Category: Yemen

2022 RLLR 7

Citation: 2022 RLLR 7
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 1, 2022
Panel: Kay Scorer
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Diane B. Coulthard
Country: Yemen
RPD Number: VC1-07100
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01960
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: I have considered all of the evidence in this case, and I am prepared to provide my decision orally. This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, as a citizen of Yemen who is seeking protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. In coming to this decision today, and including in the hearing, I have considered and applied the Chairperson’s guideline on woman claimants fearing gender-related persecution.

Allegations

[2] The claimant’s allegations are contained in full in her Basis of Claim form and attached narrative at Exhibit 2. Summarized only briefly, the claimant is an elderly divorced female, alleging fear of persecution in Yemen due to her Sunni religion, her perceived political opinion, and membership in a particular social group, namely, her gender as a woman.

Determination

[3] I find the claimant is a Convention refugee. I find the claimant has established a nexus to the Convention ground of membership in a particular social group, namely, her gender as a woman. Therefore, I am assessing this claim under section 96. I do note that the claimant has also alleged persecution based on her political opinion and her religion, however, I found her claim to be established on her gender alone, and have therefore only analyzed this element of her claim as a result.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[4] I find the claimant’s identity as a national of Yemen is established based on her testimony, and also a copy of her passport, which can be found in Exhibit 1.

Credibility

[5] Pursuant to the Maldonado principle, the claimant benefits from a presumption that her allegations are true. In this case, I have no reason to doubt the truthfulness of the claimant. I note that the claimant is an uneducated elderly woman. This vulnerable profile was taken into consideration when assessing her testimony, and in questioning today. Despite some obvious barriers, she did testify in a forthcoming and emotive way that I did find to be compelling. Her Basis of Claim and narrative were detailed and materially consistent with her testimony at the hearing, and the other evidence before me. I found the claimant to be a credible witness. Further, I find that the material elements of her profile, namely her profile as an elderly woman, are corroborated by the objective evidence before me, which includes a copy of her passport. I find she has established she is a national of Yemen who fears persecution in Yemen based on her gender as a woman.

Well-founded Fear and Risk of Harm

[6] For a claimant to be a convention refugee, the claimant must have a well-founded fear of persecution due to a Convention ground. In this case, I find the documentary evidence is clear and consistent that women in Yemen face significant pervasive discrimination that amounts to persecution. I note that in this particular case, the claimant’s vulnerabilities are further exacerbated by the fact that she is an elderly, uneducated, and divorced woman. She has no family in Yemen, and I find that this puts her at a serious risk of persecution based on her gender in that country. As noted by the report at the human rights watch at Tab 5.8 of the NDP which is in Exhibit 3, laws in Yemen require women to be obedient to their husbands. Women are generally not allowed to leave the house without permission of men. Honour killings by men of women and girls are treated very leniently by the courts, if they are prosecuted at all. As noted by the US DOS report at Tab 2.1, a male relative’s consent was often required before a woman could even be admitted to a hospital. The claimant has no male relatives in Yemen. Without even taking into consideration the ongoing conflict in which woman and children bear a heavier burden of negative consequences, the discrimination against woman and girls in Yemen is so significant and pervasive that a woman is not even able to reliably seek medical treatment or help without a man there to give her permission. The US DOS report notes that with the loss of many men from households in the conflict, this requirement for a man’s consent before women can get medical treatment means that many women are simply not receiving any medical treatment because hospitals are refusing to deal with women alone. According to the report at 5.7, gender-based violence in Yemen has risen to alarming proportions, with an estimated 90 percent of woman facing sexual harassment in public spaces. A report at Tab 2.7 by the UN Human Rights Council notes “in 2018 and 2019, new oppressive gender norms have proliferated, and women and girls are further marginalized”. Women are marginalized by both state and non-state actors, and the conditions have only worsened in recent years. I am satisfied based on the evidence before me and the remaining evidence in the NDP that the claimant will face a serious possibility of persecution as a woman if she were to return to Yemen. I find the claimant’s fears are well-founded and forward-facing.

State protection and Internal Flight Alternative

[7] Except in situations where the state is in complete breakdown, states are presumed to be capable of protecting their citizens. The objective evidence before me indicates that all sides to the conflict in Yemen continue to commit severe human rights abuses. Given this, along with the ongoing conflict, instability, and widespread violence, I find there is no adequate or operational state protection available to the claimant in her particular circumstances, including the circumstances of being a divorced, elderly woman without male support. I find the presumption of state protection has been rebutted.

[8] Further, I find that it is not safe nor objectively reasonable in all of the circumstances, including those particular to this claimant, to relocate anywhere in Yemen. I find the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution through Yemen on the basis of her gender and profile as an elderly divorced woman. I also find that her gender would make internal relocation entirely unreasonable, given that women in Yemen often require permission from men to even leave their house. Accordingly, I find there is no IFA available to this claimant.

