Categories
All Countries Venezuela

2019 RLLR 115

Citation: 2019 RLLR 115
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 7, 2019
Panel: Jennifer Ellis
Country: Venezuela
RPD Number: VB8-02306
ATIP Number: A-2020-01459
ATIP Pages: 000212-000220


This unedited transcript constitutes the member’s written reasons for decision.

— PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED

[1]       PRESIDING MEMBER: This is a decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board in the joined claims of a family from Venezuela. The principal claimant is [XXX]. The associated claimants are [XXX], spouse of the principal claimant, and [XXX], minor child of the principal claimant. This transcript constitutes the Member’s written reasons for decision, as the decision was not rendered orally at a hearing.

[2]       The hearing was held via videoconference on December 11, 2018. The claimants, their counsel, and the interpreter were all in Calgary, while I presided over the hearing from Vancouver. At the start of the hearing the principal claimant was designated as the representative for the minor claimant. The claimants are citizens of Venezuela and are seeking refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[3]       Allegations: The detailed allegations of the claimants are set out in their respective basis of claim forms and can be summarized as follows.

[4]       The principal claimant is a citizen of Venezuela and no other country. The associated claimants are citizens of both Venezuela and Italy.  The principal claimant fears returning to Venezuela because of his opposition to the current regime and his status as a member of an opposition party, namely, the Alianza Bravo Pueblo. The associated claimants fear returning to Venezuela as the family members of the principal claimant.

[5]       Determination: I find that the principal claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to Section 96 of the Act on the grounds of his political opinion. I find that the two associated claimants [XXX] and [XXX] are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

[6]       Analysis: Identity: The identity of the principal claimant as a citizen of Venezuela is established by his testimony and the identification documents on file, namely, his valid Venezuelan passport.  The identity of the minor claimant as a citizen of both Venezuela and Italy is established by the documents on file, namely, his valid Venezuelan and Italian passport. The same is true for the adult associated claimant; I find that her identity is established as a citizen of both Venezuela and Italy based on the documents on file, namely, her valid Venezuelan and Italian passports.

[7]       Exclusion: It’s the claimant’s evidence that he resided with his wife and son in Chile from January 2017 to October 2017 and that they all had valid status while there. Nevertheless, I do not find that exclusion pursuant to Article 1E of the UN Convention on the Status of Refugees is engaged. The claimant testified that they only ever had temporary status in Chile and their application for permanent status was rejected in October 2017. I have found the claimant’s evidence on this point to be both straightforward and spontaneous. While they do not have any documentary evidence confirming the rejection of this application, I also have no reason to disbelieve the claimant’s testimony on this point. As such, I accept that at the time the claimants came to Canada in [XXX] 2018 they no longer had any status in Chile.

[8]       Countries of reference: In order for a claim for refugee protection to be successful the Act requires that the claimant must establish a claim against each of their countries of nationality.

[9]       Principal claimant; although there is no evidence before me that the principal claimant is an Italian citizen, I must nevertheless determine whether Italy is a country of reference with respect to his claim.

[10]     Indeed, the term “countries of nationality” in Section 96(a) of the Act includes potential countries of nationality. Where citizenship in another country is available the claimant is expected to make attempts to acquire it and will be denied refugee status if it is shown that it is within his or her power to acquire that other citizenship.  Consequently, a person who is able to obtain citizenship in another country by complying with mere formalities is not entitled to avail him or herself of protection in Canada.

[11]     The issue of the right to citizenship was explored by the Federal Court of Appeal in Williams v. Canada 2005 FCA 126. In this decision the Court of Appeal found that refugee protection will be denied where the evidence shows at the time of the hearing that is within control of the claimant to acquire the citizenship of a particular country with respect to which the claimant has no well-founded fear of persecution. The Court of Appeal explained that the appropriate test is whether it is in the control of the person concerned to acquire the citizenship of a country with respect to which he has no well­ founded fear of persecution, if yes the claim will be denied. In other words, I must consider whether it is in the claimant’s control to acquire Italian citizenship.

