

[21]     Also:

“375 more associations and NGOs were closed for alleged links to terrorists and their assets were seized by the government.”

[22]     The National Documentation Package also reports that:

“There are significant problems with arbitrary and indefinite detention and mistreatment of those arrested or suspected to be Hizmet Movement and increasing lack of judicial independence, especially after the dismissal of more than 3,000 judges following the attempted coup, relaxation on restrictions on the use of torture, and widespread impunity for officials who commit human rights abuses persist in Turkey.”

[23]     There is also considerable evidence that:

“The authorities in Turkey have targeted family members of suspected Hizmet sympathizers or those who are wanted for arrest and cancelled their passports or even detained them.”

[24]     Furthermore, the evidence in the National Documentation Package notes the:

“Closing of Hizmet affiliated universities in Turkey and the broader negative effects on academic freedom and freedom of speech in Turkey that have resulted from Turkish authority’s crackdown on Hizmet followers, affiliated educational institutions, and other academics who have voiced criticism of the regime and its actions.”

[25]     After reviewing all this evidence which the Panel finds — after reviewing all this evidence, the Panel finds that the claimant’s allegations are consistent with the objective country condition documents with regards to the harsh treatment currently being made out against Hizmet supporters in Turkey, including dismissal from employment, increased closing down Hizmet affiliated education institutions, seizure of assets, detention, and mistreatment.

[26]     Therefore, based on this country documentary evidence and the credible allegations, the Panel finds that the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution in Turkey by reason of his imputed political opinion.

State Protection

[27]     As the state is the agent of persecution — as the agent of persecution is the Government of Turkey, the Panel finds that it would be objectively unreasonable for the claimant to seek protection of the Turkish Government in light of the claimant’s particular circumstances.

Internal Flight Alternative

[28]     The Panel also finds that the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution throughout Turkey, especially given the objective documentary evidence that the Turkish authorities operates similarly throughout Turkey.

[29]     Therefore the Panel finds that there is no viable internal flight alternative available to the claimant.

Conclusion

[30]     The Panel finds that the claimant has established that he will face a serious possibility of persecution upon his return to Turkey on the Convention ground of his political opinion.

[31]     And based on the foregoing analysis, the Panel has determined that the claimant is a Convention refugee as per section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and therefore accepts his claim.

– – – DECISION CONCLUDED – – –

Categories
All Countries Turkey

2019 RLLR 32

Citation: 2019 RLLR 32
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 19, 2019
Panel: D. McKeown
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Nasser Hashemi
Country: Turkey
RPD Number: TB9-15470
Associated RPD Number(s): TB9-15505
ATIP Number: A-2021-01124
ATIP Pages: 000183-000185


[1]       MEMBER: I have considered the testimony and other evidence in this claim, and I am now prepared to render a decision.

[2]       The Claimants are [XXX] and [XXX]. They seek refugee protection against Iran pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. For the following reasons, the Panel finds that the Claimants are Convention refugees, and this claim is accepted:

[3]       This claim is based on the following allegations:

[4]       The Claimants are citizens of Iran but have lived in Turkey on work permits since 2013. The Claimants started attending church in Turkey in December of 2017 and have continued attending church ever since that time. The Claimants arrived in Canada on [XXX] — excuse me — in [XXX] of 2018 as visitors. While they were here, they continued to develop their faith as Christians and they decided to seek protection here. They signed their Basis of Claims on June 12th, 2019.

[5]       The identities of the Claimants were established on the basis of their Iranian passports, the originals of which were seized by the Minister.

[6]       The Panel’s primary concern about this claim was the appearance on the face of the allegations that the Claimants were misrepresenting themselves as genuine Christian followers in order to gain immigration status in Canada. That possibility was suggested on the face of these facts, wherein the Claimants only sought protection in Canada in June 2019, despite having been here as Christians since [XXX] 2019. The Claimant explained that they came to Canada initially simply as tourists and had no intention to seek protection here when they initially arrived. It was not an easy decision to make to leave their country and families behind, so it was not until April 2019 that they finally decided they could never return to Iran again.

[7]       The Panel was concerned about why the Claimants were still in Canada in April 2019 if it was only their intention to come here as tourists. The Claimant explained that originally they had a round-trip return ticket to leave Canada after one month, but they extended their stay simply because they enjoyed being here. The Claimants then sought advice from immigration consultants about trying to remain in Canada on student visas.