CONCLUSION

[9] Based on the foregoing analysis, I find the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the Act, and I therefore accept her claim.

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———

All Countries Yemen

2021 RLLR 92

Citation: 2021 RLLR 92
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 29, 2021
Panel: Deborah Coyne
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Joshua A Blum
Country: Yemen/United States
RPD Number: TC0-07977
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01778
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: These are the reasons for decision.

Introduction

[2] These are the reasons for the decision in the claims of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the principal claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the associate claimant, who claim to be citizens of Yemen and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to s. 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[3] These are also the reasons for the claim of the minor claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, who is a citizen of the United States of America.

[4] The principal claimant was designated the representative for the minor child.

Allegations

[5] The allegations are fully set out in the Basis of Claim forms. The principal claimant alleges that he and the associate claimants are citizens of Yemen who have lived most of their lives in Saudi Arabia with precarious foreign residency status. They have lost their right to residence in Saudi Arabia and are not at risk of deportation to Yemen. They fear for their lives if they have to return to Yemen because of their imputed political opinion as perceived supporters of the Saudis who are the enemies of the Houthis in Yemen.

[6] The principal and associated claimants also have Turkish passports and identity cards. They claim, however, that the passports were improbably obtained by the principal claimant’s father through a bribe to a Turkish official. The claimants have never lived in Turkey or used the passports and have no desire to settler there.

[7] The minor claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, did not submit any evidence of make any submission with respect to his country of citizenship in the United States. The Panel finds that the designated representative instructions in this regard were clear, voluntary, and informed.

[8] So, the decision. It is a split decision. The Panel finds that the principal and the associate claimants are not Turkish citizens because their passports were obtained improperly. The Panel finds that the principal and associate claimants have established that they face a serious possibility of persecution because of their imputed political opinion if they return to Yemen and are Convention refugees pursuant to s. 96 of the IRPA.

[9] Their claims are accepted.

[10] The Panel finds that the minor claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX does not face a serious possibility of persecution or a danger of torture or a risk to his life or cruel or unusual treatment or punishment pursuant to s. 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, should he return to the United States, so his claim is denied.

Identity

[11] The Panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the principal claimant and the associate claimant are citizens of Yemen based on the copies of their Yemeni passports in Exhibit 1. The Panel finds that the principal and the associate claimants are not citizens of Turkey based on the documents in Exhibit 7. The Panel finds that the minor child, XXXX, is a citizen of the United States of America based on the copy of his US passport in Exhibit 1.

Credibility

[12] Based on the documents in the file and the testimony today, including the principal claimant’s detailed Basis of Claim narrative, the Panel finds there is no serious credibility issues. On a balance of probabilities, the Panel finds that the following allegations are true. The principal claimant was born in Yemen but moved to Saudi Arabia when his father found work there. The associate claimant was also born in Yemen. The principal claimant did his postsecondary study in Yemen and left just before the war broke out between the Saudis and Houthis. He returned to Saudi Arabia to work in the field of XXXX XXXX XXXX and married the associate claimant.

[13] Saudi Arabia increased restrictions on resident sponsorships for foreigners like the principal and associate claimants, and they began exploring potentially leaving Yemen if they ever lost their right to residence in Saudi Arabia.

[14] They obtained a US visa to go to the US to study English in 2019. The minor claimant was born in the US in XXXX 2019. They returned to Saudi Arabia, and the principal claimant became concerned of the possibility of losing his Saudi employment due to increasing Saudization of the workforce.

[15] Around this time, the principal claimant’s father applied for Turkish citizenship for them through an investor program for the principal and associate claimants. They were issued Turkish passports in September 2019, valid until September 2029. The evidence in a legal opinion from a Turkish law firm in Exhibit 7 tab 1, in the father’s letters in Exhibit 6 tab 8 and Exhibit 7 tab 2 indicate that the father obtained passports for his son and daughter-in-law, improperly. He is currently selling the properties that he bought in breach of the minimum three-year investment requirement under the Turkish immigration provisions.

[16] The claimants decided to flee to Canada, they tried a second time to obtain a Canadian TRV, but again, were refused. They then returned to the US on their US visa and immediately travelled overland to the Canadian border to claim refugee protection in XXXX 2020.

[17] The Panel accepts the reasonable the claimant’s explanation for failing to claim asylum in the US for the particular circumstances of this claim in which the Panel finds that the claim raises no credibility concerns, and the claimants always intended to claim refugee protection in Canada and transited to Canada shortly after arriving in the US.

[18] The Panel finds that the principal claimant’s evidence with respect to the fear of return to Yemen was internally consistent and plausible. There were no contradictions or omissions that go to the core of the claim. The Panel accepts the claimants are unable to return to Saudi Arabia and are at risk of deportation to Yemen. The Panel also accepts that the principal and associate claimants do not have any status in Turkey.