[12]     I have found a number of documents contained in the national documentation package for Italy to be of great assistance to this issue. For example, Item 3.2 of the national documentation package is a document from the United States Library of Congress entitled “Citizenship Pathways and Border Protection Italy” and Item 3.4 is a European University Institute document from 2013 which also directly addresses citizenship law in Italy. According to these two documents there are only four ways in which Italian citizenship is automatically acquired, the first is by dissent from an Italian citizen, by birth in the Italian territory, by judicial recognition, affiliation, by an Italian citizen while the child is a minor, and through adoption. In other words, individuals are not able to acquire Italian citizenship automatically simply by nature of having an Italian citizen spouse.

[13]     Indeed, the document at 3.2 of the national documentation package goes on to explain that the foreign spouse of an Italian citizen may acquire Italian citizenship subject to a number of requirements, including the somewhat vague absence of impediments concerning the security of the republic. In other words, there is some discretion at the hands of Italian authorities.

[14]     As is explained in the Federal Court’s decision in Khan v. Canada 2008 FC 583, if the circumstances are not within a claimant’s control and the authorities are not compelled to grant citizenship the Board should not consider how the authorities might exercise their discretion.

[15]     Additionally, I note that the Federal Court has also held that a claimant is not required to demonstrate that it was more likely than not if they applied that they would be granted citizenship. See, for example, Hua Ma v. Canada 2009 FC 779.

[16]     Based on the evidence before me, I find that Italy is not a country of reference with respect to the principal claimant. As such, I will only be considering his claim against Venezuela.

[17]     Associated claimants: As citizens of Italy and Venezuela the associated claimants must establish a claim against both of those countries of nationality in order to obtain refugee protection. Neither of the associated claimants advanced a claim against Italy. Nonetheless, I have examined all of the evidence before me to determine whether or not the associated claimants satisfy the requirements under Section 96 or 97(1) of the Act as against Italy and I conclude they do not. Accordingly, it is unnecessary to examine the risk they face in Venezuela and their claims for refugee protection must be rejected.

[18]     For the remainder of these reasons I turn to the claim of the principal claimant alone.

[19]     Credibility: Pursuant to the Moldonado principle it is presumed that sworn testimony is true unless there is sufficient reason to doubt its trustworthiness. I have found the claimants to be credible witnesses and I believe what they have alleged. The adult claimants’ testified in a straightforward manner and did not exaggerate in any way. They were clear when they did not know the answer to my questions and appropriately asked for clarification when necessary. There were no relevant inconsistencies in their testimony or contradictions between their testimony and the other evidence before me.

[20]     During the hearing the principal claimant was asked a number of questions about his membership with the Alianza Bravo Pueblo, the ABP. He explained that he became a member of the party because he identified with the party’s founder and leader Antonio Ledezma. He explained that the ABP was a new group founded in 2000 that has fought for human rights and democracy in Venezuela since its inception.

[21]     The IRB document found at Item 4.10 of the national documentation package, namely, VEN104851, confirms that the Alianza Bravo Pueblo is a political party in Venezuela that seeks to improve public governance through democratic processes and is focussed on developing social justice, freedom, peace, solidarity, equality of opportunities and progress. This document confirms that the ABP was founded by Anthony Ledezma in 2000 and also indicates that party members have been subject to politically motivated arrests in Venezuela.

[22]     With respect to his specific role in the ABP, the principal claimant testified that he worked as a [XXX] and [XXX]. He participated in various rallies and demonstrations in opposition to the government over a period of several years. Sometimes his participation involved driving protestors to different places and bringing supplies to protests.

[23]     I note that at pages 11 and 12 of Exhibit 5 the claimant has provided a letter from the ABP confirming his membership with the party since 2005 and setting out the details of his activities as a human rights defender and activist. He’s described as a [XXX] and a [XXX] for the rescue of the democratic system. This letter is printed on party letterhead and has been affixed with the party stamp. I have no reason to believe that this document is not genuine.