[8]       The Panel is very concerned about this testimony. It does appear to the Panel on its face that the Claimants were not simply in Canada with the intention of visiting, but rather, that they did have the intent to immigrate. However, while the Panel is significantly concerned, the Panel cannot at this time unequivocally conclude on a balance of probabilities that immigration was their actual underlying intention. The Panel is not prepared to conclude that this concern over their delay undermines their presumption of truthfulness nor the ultimate threshold that they must meet which is a serious possibility of persecution. Despite the Panel’s concerns, in all other respects the Panel found that this claim was credible.

[9]       The Claimant spoke about his life — their life in Iran and then in Turkey. He spoke about how they became interested in Christianity and how their conversion was a slow and drawn out process, occurring over many months. The Claimant also spoke about how his education in Christianity developed so fast and so early that he was even considering becoming a pastor.

[10]     The Panel find this testimony was compelling. The Claimant was consistent, straightforward, and spontaneous, and there did not appear to be any attempt to embellish this part of the Claimant’s testimony. Where the Panel did have any other concerns, they were either reasonably explained or minimal in nature, and did not ultimately impact on the credibility of this claim. While the Panel has its concerns, therefore, on a balance of probabilities the Panel is prepared to accept the Claimants’ conversion to Christianity as genuine.

[11]     The Panel has access to credible and reliable sources in the National Documentation Package, such as the U.S. Department of State Report, which makes clear that apostasy is punishable by death in Iran. The Panel is satisfied that the Claimants fit the profile of persons at a high risk of persecution. Whereas the state is the agent of persecution, the Claimants have rebutted the presumption that state protection would be adequate and forthcoming to them. Likewise, there is no location in Iran the Claimants could go where they would not face a serious possibility of persecution. For all these reasons, the Panel finds that this claim is credible. The Claimants’ fear is well-founded. The Claimants face a serious possibility of persecution in Iran on account of their religion. The Claimants are Convention refugees, and this claim is accepted.

[12]     Just for one more point of clarity. Where this Panel has referred to the Claimant in the singular throughout this — these reasons, that refers to the male Claimant, although these reasons apply to both Claimants equally.

[13]     Thank you both very much for being here. Thank you very much, Mr. Interpreter, thank you.

[14]     INTERPRETER: You’re welcome.

[15]     MEMBER: Everyone have a good afternoon.

— HEARING ADJOURNED

Categories
All Countries Turkey

2019 RLLR 30

Citation: 2019 RLLR 30
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: October 28, 2019
Panel: Zahra Kaderali
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Brian Ibrahim Cintosun
Country: Turkey
RPD Number: TB9-06422
ATIP Number: A-2021-01124
ATIP Pages: 000175-000178


[1]       MEMBER: I’ve considered your testimony and the other evidence in the case and I’m ready to render my decision orally.

[2]       The claimant, [XXX], claims refugee protection pursuant to s. 96 ands. 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Allegations

[3]       The claimant fears return to Turkey on the grounds of his involvement with the Hizmet or Gulen Movement. He indicates that his family, including his mother and father, are Hizmet members and that his brother and nephew have been granted protection in Canada.

[4]       The claimant indicates that after the coup attempt took place in July 2016, Hizmet media was closed, Hizmet schools were closed and Hizmet-affiliated business were seized. He indicates that he and his family were concerned, as people affiliated with the Hizmet Movement were being arrested for being members of the FETO terrorist organisation.

[5]       The claimant alleges that at the end of December 2018, he was advised by a lawyer that his name was being mentioned in a Hizmet case by the authorities, and the claimant made an application for a US visa and departed Turkey for the United States on the [XXX] 2019, and travelled to Canada on the [XXX] 2019.

Determination

[6]       The panel finds the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to s. 96 of the IRPA.

[7]       Should the claimant return to Turkey, the panel finds he has established a serious possibility that he would be persecuted on the ground of his perceived or imputed political opinion.

Analysis

Identity

[8]       The claimant’s personal and national identity- of Turkey has been established through a copy of his passport, found in Exhibit 1.

[9]       I am satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant is who he says he is and is a citizen of Turkey.

[10]     The panel notes that while the claimant’s parents were born in Bulgaria, they do not hold citizenship in Bulgaria.

[11]     The panel further notes that the claimant provided an excerpt from his father’s passport, which includes a visa for Bulgaria, and has further reviewed Item 3.1 of the National Documentation Package for Bulgaria.

[12]     The panel is satisfied that Bulgaria is not a country of reference in these particular circumstances.