[19] The allegations were supported by personal documents in Exhibit 6 and 7 that the Panel finds credible. For example, Exhibit 6 includes important identity documents and a letter from the principal claimant’s father explaining the Turkish passports. Exhibit 7 includes a termination of employment letter for the principal claimant’s Saudi employer, and a legal opinion regarding the improper acquisition of Turkish passports, and updated information from the father as he terminates his investments in Turkey.

[20] The Panel accepts the evidence as establishing, on a balance of probabilities, the principal and the associate claimants’ subjective fear of persecution because of their imputed political opinion at the hands of Yemen authorities should they have to return to Yemen.

[21] So, I now want to return to the objective basis. I will just quickly deal with Saudi Arabia. According to the objective documentary evidence for Saudi Arabia in Exhibit 3.2, the NDP package Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia does not grant citizenship to people in claimant’s circumstances and does not offer permanent residence status for foreigners. I am satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, the claimants had only temporary status in Saudi Arabia as long as the claimant was employed or his father included the claimant as part of his sponsorship arrangements.

[22] Turning to Yemen, the objective documentary evidence indicates that Yemeni citizens, such as the claimants, who have been living in Saudi Arabia, are likely to be regarded with hostility and suspicion by the current governing forces in militias or pro-Houthi armed groups operating in Yemen, and other forces allied with the former Saleh government, and those opposing the Saudi-led coalition forces, which view Saudi Arabia as an opposing power in current conflict. This is especially true in Sana’a, where the claimants are from. Yemen is a site of an ongoing civil armed conflict involving Houthi rebels, primarily from the Northern region and forces loyal to the international recognized government.

[23] The Panel has reviewed the totality of the documentary evidence in the Yemeni National Documentation Package and finds that those who are perceived as opponents of the current Houthi governing forces, including those perceived as supportive of the former regime and those aligned with Saudi Arabia, are at risk of violence from Houthi militias and other forces allied with the former Saleh government.

[24] These risks include death, disappearance, detention, and kidnapping for ransom. UN group of experts documented the Houthis detaining anyone ‘engaged in activities perceived as opposed to or not endorsing their war effort.’ I can refer to item 2.1, the US Department of States Report which confirms the hostility, and civilian casualties, and damage to the infrastructure, and the dire humanitarian situation in Yemen. There is lots of information about the ongoing human rights issues in Yemen, beginning and throughout the DOS report.

[25] If I look at item 2.4, which is the Human Rights Watch World Report on events of 2019. This is a quote ‘Houthi forces, the Yemeni government, the UAE, and different UA,’ just one second, this may not be the part that I want to include, no. I think I will just go back to the refer to the US DOS report, which points to unlawful or arbitrary killings, including political assassinations, forced disappearances, torture, arbitrary arrest, and detention, harsh and life-threatening prison conditions, political prisoners, arbitrary infringements on privacy rights, et cetera, et cetera. There is impunity for security officials, which remains a problem, in part, because the government exercises limited authority, in part, due to the lack of effective mechanisms to investigate and prosecute abuse and corruption. And non-state actors, including the Houthis, of course, commit significant abuses with impunity.

[26] So, the Panel finds that the totality of the objective documentary evidence supports the conclusion that the claimants fear of returning to Yemen is well-founded and that they face a serious possibility of persecution including disappearance, arbitrary detention, torture, kidnapping for ransom, and death.

[27] Turning briefly to state protection. The Panel finds that it would be unreasonable for the claimants to seek the protection of the state in the current circumstances. The central state of Yemen has either collapsed or lost control of large segments or territory, disregard for the rule of law is widespread, and impunity is pervasive throughout the country.

[28] The internationally recognized government has been unable to secure the whole of the territory. Houthi rebels are reported to control most of the security apparatus and state institutions, and therefore, the Panel finds the claimants have rebutted the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence.

[29] In turning to the internal flight alternative, the Panel also finds that the harm feared by the claimants are not restricted to any particular area of the country. The conflict exists throughout the country and the militias and Houthis and other armed groups are present throughout the country. Therefore, the claimants face a serious possibility of persecution throughout Yemen, and there is no viable internal flight alternative.

[30] So, in conclusion, the Panel finds that the principal and associate claimants are not Turkish citizens, because their passports were obtained improperly. The Panel finds that the principal and the associate claimants have established that they face a serious possibility of persecution because of their imputed political opinion if they return to Yemen, and they are, therefore, Convention refugees pursuant to s.96 of IRPA. Their claims are accepted.

[31] The Panel finds that minor claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, does not face a serious possibility of persecution or danger of torture or risk to his life or cruel or unusual treatment or punishment pursuant to s. 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act should he return to the United States, so his claim is denied.

[32] So, thank you very much.

[33] Okay, so thanks a lot and good luck.