[24]     In addition, the claimant has provided a number of support letters from friends and activists attesting to the claimant’s vocal opposition to the current regime in Venezuela. In my view, these letters contain what are essentially witness statements relating to a number of the attacks that the claimant experienced while engaging in political activities. These letters are all included in Exhibit 5.

[25]     For example, letters found at pages 25 through 29 and 33 through 36 confirm that the claimant was attacked and threatened by government supporters on May 18, 2016. A medical report documenting head injuries sustained by the claimant on that date can be found at pages 13 through 15 of Exhibit 5.

[26]     There’s also a support letter at pages 16 through 20 which corroborates the claimant’s evidence that he was again attacked on December 10, 2017 by a number of collectivos because of his political activities. A second medical report dated March 5, 2018 corroborates the claimant’s evidence that he again suffered head injuries from an attack at the hands of the same group of government supporters on this date.

[27]     The IRB’s document VEN106030 found at Item 4.6 of the NDP discusses the pro­ government groups known as collectivos and specifically states that they function like gangs that are integrated into the state’s policing apparatus.

[28]     Furthermore, a November 2017 report by Human Rights Watch found at Item 2.10 of the national documentation package documents the way that these groups are responsible for “violent attacks or detentions that appear to be motivated by loyalty to the government”.

[29]     In addition, I note that there is a document contained in Exhibit 5 at pages 41 through 46, the title of which has been translated as “Request for an Arrest Warrant” and which has been prepared by the national prosecutor’s office in Venezuela. This document, which is dated September 22, 2018, appears to be requesting that the authority be given for the principal claimant to be arrested on the grounds that he has been engaged in war propaganda and messages of national hate.

[30]     The claimant clarified during the hearing that this document was obtained by his sister in Venezuela with the assistance of a lawyer after state officials came looking for him at his parents’ home following his flight from the country. The claimant testified that he was unsure as to whether or not an arrest warrant was ever issued against him after this request was submitted by the prosecutor’s office but he indicated that it frightened him nonetheless.

[31]     According to a January 2018 Human Rights Watch report found at Item 2.3 of the national documentation package, while authorities repeatedly arrest and prosecute political opponents they also bring charges or threaten to bring criminal charges against protestors and even many regular Venezuelans simply for criticizing the government.

[32]     Similarly, the Freedom House report found at Item 2.4 of the NDP indicates that Venezuelans democratic institutions have deteriorated since 1999 but conditions have grown sharply worse in recent years due to a concentration of power in the executive and harsher crackdowns on the opposition.

[33]     Indeed, the U.S. Department of State human rights report found at Item 2.1 confirms that the law criminalized criticism of the government.

[34]     Based on the claimant’s own evidence and the supporting documentation he has provided, as well as the independent country evidence contained in the national documentation package, I accept that he was an active member of the Alianza Bravo Pueblo when he was residing in Venezuela; that he received a number of threats and suffered a number of physical attacks as a result of his political views, and that he continues to be opposed to the current regime in Venezuela.

[35]     Additionally, I accept that the request for an arrest warrant was a tool used by the government to intimidate the claimant to cease his political activities and that his political activism would have been protected under the Charter and would not have constituted a crime in Canada under the Criminal Code.

[36]     Accordingly, I find that the claimant is not excluded under Article l(f)(b) of the UN Convention.

[37]     Subjective fear:  While some of the claimant’s actions could be viewed as evidence of a lack of subjective fear, the claimant has provided reasonable explanations for each of them.

[38]     For example, I note that the claimant was attacked by government supporters on May 18, 2016. During this altercation the attackers advised the principal claimant that they knew who he was, where he lived, and that he had a wife and a son. He was threatened that if he continued on with his opposition work his family would be harmed.