Credibility

[13]     The panel found the claimant to be a credible witness, who provided detailed testimony consistent with his BoC narrative and forms.

[14]     While the panel has concerns with the claimant’s failure to claim for protection in the United States, the test is forward-looking, and the panel finds a serious possibility of persecution, should the claimant return to Turkey.

[15]     The claimant explained in detail his involvement with the Hizmet Movement, his family’s history with the movement and the basic principles of the movement as examples.

[16]     Several corroborative documents are found in Exhibits 6 and 8, including, but not limited to: the investigation letter from the Office of the Prosecutor, dated 25th December 2018, in regards to the claimant; and the Notice of Decision and Reasons for the claims for protection in Canada for both his brother, who was here today but did not testify, and his nephew, both of whom were granted protection; the hearing record for the claimant’s fellow shareholder in his coffee business, who was sentenced to six years and three months of imprisonment for what the claimant indicates was his involvement in the Hizmet Movement.

[17]     While the claimant did not provide the original documents to the panel today, the claimant was credible and explained that these documents were sent via the application WhatsApp and via e­ mail through his brother and his nephew and through himself. Counsel was able to show the panel on his e-mail some of the documents sent to his e-mail by the claimant’s nephew, [XXX] (ph.).

[18]     Counsel also indicated that the claimant’s brother was available this morning to testify. As the claimant indicated, he had assisted the claimant in e-mailing some of the documents. The panel accepts the claimant’s allegations as credible and his brother [XXX] (ph.) was not called upon to testify.

[19]     As indicated in Item 4.6 of the National Document Package for Turkey, Turkish authorities blame the failed coup attempt in July 2016 on Gulen and the Turkish government has characterised the Gulen Movement as a terrorist organisation.”

[20]     As indicated in Item 2.1 of the NDP for Turkey, the government engaged in a worldwide effort to apprehend suspected members of FETO, a term the government applied to followers of Fetullah Gulen, also known as members of the Gulen Movement.”

[21]     Item I.7 indicates that,

“Following the coup attempt, there was a large number of arrests, detentions and dismissals from jobs, as the government took measures against those suspected of involvement in the Gulenist Movement.”

[22]     Item 2.1 further indicates that the authorities used anti-terror laws broadly against alleged Gulen Movement members, resulting in the detention of the member.

[23]     The claimant in these particular circumstances indicates he has come to the attention of the Turkish authorities, as indicated by the documentation found in Exhibit 8 from the Office of the Prosecutor.

[24]     The panel finds an objective and subjective basis to the claimant’s fears on a balance of probability.

State Protection

[25]     I find that State protection would not be reasonably forthcoming since the authorities themselves are the agents of persecution.

Internal Flight Alternative

[26]     Given that the State is the agent of persecution, the panel finds no internal flight alternative in your particular circumstances. There is a serious possibility of persecution throughout the country.

Conclusion

[27]     The panel concludes that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to s. 96 of the IRPA and accepts his claim.

DECISION CONCLUDED

Categories
All Countries Turkey

2019 RLLR 25

Citation: 2019 RLLR 25
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 16, 2019
Panel: Jiyoung Kim
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Cemal Acikgoz
Country: Turkey
RPD Number: TB8-29430
ATIP Number: A-2021-01124
ATIP Pages: 000156-000158


DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: You’re claiming to be a citizen of Turkey, and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to Section 96 and 97 Subsection of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I find that you are a Convention refugee for the following reason.

[2]       For making this decision and in formulating questions for the hearing, I considered Chairperson’s Guideline 9, with regarding to proceedings before the Immigration and Refugee Board involving claims of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression.

[3]       You allege the following. That you are a citizen of Turkey, and that if you were to return, you will face persecution as a member in a particular social group, which is your sexual orientation. You also allege that your work, that criticized the conservative society in Turkey, led you to be targeted by the police in addition to your sexual orientation. In addition, you alleged that you will be considered as a draft dodger by the Turkish authorities since the extension to the deferral from the mandatory service ended. You allege that there is no state protection for you or an internal flight alternative.

[4]       Your personal identity as a citizen of Turkey has been established by your oral testimony and the supporting documents, which is your passports. I find that on a balance of probabilities that identity and country of reference have been established.

[5]       I find that there is a link between what you fear and one of the five Convention grounds, specifically particular social group, namely your sexual orientation. Therefore, I assessed your claim under Section 96.