——————–REASONS CONCLUDED ——————–

All Countries Yemen

2019 RLLR 208

Citation: 2019 RLLR 208
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 24, 2019
Panel: P. Roche
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Talia Joundi
Country: Yemen
RPD Number: TB8-10588
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 003240-003246

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] This is the decision in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX who claims to be a citizen of Yemen and is claiming refugee protection under section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).¹

EXPEDITED DETERMINATION

[2] Paragraph 170(f) of the IRPA² provides that the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) may allow a claim for refugee protection without a hearing, unless the Minister has notified the RPD of the Minister’s intention to intervene within the time limit set out in the Refugee Protection Division Rules.³ Further, subsection 162(2) of IRPA⁴ directs each division to deal with all proceedings before it as informally and quickly as the circumstances and the considerations of fairness and natural justice permit.

[3] The claimant’s claim was identified as one that could be processed through the RPD’s expedited process for Yemeni claims. The RPD received the claimant’s signed Certificate of Readiness for the expedited process on December 20, 2018.

[4] Having carefully considered the evidence in this case, the panel finds that this claim meets the criteria for expedited determination. This claim has been therefore decided without a hearing, according to the Policy on the Expedited Processing of Refugee Claims by the Refugee Protection Division.⁵

[5] The panel considered the Chairperson’s Guidelines on Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution.⁶

[6] The panel has also taken into consideration the Chairperson’s Guidelines on Civilian Non-Combatants Fearing Persecution In civil War Situations.⁷

DETERMINATION

[7] The panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of IRPA, for reasons of imputed political opinion.

ALLEGATIONS

[8] The claimant’s complete allegations are set out in her Basis of Claim form (BOC)⁸ and need not be repeated here in detail. To summarize briefly, the claimant alleges a fear of persecution due to the fact that she will be targeted by all groups and militias involved in the conflict, due to her gender. She further alleges that she would be targeted by the Houthi-Saleh militia because her father is from south Yemen and as such are viewed as being pro-government. Due to the ongoing conflict in that country, the claimant believes that as a single woman there is no place for her to live in safety nor is there any state protection.

IDENTITY

[9] The panel is satisfied with the claimant’s personal identity and Yemeni citizenship, based on a certified true copy of her Yemen passport.⁹

CREDIBILITY

[10] With respect to the issue of credibility, the panel has reviewed the claimant’s BOC¹⁰, her intake forms¹¹ and supporting documentation.¹² The panel finds, based on the evidence before it, that the claimant only had temporary student status in Egypt. The panel has also reviewed country conditions documentation contained in the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Yemen¹³.

[11] The claimant’s evidence is not internally inconsistent, inherently implausible or contradicted by documentary evidence on country conditions in Yemen. Moreover, her allegations are corroborated by personal documents¹⁴ that the panel does not have sufficient reason to discount. The panel therefore finds the claimant’s evidence credible and that the allegations in this case are probably true.

[12] The panel finds that the claimant does have a subjective fear of persecution, should she return to Yemen.

OBJECTIVE BASIS

[13] The NDP indicates that the war in Yemen continues unabated.¹⁵ Civilian authorities did not maintain effective control over the security forces. Houthi-Saleh rebels controlled most of the security apparatus and state institutions. Competing family, tribal, party and sectarian influences also reduced government authority.¹⁶ Non-state actors, including tribal militias, reportedly committed significant abuses and few actions led to prosecution.¹⁷

[14] The documentary evidence confirms that all parties to the continuing conflict committed war crimes and other serious violations with inadequate accountability measures in place to ensure justice and reparation to victims.

[15] The Saudi Arabia-led coalition, supporting the internationally recognized Yemeni government, continued to bomb civilian infrastructure and carried out indiscriminate attacks, killing and injuring civilians.

[16] The Houthi-Saleh forces indiscriminately shelled civilian residential areas in Ta’iz city. The Yemeni government, Houthi-Saleh forces and Yemeni forces aligned with the United Arab Emirates and engaged in illegal detention practices including enforced disappearance and torture and other ill-treatment.¹⁸

[17] In regards to gender, the documentary evidence states the following;

Societal discrimination severely restricts the freedom of movement of women, although restrictions vary by location … ‘Social discrimination severely restricted women’s freedom of movement. Women in general did not enjoy full freedom of movement, although restrictions varied by location. Some observers reported increased restrictions on women in conservative locations, such as Sa’ada. Oxfam reported that men at checkpoints increasingly insisted on adherence to the “mahram” system, the cultural obligation of women to be accompanied by male relatives in public, in areas controlled by radical Islamic groups, such as AQAP. The report also noted that female respondents ranked the key factor limiting women’s freedom of movement as the lack of cultural acceptance, followed by lack of security.¹⁹

[18] Escalating conflict and forced movement of populations continue to create risks and instances of sexual and gender-based violence (GBV), including sexual exploitation and abuse. Focus group discussions have shown that women report psychological distress due to violence, fear for family members and fear of arrest or detention, whilst men report distress due to loss of livelihoods, restricted mobility and being forced to perform “women-specific roles”. These kinds of stress can contribute to increased levels of domestic violence, placing more women at risk.²⁰

[19] The law states that authorities should execute a man if convicted of killing a woman. The penal code, however, allows leniency for persons guilty of committing an “honor” killing or violently assaulting or killing a woman for perceived “immodest” or “defiant” behavior. The law does not address other types of gender-based abuse, such as beatings, forced isolation, imprisonment, and early and forced marriage.