[39]     In his basis of claim form he explained that as a consequence of this attack his wife and son travelled to Canada for a few months beginning in [XXX] 2016. During the claimant’s testimony he explained that he wanted his wife and son to leave earlier but given the challenges they had in scheduling flights because of the current crisis in Venezuela they were unable to do so.

[40]     While they awaited their departure from Venezuela, the associated claimants did not leave the family home even to purchase groceries, and the principal claimant himself kept a very low profile. It’s the claimant’s evidence that he remained hopeful that the political and humanitarian situation in Venezuela would improve and that the opposition groups would be successful in their endeavours against the current regime. Indeed, he continued fighting for what he believed in because of his deeply held beliefs regarding the importance of standing up to injustice. After several months of laying low the claimant continued his opposition activities as he felt compelled to do.

[41]     I also note that the claimants travelled to the United States for one month beginning in [XXX] 2016 and that they then went to Chile for approximately nine months after that. They did not seek refugee protection in either country and ultimately returned to Venezuela at the end of [XXX] 2017.

[42]     With respect to the United States, it was the claimant’s evidence that they sought legal advice but were advised that seeking asylum was very risky given the current administration.

[43]     While the claimants did not seek protection in Chile they did obtain temporary work permits and made an application for permanent status. This application was denied and the claimants returned to Venezuela. It’s the claimant’s evidence that they returned with the hope of finding a calmer Venezuela and indeed they had no problems until December 2017.

[44]     I note that following the attack suffered by the principal claimant in December 2017 he and the associated claimants moved to his parents’ home approximately 30 kilometres away. Again the claimant remained hopeful, if not somewhat naïve, and when things appeared to calm down he and his family moved back to the family home a month later.

[45]     It was not until March 5, 2018 that the claimant was again attacked, this time with a gun to his head in front of both his wife and his son. It was then that the claimant accepted that he was no longer safe in Venezuela and the family left as soon as they were able in [XXX] 2018.

[46]     Under the circumstances, I find that the claimants’ explanations are reasonable. The claimants had valid status in the United States while they were there and did not face an imminent risk of being removed to Venezuela. The claimants also took steps to obtain permanent status in Chile albeit through an economic route and were unsuccessful. Throughout this time, however, they remained hopeful that the situation in Venezuela would improve. Indeed, the commitment of the principal claimant to his political values and to the ABP were what drove him to continue fighting for change despite the risks. I do not find that the claimant’s failure to claim elsewhere or his return to Venezuela to be indicative of a lack of subjective fear.

[47]     In addition, given their personal circumstances and the current anti-refugee rhetoric and realities in the United States, I find that the claimants’ decision to come to Canada to find a more permanent solution by making a refugee claim to be consistent with a subjective fear.

[48]     As such, I find that the principal claimant has established his subjective fear of persecution on a balance of probabilities.

[49]     Objectively well-founded fear: I find that the country conditions, in light of the principal claimant’s personal profile, demonstrate that his fear of persecution in Venezuela is well­ founded. The principal claimant has established, on a balance of probabilities, that he holds opinions contrary to the current regime in Venezuela and that he has expressed these opinions publicly on a number of occasions. Based on the available country condition evidence, I find he does face a serious possibility of persecution in Venezuela by reason of his political opinion.

[50]     In addition to the documents I have already cited, I note that Item 1.4 of the national documentation package, which is a background and policy report prepared by the United States Congressional Research Service, indicates that Venezuela remains in a deep political crisis under the authoritarian rule of President Nicolas Maduro of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela. Despite his unpopularity, President Maduro has successfully used the courts, security forces, and electoral council to repress the opposition.