[6]       In terms of your general credibility, I have found you to be a credible witness and I therefore believe what you have alleged in your oral testimony and in your Basis of Claim form. In support of your claim you provided documents for your claim, including the letters from your mother, friends, medical report and photographs. Your oral testimony was straightforward and was largely in keeping with your Basis of Claim form and there were no significant inconsistencies or omissions that went to the heart of the claim. I therefore find the following to be credible. That you are a bisexual man facing persecution in Turkey due to your sexual orientation.

[7]       Your o-, oral testimony today included details regarding your initial revelation that you are also attr-, attracted to person of the same gender as well as person of the opposite gender. You also provided details regarding your same-sex relationships in Turkey and the violence you faced from the society as well as from the police that led you to believe that you were targeted by the state authorities. You also provided details about your activities in Turkey such as attending the pride parade, which led to your detainment by the police, and attending social events hosted by the LGBTQ+ focus groups in Turkey. You also provided documents in support of your testimony that you are a bisexual man, those documents include letters of support from your friends, your parents, photographs and the membership statement from the 519 Organization. Your testimony and the supporting documentation all established that you are a bisexual man.

[8]       The objective documentation supports your allegation that individuals in your circumstance face human rights abuse for LGBT person, and that although there’s no law that criminalize LGBTQ+ communities, the provisions of law on offences against public morality, protection of family, and unnatural sexual behaviour are used as a basis for abuse according to NDP dated March 29, 2019 Item 2.1. Bans on LGBTQ+ events by the State officials in recent years as demonstrated in NDP Item 2.7, show that the LGBTQ+ communities and their members face discrimination and violence based on their sexual orientation and gender identity. Information on both the NDP and the country condition package submitted by the counsel Exhibit 4, all corroborate the heightened level of violence against the LGBTQ+ communities and their rights by the State authorities. I therefore find that you have a well-founded fear of persecution.

[9]       I find that adequate state protection will not be available to you if you were to seek it in Turkey. You testified that you never sought prate-, state protection because the State will be unwilling to protect you, and because the police were the ones who were targeting you. And this is corroborated by the objective documentary evidence dat-, it indicates that NDP Item 1.14, that the government is unable or unwilling to protect vulnerable LGBTQ+ people from viol-, violence and discrimination. Impunity for crimes against LGBTQ+ individuals continue to be reported as a problem. And that according to NDP 2.1, there is no protection based on sexual orientation or gender identity on the criminal code. In light of the objective country documentation, I find that the claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection. Based on your personal circumstances as well as the objective country documentation, I find that the adequate state protection will not be available to you, as the state will be unwilling and unable to protect you in Turkey.

[10]       As you have rebutted the presumption of state protection and since the country documentation indicates that the situation for individuals in circumstances such as yours is the same throughout the country, I find that you do not have a viable internal flight alternative.

[11]     Based on the totality of evidence, I find that you have established that there is a serious possibility of persecution on the Convention grounds, namely your membership in a particular social group as a bisexual person. I therefore find that you are a Convention refugee and I accept your claim.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Categories
All Countries Turkey

2019 RLLR 21

Citation: 2019 RLLR 21
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 26, 2019
Panel: Dorothy E. Fox
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Aleksandr Radin
Country: Turkey
RPD Number: TB8-23829
ATIP Number: A-2021-01124
ATIP Pages: 000141-000144


DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: This is the decision in the claim for refugee protection made by [XXX] herein after the claimant, pursuant to Section 97 and 97-, 96, sorry, and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[2]       She alleges she cannot return to Turkey, her country of citizenship where she’ll be persecuted because of her sexual orientation. The Panel has considered your testimony and other evidence in the case and is ready to render its decision orally.

[3]       The Panel finds the claimant to be a Convention refugee as she has established a well-founded fear of persecution in Turkey based on the Convention ground. Having membership in a particular social group, namely a lesbian. Panel considered Chairperson’s Guideline 9 in relation to proceedings before the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada involving sexual orientation and gender identity and expression. In rendering its decision, the Panel has concern for the particular challenges that the LBGT individuals from Turkey may face in presenting their case. Since this case involves allegations of gender related violence, the Panel considers Chairperson’s Guideline 4, Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender Related Persecution. These Chairperson’s Guidelines assist in assessing the key evidentiary elements in determining to what extent women making a gender related claim of fear of persecution may successfully rely on any convention ground and under what circumstances gender violence constitutes persecution.