[20] The law provides women with protection against domestic violence, except spousal rape, under the general rubric of protecting persons against violence, but authorities did not enforce this provision effectively. Victims rarely reported domestic abuse to police and criminal proceedings in cases of domestic abuse were rare.²¹

[21] Violence against women has increased 63 percent since the conflict escalated, according to UNFPA [United Nations Population Fund]. Forced marriage rates, including child marriage, have increased. Yemen has no minimum age of marriage. Women in Yemen face severe discrimination in law and practice. They cannot marry without the permission of their male guardian and do not have equal rights to divorce, inheritance or child custody. Lack of legal protection leaves them exposed to domestic and sexual violence.²²

State protection and internal flight alternative

[22] The panel finds that the claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection in this case. The state of Yemen is currently in crisis and as such is not able to provide effective state protection to the claimant. As previously noted above, with respect to Yemeni state institutions (regarding the year 2017):

Civilian authorities did not maintain effective control over the security forces. Houthi-Saleh rebels controlled most of the security apparatus and state institutions. Competing family, tribal, party, and sectarian influences also reduced government authority. …

The Hadi government took steps to investigate, prosecute and punish officials who committed human rights abuses; however, impunity was persistent and pervasive. Houthi-Saleh influence over government institutions severely reduced the Hadi government’s capacity to conduct investigations.²³

[23] The panel finds that given the current country conditions there is no viable internal flight alternative for the claimant in Yemen, as there is no place where the claimant can access adequate state protection in Yemen.

CONCLUSION

[24] For the above reasons, the panel finds that the claimant is a person in need of protection and accepts her claim.

(signed) P. ROCHE

January 24, 2019

¹ Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, sections 96 and 97(1).

² Ibid., section 170(f).

³ Refugee Protection Division Rules (SOR/2012-256).

⁴ Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, section 162(2).

⁵ Policy on the Expedited Processing of Refugee Claims by the Refugee Protection Division, effective September 18, 2015.

⁶ Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution: Update, Guidelines Issued by the Chairperson Pursuant to Section 65(3) of the Immigration Act, IRB, Ottawa, November 25, 1996, as continued in effect by the Chairperson on June 28, 2002, under the authority found in section 159(l)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

⁷ Chairperson’s Guideline 1 of the Protection Division: Guideline issued by the Chairperson pursuant to section 65(3) of the Immigration Act: Civilian Non-Combatants Fearing Persecution in Civil War Situations. Effective date: March 7. 1996.

⁸Exhibit 2.

⁹ Exhibit 1.

¹⁰ Exhibit 2.

¹¹ Exhibit l.

¹² Exhibits 5 and 6.

¹³ Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Yemen (October 31, 2018).

¹⁴ Exhibit 5.

¹⁵ Exhibit 3, NDP for Yemen (October 31, 2018), item 2.1.

¹⁶ Ibid.

¹⁷ Ibid.

¹⁸ Exhibit 3, NDP for Yemen (October 31, 2018), item 2.2.

¹⁹Ibid., item 1.5.

²⁰ Ibid., item 1.6.

²¹ Ibid., item 2.1.

²² Exhibit 3, NDP for Yemen (October 31, 2018), item 2.4.

²³ Ibid., item 2.1.

All Countries Yemen

2020 RLLR 94

Citation: 2020 RLLR 94
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 25, 2020
Panel:
Counsel for the Claimant(s):
Country: Yemen
RPD Number: MB9-22272
Associated RPD Number(s):
ATIP Number: A-2021-00945
ATIP Pages: 000039-000047

I have considered your testimony and the other evidence in this case and I am ready to render my decision orally. These are the reasons for the decision in the claim of [XXX] who has declared to be a citizen of Yemen and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and Subsection 97.1 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[2] I should tell you before we proceed any further that this is a positive decision for you.

[3] You allege the following. You were born in Saudi Arabia. Your parents are Yemini and do not have citizenship in Saudi Arabia. You were living in Saudi Arabia pursuant to your father’s residency permit which was tied to his work as a doctor in Saudi Arabia. You left Saudi Arabia with your family when you were nine years old to live in Yemen where you lived until 2015 and then returned the following year to continue your studies.

[4] You do not have citizenship in Saudi Arabia and have no right of residency there. You allege that you are at risk of death and detention and serious harm because you oppose the Houthi militias and the Houthi takeover of power in Yemen. You also fear that the Houthi militias will force you to fight for them. You further allege that your family is from Taizz and the Houthis perceive people from that region as being opposed in interest to them.