[51]     This Human Rights Watch report also documents that tens of thousands of people took to the streets in Venezuela to protest against the government controlled Supreme Court’s attempt to usurp the powers of the country’s legislative branch in April 2017. Demonstrations quickly spread throughout the country and continued for months fueled by widespread discontent with the authoritarian practices of President Nicolas Maduro and the humanitarian crisis that has devastated the country under his watch. According to the report, the government responded with widespread violence and brutality against anti­ government protestors and detainees and has denied detainees due process rights. While it was not the first crackdown on dissent under Maduro the scope and severity of their oppression in 2017 reached levels unseen in Venezuela in recent memory.

[52]     The 2017 U.S. Department of State Human Rights report found in the national documentation package as Item 2.1 explains that democratic governance and human rights deteriorated dramatically during the year as the result of a campaign of the Maduro administration to consolidate its power. Security forces and armed pro-government paramilitary groups known as collectivos, at times, use excessive force against protestors.

[53]     According to the report, credible non-governmental organizations documented indiscriminate household raids, arbitrary arrests, and the use of torture to deter protestors. The government arrested thousands of individuals and tried hundreds of civilians in military tribunals. The government routinely block signals, interfered with operations, or shutdown privately owned television, radio, and other media outlets.

[54]     In my view, the principal claimant has established that he does indeed have an objectively well-founded fear of persecution on the grounds of his political opinion.

[55]     State protection: As the state is the agent of persecution, or at least is heavily complicit in such acts of persecution, it is clear that state protection would not be reasonably forthcoming to individuals in the position of the claimants. As such, I find that there is no state protection available to the principal claimant were he to return to Venezuela.

[56]     Internal flight alternative: The independent country documentation also shows that the Venezuelan authorities have effective control of the country’s entire territory. Therefore, there is nowhere in Venezuela where the principal claimant could go without a serious possibility of persecution. He therefore has no viable internal flight alternative available to him.

[56]     Conclusion: For the foregoing reasons, I conclude that the principal claimant is a Convention refugee and I therefore accept his claim. I further conclude that the two associated claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection and I therefore reject their claims.

— DECISION CONCLUDED

(signed)           Jennifer Ellis

January 7, 2019

Categories
All Countries Venezuela

2019 RLLR 107

Citation: 2019 RLLR 107
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 7, 2019
Panel: Robert Bafaro
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Yaritza Martinez
Country: Venezuela
RPD Number: TB8-25225
Associated RPD Number(s): TB8-25277, TB8-03615
ATIP Number: A-2020-01459
ATIP Pages: 000167-000171


[1]       MEMBER: I’ve had a chance to carefully review all of the evidence before me, to carefully consider the testimony of the principal claimant, XXXX, the testimony of his daughter XXXX. I’ve had a chance to examine all of the supporting documents that have been provided as well as the country documents regarding the human rights situation in Venezuela at the present time, as reflected in the National Documentation Package on Venezuela from May 2018.

[2]       I’ve decided to accept these refugee claims and I’m now going to deliver my oral reasons from the bench.

[3]       The claimants, [XXX] and [XXX], are claiming refugee protection pursuant to s. 96 and s. 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[4]       With respect to the issue of their identities, I’m satisfied that they have established, on a balance of probabilities, that they are who they claim to be and that they are citizens of Venezuela. have in evidence before me, in Exhibit 1, certified true copies of their Venezuelan passports.

[5]       The other important issue that I have to assess in all refugee claims is the issue of credibility. I have to be satisfied that the testimony and evidence of the claimants, as it relates to the most central, most important, aspects of their refugee claims, is credible.

[6]       Now, in refugee law in Canada, there’s a presumption. The presumption is that everything that a claimant says under oath is true, unless there’s evidence, persuasive evidence, to the contrary. I find that there is no persuasive evidence to the contrary.