[4]       The claimant’s allegation are set in her Basis of Claim Form, marked as Exhibit 2 on the consolidated list of documents in this matter. The claimant’s fears being seriously harmed and or o-,ostracized by her family members and fears being seriously harmed or killed by members of the Turkish community or her father on account of her sexual orientation. The claimant has-, was raised in a conservative and religious-, conservatively religious Turkish family. In high school she realized that she was attracted to girls, however, she was never able to talk about it with students or her parents or express any feelings about this with her brother as well. In her first year of university, the claimant met and became friends with [XXX], this relationship developed into a sexually intimate relationship while they were rooming together. Although they were partners for over seven years, the claimant had to hide their relationship from her family and society because of Turkey’s conservative culture.

[5]       In [XXX] of 2-, 2018, the claimant traveled to Canada to study. Two weeks after arrival in Canada, she met and became sexually intimate with a-, a lady named [XXX]. On [XXX] the claimant disclosed this to [XXX], that she had this relationship with [XXX], however, [XXX] did not take this news very well and threatened revenge. The next day, the claimant received a phone call from her father during which he threatened her life for dishonouring and shaming the fa-, family after [XXX] had reaz-, revealed families, sorry, a photo to her family with respect to intimate pictures. The claimant then decided to claim refugee status in August of 2018.

[6]       The Panel is satisfied with the claimant’s personal identity and status as a citizen of Turkey on a balance of probabilities based on a certified copy of her passport included in the documents marked as Exhibit 1 on the consolidated list of documents in this matter. The determinative issue in this claim is credibility. I find the claim to-, to be a credible witness on a balance of probabilities. She testified in a very straight forward, very candid manner and credible manner without embellishment. Her oral testimony was consistent with her Basis of Claim and tes-, and the documentary evidence in support of her allegations. Most notably, a letter from her brother Segan, e-mails with respect to her father listing her as a missing person, photographs of the claimant playing basketball and other sports, photographs of the claimant’s mother in traditional headdress, photographs, a plethora of photographs of her former girlfriend [XXX], 519 documents in-, indicating that she has attended the community centre and on 519 Church Street, a letter from her present girlfriend, [XXX], [XXX], who was unable attend today because of an accident she had the day before and the-, there was a document indicating that she had received medication which we didn’t enter into as an Exhibit but I will make note of that, that I had seen the prescription for pain killers, also a bachelors degree from university and photographs of the claimant attending pride festivities, a call history with her father which-, with translation, various other childhood pictures and photographs with [XXX] as well and additional photographs confirming sexual orientation and her activities in the LGBT community, messages from dating apps and-, and a letter from her friend [XXX], I guess, I pronounced that again, get worse the second time, okay.

[7]       While the Panel finds that this plethora of documentation and documentary evidence is not demonstrative of sexual orientation on its own, it does corroborate the claimant’s alleged sexual orientation. Moreover, given that there were no major credibility issues, the Panel finds that these documents are relevant to corroborative ev-, evidence. The Panel ful- is, the Panel is mindful that the standard of proof as to the claimant’s sexual orientation is a balance of probabilities. On the bases of the claimant’s consistent testimony regarding her same sex partners and events that led to her claiming in Canada, the photos of her same sex partners and supporting letters from her friend and brother, the Panel finds that based on factors unique to this claimant’s case that she has established on a balance of probabilities that she is a lesbian. The Panel finds there is clear and convincing evidence on the record to rebut the presumption of state protection. This information is contained in documents in the current National Documentation Package for Turkey compiled by the Board’s research directorate and marked as Exhibit 3 on the consolidated list of documents in this matter.

[8]       In recent years, there has been an increase in aggressive behaviour and threats to the LGBT community by non-state actors including family, but especially from conservative religious groups. Documentary evidence reported in the country reports on human rights practices for 2018 from the United States Department of State and the bureau of democracy of Human Rights and Labour reports the following. While the law does not explicitly criminalize LGBT status or conduct, provisions of the law concerning offences against public morality, protection of the family and unnatural sexual behaviour sometimes served as a basis for abuse by police and discrimination by employers. Numerous LGBT organizations reported a heightened sense of vulnerability under the state of emergency as well as growing restrictions on their freedom of speech, assembly and association. During the year, the Ankara’s Governor’s office continued its indef-, indefinite ban in 2017 on all public GB-, LGBT events in the province assigning public safety concerns.