[5] Moreover, you allege that the Houthis know that you have spent time in Saudi Arabia and they see you as aligned with Saudi interests. You allege that you were mistreated by the Houthi militia several times because you oppose them and refuse to join them and attend their gatherings. You allege that on [XXX] 2015 you left Yemen for Saudi Arabia with your family. You returned to Yemen after approximately one year because you wanted to continue your university studies after which you intended to return to Saudi Arabia.

[6] You allege that on [XXX] 2018 you were home alone when approximately twelve armed Houthi militia members arrived in two armored cars and accused you of being aligned with the cause of Saudi Arabia and accused you of having explosives in your car. They broke in, detained you, took your phone, wallet and keys and everything of value in your home. They blindfolded you, called you a traitor, beat you and threatened to kill you.

[7] They took you to an unknown location and accused you of being a Saudi agent. You were released after three days and left for Saudi Arabia several days later. You only returned to Yemen briefly to renew your Saudi Arabian residency. You left Saudi Arabia for the United States on [XXX] 2019 and came to Canada several days later. And your claim was referred to the Refugee Protection Division shortly thereafter.

Determination

[8] I find that you are a “Convention Refugee” as you have established a serious possibility of persecution on account of your real or imputed political opinion against the Houthi militias and the Houthi takeover in Yemen. And your imputed political opinion in favor of the Saudi Arabian coalition forces. As such I find that you have established a nexus to Section 96 of the Refugee Convention.

Analysis

Identity

[9] I find that your identity as a national of Yemen is established on a balance of probabilities by your testimony and the supporting documentation filed including your Yemeni passport.

[10] Before I proceed any further with the analysis of your claim I would like to deal with the issues of your status in Saudi Arabia. While you were born in Saudi Arabia and lived there until you were nine your status has always been temporary and dependent on the sponsorship of a family member, your father who is employed there.

[11] According to the objective documentary evidence Saudi Arabia does not grant citizenship to people in your circumstances and does not offer permanent residency status for foreigners. Given your written statements and the documents on file I am satisfied that you had only temporary status there and it cannot be concluded that you have had or could have rights and obligations akin to the possession of nationality in Saudi Arabia.

[12] I am therefore satisfied that you have no permanent status either residency or citizenship in any other country aside from Yemen at this time. I make this conclusion in reliance on your testimony and the country condition documents found at tabs. 3.1, 3.4, 3.5 and 3.7 of the National Documentation Package for Saudi Arabia, March 29, 2019 version.

Credibility

[13] I find you be a creditable witness and therefore I believe what you have alleged in support of your claims. You testified in a straightforward manner although you were nervous. There were no relevant inconsistencies in your testimony or contradictions between your testimony and the other evidence before me which has not been satisfactorily explained.

[14] In particular, you testified creditably as to your opposition to the Houthis militias and their take over of Yemen. You testified creditably as to your refusal to advocate for their cause and the mistreatment you suffered at the hands of the Houthi militia because of their perception that you are on the side of the Saudi regime.

[15] I questioned you on your return to Yemen several times after the Houthis started visiting your home and your return to Yemen after you were detained by the Houthis in [XXX] 2018. Particularly your return to Yemen in [XXX] 2019.

[16] You explained that you returned in 2016 only to complete your university studies and you did not intend to remain and that you tried to stay out of their way. And that before the [XXX] 2018 incident they had only verbally threatened you. You further explained that you returned in [XXX] 2019 only to renew your residency status in Saudi Arabia so that you could continue to live there for the time being.

[17] I find your explanations in this regard to be reasonable in the circumstances and in consideration of the whole of the evidence including your personal profile and the country conditions evidence as to the current situation in Yemen I do not find that your behavior in that regard impugns your credibility generally or to be a determining factor in this case.

[18] In addition, I questioned you on your failure to claim asylum in the United States despite having arrived in the United States before coming to Canada. You explained that you did not claim asylum there because of the current Trump administration’s stance on immigration. Considering the current climate around immigration in the United States I find your explanation to be reasonable and I find that your failure to claim in the United States does not impugn your credibility generally.

[19] I have also considered the documents that you submitted into evidence namely your confirmation of admission to university in Yemen at Exhibit E2, a copy of your father’ s Yemeni passport demonstrating his birth place of Taizz at Exhibit E3, a copy of your birth certificate demonstrating your birth in Saudi Arabia and your parents Yemeni nationalities at Exhibit E4 and your Saudi Arabian residency card at Exhibit E5. You have also submitted several articles on the recent actions of the Houthi movement and militia.

[20] After reviewing the documents, I have no reason to doubt their authenticity and coupled with my findings as to your creditable testimony I find that these documents corroborate your allegations. In consideration of the above I find that you have established your key allegations on a balance of probabilities and that you have a subjective fear of return to Yemen.