[7]       The narratives of the principal claimant, [XXX], and his daughter, [XXX], are very detailed. I’m not going to repeat everything that’s in their basis of claim forms. Suffice it to say that they are both alleging a fear of persecution in the country on the grounds of their political opinion, both their actual political opinion and their perceived or imputed political opinion, by virtue of the fact that they are members, active members, of an opposition party called COPEI (ph.). They are alleging that they fear persecution in the country also because they were actively involved in protesting, demonstrating and criticising the government – the Chavez government, the current government of Maduro – by attending demonstrations, protests, holding placards, distributing flyers, condemning the government, in the hopes of restoring some kind of democracy. As the principal claimant mentioned, he was providing logistical support, food, water, but he was also actively involved holding placards, distributing anti-government literature and flyers to demonstrators. The principal claimant has been political active for many, many years. His daughter, [XXX], started in – became a member of the party in 2007 and then she continued right up until 2014 and then the threats started. And the threats continued right up until the time she left the country for the very last time. So, that is a synopsis or a brief encapsulation of the key elements that form the basis for these refugee claims.

[8]       I already made some comments about credibility. And I heard testimony from the principal claimant. I heard testimony from [XXX], his daughter. And first want to make some comments about the principal claimant.

[9]       He gave his testimony in a very straightforward manner. His answers were spontaneous. They were consistent with the objective country information. They were consistent with the information provided in his basis of claim form. There were no major contradictions or inconsistencies or discrepancies between his testimony and other evidence which was before me.

[10]     Likewise, his daughter [XXX] also testified in a straightforward manner. Her answers were spontaneous. Her answers were generally consistent with the very detailed information she provided in her basis of claim form narrative and her testimony was consistent with, generally speaking, with the objective country information contained in the National Documentation Package on Venezuela.

[11]     And I wanted to make one comment about [XXX] and her testimony. There was one aspect of her testimony that I did have some difficulty with. However, I think she – however, I find that she did provide a reasonable explanation.  Initially I didn’t find it entirely – it didn’t make a lot of sense to me and it didn’t seem to be plausible that despite these continuing threats from the Venezuelan government that she would keep leaving the country and re-availing herself of the country. In other words, it didn’t sound plausible to me that someone who’s fearing persecution would leave the country of persecution, go abroad to places like Argentina, United States, Canada and not ask for protection.

[12]     However, I find that she provide a reasonable explanation. And the explanation is this. Those other times that she went out of the country, it was a kind of a temporary measure. She really had no intention at that time to claim asylum. She wanted to finish her education. And, more importantly, she didn’t really feel at that time that the threats were as serious as they became later.

[13]     Now, a threat is a threat. It’s serious. However, it wasn’t until later, when she returned from Canada and went back to Venezuela and returned to Margarita Island, that things became a lot worse. It was when she went back that she was kidnapped, she was beaten up, she was threatened with rape. And they clearly perceived her to be someone that was disloyal to the government, an opponent of the government, especially since she had actually done an internship within the government. And it’s people that work for the government especially that the government expects loyalty from them, expects them to be patriotic. And in her case, she wasn’t. She didn’t want to go along with what the government was trying to pressure her to do, which was to get this patriotic identity card under Chavez to, you know, vote for the government and support their policy. She refused to do that and, in fact, did the opposite. She continued to remain active in an opposition political party and attended protests that were denouncing the government.

[14]     So, I think when you look at it that way, it actually sounds entirely reasonable and plausible that initially she didn’t claim asylum or ask for protection in those countries, but once she was actually kidnapped and physically assaulted at gun point and then threatened with rape, that that was basically the final straw. And it’s at that point in time that she came to the realisation that this situation was really serious and that it was out of control and that things were not going to get better. And it’s precisely around that time that she left and then her parents followed her to Canada because the threats were continuing.

[15]     So, that having been said, I find in light of all of the evidence that both the principal claimant, [XXX], and his daughter [XXX] were in fact very credible witnesses.

[16]     Now, turning to the objective evidence – and the objective evidence is not in dispute. It’s we – we know what’s going on in Venezuela. The objective documents speak very clearly about what’s going on in Venezuela, that if you’re a political activist, you’re an opponent of the government, you’re criticising their policies openly at demonstrations, protests, you face serious problems, including arbitrary arrest, detention, torture, extra-judicial killings. The situation has really spiralled out of control and the Maduro government has consolidated its power, giving itself and its own – members of its own party the ultimate power over and above the power that the National Assembly once used to have.