[9]       The criminal code does not include specific protections based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The laws allow for up to three years in prison for hate speech or injurious acts related to language, for race, nationality, colour, gender, disability, political opinion, philosophical beliefs, religion or sectarian differences but human rights groups criticize the law’s failure to include protections based on gender identity. As noted, it was sometimes used to restrict freedom of speech rather than to protect my-, minorities. Judges routinely apply the law to reduce the sentences of persons who killed LGBT individuals. Courts of Appeal upheld these verdicts based in part on the immoral nature of the victim. The report also indicates that the LGBT persons could not get a-, access to healthcare. The UK Home Report in item 1.14 and Section 224 also states that, while there’s some protection in the law and avenues of rej-, redress and practice operationally, these resources are not effective.

[10]     Section 244 states in particular that government does not effectively protect vulnerable LGBT persons from social abuse, discrimination or incidents of violence. Impunity for crimes against LGBT individuals continues to be reported as a problem and in practice, law enforcement officials and judiciary have taken a lenient attitude towards crimes committed against the LGBT persons. According to paragraphs 2,5,4 of this report, internal relocation will not be an option if it depends on the persons concealing their sexual orientation and or gender identity, in the proposed new location for fear of persecution. When taking all this evidence together the Panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant would face a serious possibility of persecution if she was return to Turkey for her membership in a particular social group as a lesbian.

[11]     With respect to internal flight alternative, while states are presumed to be capable of protecting nationals, it is open for the claimant to rebut the presumption of protection with clear and convincing evidence that adequate protection would not reasonably be forthcoming. In this claim, the state is an agent of persecution and the objective evidence establishes that Turkey does not have effective mechanisms to protect citizens who are abused by police or security forces. In fact, on the contrary, the evidence indicates that police sometimes operate with impunity in Turkey.

[12]     The previous cited DOS report, items-, at item 2.1 states that in its executive summary, that Turkey suffers from official impunity and a weak administration of justice. Later in the same report it cites some instances of the disproportionate use of force by police against the LGBT community and police intimidation and harassment of the community. Having considered the claimant’s testimony and the documentary evidence about the role and conduct of the police in Turkey, the Panel finds that the claimant has rebutted the presumption of adequate state protection as the state is the agent of persecution and still remains in control of its territory. The Panel further finds there is no reasonable internal flight alternative within Turkey for the claimant in her circumstances. The claimant testified that she should not live-, that she could not live openly as a lesbian woman alone in any place in Turkey without experiencing a fear of harm at the hands of either her family and also persuasive, in that she would also face societal discrimination.

[13]     In this case the Panel agrees, the situation of homophobia and insufficient state protection exists across the country, accordingly the Panel also finds, on a balance of probabilities, that there is no safe or reasonable internal flight alternative for the claimant in Turkey. The Panel finds that there is a serious possibility that the claimant would be persecuted upon her return to Turkey, based on her sexual orientation. Hence, her claim is accepted. [XXX] is recognized as a Convention Refugee pursuant to Section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Categories
All Countries Turkey

2019 RLLR 130

Citation: 2019 RLLR 130
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: August 22, 2019
Panel: L. Hartslief
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Daniel Radin
Country: Turkey
RPD Number: TB8-17140
Associated RPD Number(s): TB8-17285
ATIP Number: A-2021-00256
ATIP Pages: 000072-000076


DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: I’ve had an opportunity to review the evidence before me and I have decided to give an oral decision today. You will receive an unedited transcript of this oral decision in the mail in approximately three weeks and your counsel will also receive a copy and he can answer any related questions you may have at that time.

[2]       This is the decision for [XXX], claim number TB8-17140. You are claiming to be a citizen of Turkey and you are claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[3]       I find that you are a Convention refugee for the reason that you have established, there is a serious possibility of persecution in Turkey based on your membership in a particular social group namely your sexual orientation as a gay man.

[4]       By way of background, you allege the following:

[5]       You realised that you were attracted to men when you were in your late teens although you hid your sexual orientation from your family. You experienced various incidents of negative treatment from members of society and Turkish authorities because of your sexual orientation.

[6]       This negative treatment included experiencing a police raid at a gay bar and getting fired from your job once the police divulged to your boss that you are a gay.

[7]       You also suffered multiple sexual assaults from a senior officer in the military exclusively because he discovered your sexual orientation.

[8]       While engaging in a sexual relationship in Turkey your partner’s brother discovered you together and stabbed your partner.

[9]       After you experienced this violent incident at the hands of your partner’s brother, the prosecutor’s office in Turkey issued a summons requiring you to provide information about the incident.

[10]     When you failed to appear as requested, these same Turkish authorities informed your parents that you are gay. After discovering your sexual orientation, your father who has a violent past verbally threatened your life during a phone conversation and told you never to return to Turkey.