Prospective Risk of Return to Yemen

[21] A Claimant must demonstrate that they would face a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground if they were to return to their country or that on a balance of probabilities return to their country would subject them personally to a danger of torture or a risk to their life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. You have indicated that if you return to Yemen your life would be at risk. You would be considered an enemy by the Houthis because of your refusal to join them and advocate for them and because of your background as having lived in Saudi Arabia and your family ties there as well as your family’s background in Taizz.

[22] In considering your prospective risk of return to Egypt I have taken into consideration your personal profiles and your particular situation at the present time. I note that in your case you are a twenty-five-year-old single man. Your parents are from Taizz. You were born in Saudi and spent much of your childhood there. Your parents and most siblings have returned to Saudi Arabia and continue to live there. I have also taken into consideration the objective

[23] I have taken into consideration the objective documentary evidence as to the current situation in Yemen particularly for those who are perceived as anti-Houthi or anti-militia and those who may be perceived as being in favor of the Saudi led coalition against the Houthi rebel groups.

[24] The objective evidence clearly demonstrates that Yemen is the sight of an armed conflict that has lasted for several years and continues to this day involving the Houthis Sele rebels primarily from the northern region and forces loyal to the internationally recognized government based in the southern region.

[25] The civil war began around 2015 when foreign powers led by Saudi Arabia intervened to support the government of President Hadi against the Houthi rebel movement and forces linked to the former president Sele. The conflict involves numerous armed groups or militias and all parties to the conflict have been reported to have committed serious violations of human rights including arbitrary executions, acts of torture, arbitrary detentions and use of weaponry against the civilian population.

[26] The evidence further indicates that the armed groups engage in forced recruitment including the forced recruitment of child soldiers. The internationally recognized Yemeni government is said to be incapable of securing the whole of the territory. The evidence further indicates that those who are perceived as opponents to the Houthis including those perceived as supportive of the former regime and thus aligned with Saudi Arabia as well as their family members are at risk of violence from the Houthi militias. This includes risks such as death, disappearance, detention and kidnapping for ransom which are clearly persecution.

[27] In considering this country evidence I refer specifically to Tabs 1.5, 1.7, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5 and 5.1 of the National Documentation Package for Yemen.

[28] I have also taken into consideration the profile of your agents of persecution, the pro Houthi armed groups operating in Yemen. It is clear that armed groups including the Houthis engage in acts of violence against persons that they view as opponents and that this treatment amounts to persecution particularly for those who are perceived as aligned with Saudi Arabia.

[29] In consideration of the objective documentary evidence and your creditable allegations I find that you have all established that you face a future risk in Yemen to being subjected to serious harm or violence including disappearance, detention and death and also in consideration of your particular profile I find that you have established that you are also at risk of forced recruitment into those armed groups or militias which you are opposed to.

[30] As such I find that your subjective fear of returning to Yemen is objectively well-founded and that you face a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground, namely that of your real or imputed political opinion if you were to return to Yemen.

State Protection

[31] I find that it would be objectively unreasonable for you to seek the protection of the state in light of the current circumstances. I have discussed the objective documentary evidence concerning the current situation in Yemen. I have also discussed the setting of the major civil armed conflict that is going on there. The central state has either collapsed or lost control over large segments of the territory.

[32] Serious crimes against humanity have been committed by internationally recognized government forces and opposition forces with impunity. Disregard for the rule of law is widespread and impunity is persistent and pervasive throughout the country. The evidence further demonstrates that civilians are disproportionately affected by the hostilities to the extent that thousands of people have been displaced.

[33] In view of this evidence and in consideration of your personal profile I find that you have rebutted the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence that the state or any other force exerting governing authority in Yemen is unable or unwilling to help you.

Internal Flight Alternative

[34] Given your profile and the country conditions I find that no viable internal flight alternative exists for you in Yemen. The conflict exists throughout the country with notable divisions between the northern and southern regions. As well as pronounced sectarian divisions throughout the country. The Houthis and other armed groups are present throughout the country and the risks faced by you are not limited to any particular region in the country.

[35] I also recall the absence of state protection for you throughout Yemen. In consideration of the country documents and your particular circumstances I find that you face a serious possibility of persecution throughout Yemen on the basis of your real or imputed political opinion and that there is no viable internal flight alternative available to you there.

Conclusion

[36] Based on the analysis above I conclude that you a “Convention Refugees” and accordingly I accept your claim. That concludes our hearing.

All Countries Yemen

2019 RLLR 94

Citation: 2019 RLLR 94
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 1, 2019
Panel: J. Kushner
Counsel for the claimant(s): Mohamed Mahdi
Country: Yemen
RPD Number: TB8-03742
ATIP Number: A-2020-01459
ATIP Pages: 000080-000083

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] [XXX] claims to be a citizen of Yemen and is seeking refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.¹

ALLEGATIONS

[2] The claimant’s allegations are set out in his Basis of Claim form as amended and were expanded upon in testimony.² To summarize, the claimant fears that he will be harmed or killed by Houthis because of his real and imputed anti-Houthi political opinion. The claimant’s brother has engaged in anti-Houthi journalism despite the Houthis charging the claimant with ensuring that his brother supports the Houthis.