[17]     So, I’m now going to refer to some of the objective documents that talk about the situation in Venezuela.

[18]     Item 2.3 in the National Documentation Package, which in evidence today as Exhibit 5, indicates – and it’s a report from Human Rights Watch. It indicates that brutal repression of political protest in Venezuela, the erosion of human rights, state-sponsored censorship, intimidation of critics, and – it notes that people face torture and abuse in custody and that people are discriminated against because of their criticism of the government.

[19]     Item 4.3 notes that the political prisoners have been tortured in Venezuela and the government has limited human rights, including personal freedom of integrity and freedom of expression.

[20]     Item 4.14 notes that,

“Protests have been met with outright prohibition, roadblocks … repressive policing, as well as deployment of armed civilians who have beaten and shot at demonstrators.”

[21]     The colectivos are a violent paramilitary wing of the ruling socialist party and they are responsible for much of this political persecution.

[22]     As indicated in Item 4.16, a faction of the colectivos known as the Tupamaros are also known for dealing ruthlessly with political opponents through fierce and deadly intimidation and assault by firearm, including the murder of protesters.

[23]     Based on the evidence before me, I find that the claimants face more than mere possibility of persecution in Venezuela as opponents of the Maduro régime.

[24]     I find that your claims are objectively well-founded. The totality of the country documentation supports your allegations.

[25]     On a balance of probabilities and in light of your particular circumstances, I find that there is clear and convincing evidence that the Venezuelan State would be unwilling to provide political opponents with protection. Indeed, the agent of persecution that you fear in Venezuela is the government itself. And the documentary evidence at Exhibit 5 corroborates this.

[26]     I just wanted to back up one minute and just mention that another reason why I found the claimants’ testimony to be credible is that it was supported by objective documentation. And this is found at Exhibit 9. The claimants provided supporting documents that corroborate central aspects of their refugee claim. And those are found at – beginning at page 22, it talks about the internship of the female claimant, [XXX]. There’s another document, page 24, that corroborates the fact that she had an internship with the government. We’ve got a letter, page 27, that corroborates that [XXX] was a member of the COPEI opposition political party. And likewise we have a document, at page 30, that corroborates the membership of [XXX] in the COPEI opposition party and it corroborates that – and both of these letters corroborate that both [XXX] and [XXX] were not just members, or card-carrying members; they were activists. They were actively involved in opposing the Maduro government. They were actively involved in protests against the government.

[27]     There’s also a witness statement at page 33 that provides corroboration about an incident that happened at the claimants’ home. Sorry, there’s a – let me – I stand corrected. There’s a witness statement that says that since they have left the country, there continues to be unusual activity surrounding their home and that – suspicious activities in their neighbourhood, involving people going around asking, trying to find out where the [XXX] family has gone to.

[28]     And there’s also a medical report, at page 36, which corroborates an incident in June of 2017 involving [XXX], where she sustained multiple contusions, and this was around the time that she was kidnapped, beaten brutally and threatened with rape.

[29]     So, I find that the documentary evidence is both clear and convincing and that it rebuts the presumption of State protection in your particular circumstances.

[30]     I’ve also considered whether there’s an internal flight alternative for you, as members of one family, anywhere in the country, in Venezuela. However, on the evidence before me, I find there is a serious possibility of persecution for all of you throughout the country in your particular circumstances. Again, the documentary evidence at Exhibit 5 indicates that persecution of political opponents occurs throughout the country.

[31]     For the foregoing reasons and having considered all the evidence before me, I conclude that you all face a serious possibility of persecution on the basis of your both imputed and actual political opinions, should you return to Venezuela.

[32]     According, I am accepting your refugee claims and find you to be Convention refugees pursuant to s. 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

DECISION CONCLUDED