[11]     You say that if you return to Turkey, you will be in danger from your father, your uncle, and the individual who stabbed your former partner. You also say the following:

[12]     The police raid mentioned above, the Turkish police have registered you in their system as a gay man and you will be under constant threat from the Turkish authorities if you return to Turkey.

[13]     Your personal identity as a citizen of Turkey has been established by your testimony and the supporting documents including a copy of your Turkish ID card, your family registry and your passport.

[14]     I therefore find on a balance of probabilities that identity and country of reference have been established for you.

[15]     I find that there is a link between what you fear and one of the five Convention grounds, specifically your membership in a particular social group namely your sexual orientation. This claim is therefore assessed under Section 96 of the Act.

[16]     I have considered all of the documentation before me as well as your testimony and I find that the evidence supports your allegations that there is a serious possibility of persecution by the State if you return to Turkey.

[17]     I am satisfied as to your profile as a gay man. Your Basis of Claim Form included significant details regarding your attraction to men and the ongoing discrimination and ill-treatment you suffered in Turkey because of this.

[18]     At the hearing, you provided detailed testimony regarding your same-sex relationships and the various ways you hid your sexual orientation while living in Turkey.

[19]     You also provided numerous documents in support of your testimony including multiple documents from the 519 organisation, letters of support from a previous partner and your aunt as well as your social media profiles from apps used by the gay community.

[20]     Your testimony on the supporting documentation all established that you are a gay man. You claim that if you return to Turkey you will be killed by your father, your uncle or ex-partner’s brother [XXX](ph).

[21]     You explained that your father has a long history of violence and he has had various brushes with the police. You explained that your uncle is a deeply religious man who thinks he would be rewarded in heaven if he had you killed.

[22]     Finally, your testimony and the documentary evidence confirms that [XXX] (ph) stabbed his own brother after finding you together and for all of these reasons I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities, there is a serious possibility of persecution at the hands of any of these three men if you return to Turkey.

[23]     I have also considered the fact that you will be flagged by the Turkish authorities for failing to obey the summons sent out for you and once you are detained Turkish authorities will likely see in their system that you are a gay man.

[24]     These factors put you at additional risk and for these reasons I find that there is a serious possibility of persecution in your home country.

[25]     However, regardless of any potential harm at the hands of these three individuals, the objective evidence does confirm your allegation that you face a serious possibility of persecution in Turkey as a whole as a gay man should you return.

[26]     I looked at a number of documents in the National Documentation Package dated March 29th of this year, in particular <inaudible> Article 1.17 confirms that Human Rights Organisations have found the police will use legal provisions relating to offenses against public morality, protection of the family and unnatural sexual behaviour to justify harassment of the LGBTQ community.

[27]     Article 6.1 confirms that the Pride Parade has been made illegal. There is widespread discrimination and safety concerns for the gay community across Turkey.

[28]     In fact, ever since pride events were made illegal across Turkey several years ago, the situation for the LGBTQ community appears to be steadily deteriorating in that country.

[29]     The Department of State article 2.1 contains significant information regarding the ongoing violence, discrimination and threats made against the LGBTQ community.

[30]     Crimes against members of the community are often under-reported and when suspects are convicted to these crimes, their sentences are reduced because of the behaviour of the victim.

[31]     The objective evidence is consistent with your allegation that you face a serious possibility of persecution as a gay man should you return to Turkey.

[32]     In Turkey, the objective evidence confirms that State protection is ineffective because it is unwilling to protect members of the LGBTQ community.

[33]     In particular, the Home Office Report at Article 1.14 Section 2.2.4 as well as Sections 2.4.4 states in particular the government does not effectively protect vulnerable LGBTQ persons from social abuse, discrimination or incidence of violence.

[34]     Impunity for crimes against LGBTQ individuals continues to be reported as a problem and in practice law enforcement officials and the judiciary have taken a lenient attitude towards crimes committed against LGBTQ persons.

[35]     For these reasons, I am satisfied that you have rebutted the presumption of State protection in Turkey.

[36]     Furthermore, as you have rebutted the presumption of State protection and based on the Country conditions already outlined, I am satisfied that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Turkey and therefore there is no viable internal flight alternative.

[37]     Based on the foregoing analysis, I find that you have established there is a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground namely your membership in a particular social group as a gay man.

[38]     I therefore find that you are a Convention refugee and I accept your claim.

[38]     COUNSEL: Thank you Ms. Madam Member.

[39]     MEMBER: Thank you very much.

[40]     COUNSEL: Thank you Mr. Interpreter.

[41]     MEMBER: Have a wonderful afternoon.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Categories
All Countries Turkey

2019 RLLR 11

Citation: 2019 RLLR 11
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: July 23, 2019
Panel: L. Hartslief
Counsel for the claimant(s): Steven Beiles
Country: Turkey
RPD Number: TB7-25589
Associated RPD Numbers: TB7-25593
ATIP Number: A-2020-01124
ATIP Pages: 000089-000092


[1]       MEMBER: This is the decision for [XXX] and [XXX], file number TB7-25589. You are both claiming to be citizens of Turkey, and you are claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

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

[3]       I find that you are both convention refugees for the reason that you have established there is a serious possibility of persecution in Turkey based on your political opinion as HDP supporters. By way of background you allege the following.

[4]       Since 2014 you both have been actively supporting the HDP Party in Turkey, which is a leftist party focused on social justice as it relates to the Kurdish people and other minorities. The principal claimant has been arrested and detained for his political activities, and you both experienced a police raid on your home as a result of your political beliefs and involvement with the HDP.

[5]       You say that if you return to Turkey you will be targeted by the police and security forces and arbitrarily arrested and detained for your political views.

[6]       Your personal identities as citizens of Turkey has been established by your testimony and the supporting documents, including your passports, your national identity cards and your family registry documents.

[7]       I therefore find on a balance of probabilities that identity and country of reference have been established for both of you.

[8]       I find that there is a link between what you fear and one of the five Convention grounds; specifically, your leftist political opinion as HDP supporters. This claim is therefore assessed under Section 96 of The Act.

[9]       I have considered all of the documentation before me, as well as your testimony, and I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that you would face a serious possibility of persecution should you return to Turkey.

[10]     In terms of your general credibility, I found you both to be credible witnesses. You both described your involvement with the HDP Party, including your election campaign activities distributing brochures, talking to members of the public, and garnering support for your local candidate.

[11]     The principal claimant accurately described the party’s platform, and you explained in detail what motivated you to support the party both with your volunteer activities and your monetary donations.

[12]     You both described in detail the circumstances of the police raid on your home just prior to leaving Turkey. The principal claimant described the various times he has been questioned, threatened and detained by the police in retaliation for his activities as an HDP supporter.

[13]     You presented your descriptions in a clear and consistent manner, and I have no reason to doubt your testimony.

[14]     Finally, you provided documentary evidence in support of your testimony, including a supporting letter from the HDP Party in Turkey; a letter from the Alevi Cultural Association in Canada; and pictures confirming your presence at various anti-government gatherings of Kurdish business people.

[15]     Throughout the hearing you both presented your testimony in a clear and consistent manner, and you both responded spontaneously to questioning. Your testimony was straightforward and was in keeping with your basis of claim form.

[16]     I therefore find that your subjective fear is established by your credible testimony, and I believe what you have alleged on a balance of probabilities.

[17]     The objective evidence regarding the current situation in Turkey supports your position that you will face a serious possibility of persecution should you return to Turkey. I looked at a number of documents in the National Documentation Package dated March 29th of this year and the objective evidence is consistent with your allegation that members of the HDP Party experience persecution at the hands of the government.

[18]     In particular, I considered Item 1.6 from the U.K. Home Office which confirms the arrest and detention of various high level HDP members. In addition, Item 1.12 from the U.K. Home Office confirms that activists and other actors no in line with the government views may be targeted by the authorities.

[19]     Finally, the defat item at 1.17 from Australia confirms that the restrictions on the ability of Turkish citizens to express dissent to the government, individually or collectively, has increased, particularly under the state of emergency.

[20]     In its 2018 Freedom in the World Report, Freedom House ranked Turkey as not free.

[21]     The objective evidence supports your allegations that you will continue to be targeted by the Turkish government as active HDP supporters and individuals with perceived anti-government opinions.

[22]     As the state is the agent of persecution in your situation, I am satisfied that you have rebutted the presumption of state protection because you cannot access or otherwise expect to receive adequate state protection throughout Turkey.

[23]     Furthermore, as the state is the agent of persecution, I am satisfied that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Turkey, and therefore there is no viable internal flight alternative.

[24]     Based on the foregoing analysis I find that you have established there is a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground; namely your political opinion as HDP supporters.

[25]     Therefore, I find that you are convention refugees, and I accept your claims.