DETERMINATION

[3] The panel finds that the claimant has established that he faces a serious possibility of persecution in Yemen.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[4] The claimant’s personal and national identity as a citizen of Yemen has been established on a balance of probabilities based on his testimony and a copy of his Yemeni passport.³

Credibility

[5] On a balance of probabilities the panel accepts as credible the claimant’s testimony regarding the central allegations in this claim. The claimant provided supporting documents for some of these allegations. The claimant’s testimony was generally consistent with the documentary evidence. The claimant provided evidence regarding his most recent trip to Yemen when his brother was detained and abused by Houthis, when the claimant was ordered to ensure his brother supported the Houthis in future, and when the claimant and his brother separately fled the country. The claimant has provided corroborating evidence including letters from his wife who remains in hiding in Yemen⁴ and from his brother who fled to Egypt.⁵ The claimant’s documentary evidence supports his allegations regarding his brother’s [XXX] work criticizing Houthis, supports the claimant’s brother’s detention and mistreatment by Houthis, and supports the claimant’s forced pledge to the Houthis to ensure that his brother supported the Houthis. The claimant also provided evidence of his brother’s [XXX].⁶

Subjective fear

[6] The claimant has lived in Saudi Arabia as a temporary resident for approximately 25 years though he currently has no immigration status there and has never had any permanent status there. Over the last several years the claimant has travelled to Yemen on multiple occasions. The claimant’s explanation for making repeated trips to Yemen while it was in a state of civil war is that he was on vacation, he wanted to see his family, and he did not go out often. After being targeted by the Houthis on his last trip to Yemen, the claimant later travelled to the United States of America (USA), though he did not seek asylum there. The claimant explained that Muslims are suffering under the administration of the current USA president. The claimant’s explanations do not completely mitigate the panel’s concerns regarding the lack of subjective fear evidenced by repeatedly returning to a situation where the claimant was at risk, and of not seeking asylum when he had the opportunity to do so. However, the panel finds that in the claimant’s particular circumstances the concern that remains is not determinative.

Persecution

[7] The country conditions documents provided by the claimant,⁷ along with the objective evidence in the National Documentation Package (NDP),⁸ set out the situation in Yemen in detail. The documents are generally consistent regarding the risk faced by those who are critical of the Houthis or who are seen as having a political opinion that is against the Houthis. The Houthis control a large portion of Yemen, including the area where the claimant’s family was living. The claimant is seen as the head of a family who has repeatedly and publicly spoken out against the Houthis.⁹ The claimant’s family includes a journalist who has been detained, tortured, and threatened, by Houthis. The documentary evidence contains numerous reports of the Houthis engaging in violence, human rights violations, arbitrary detentions, and torture.

[8] The objective evidence is clear that Yemen is currently dealing with a widespread armed violent conflict. It involves multiple factions including Houthi rebels, Saudi-led or Saudisupported armed forces, as well as various extremist factions in Yemen including reports of AlQaeda being active in many parts of the country. There is no single central government in Yemen. The situation in the country has been described as a civil war. The evidence before the panel gives no indication that the conflict will be ending in the near future. There are reports of an increasing number of civilians being seriously affected by the ongoing conflict, including being displaced, harmed, or killed. When considering the widespread and ongoing nature of the conflict in Yemen, the panel finds that the current security situation in the country is such that there is no access to state protection nor is there a viable internal flight alternative in the claimant’s particular circumstances.

CONCLUSION

[9] Having considered all of the available evidence the panel finds that the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution in Yemen. The panel concludes that the claimant is a Convention refugee. The panel therefore accepts the claim.

(signed) J. Kushner

March 1, 2019

¹ Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended.
² Exhibit 2 and exhibit 12, item 1.
³ Exhibit 1.
⁴ Exhibit 7, item 1.
⁵ Exhibit 6, item 4.
⁶ Exhibit 6, item 7.
⁷ Exhibits 8-11.
⁸ Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Yemen (31 October 2018).
⁹ Exhibit 7, item 2.

All Countries Yemen

2019 RLLR 81

Citation: 2019 RLLR 81
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 29, 2019
Panel: Harry Dortelus
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Jonathan Richard J Lage
Country: Yemen
RPD Number: MB9-05137
ATIP Number: A-2020-01459
ATIP Pages: 000011-000014

REASONS FOR DECISION

EXPEDITED PROCESS

[1] The Tribunal issues this decision without a hearing in accordance with paragraph 170(f) of the IRPA and the Policy on the Expedited Processing of Refugee Claims by the Refugee Protection Division.

[2] The following is the decision related to the refugee claims of: Mr. [XXX]. He alleges that he is a citizen of Yemen and is claiming refugee protection as “Convention refugee” and as “persons in need of protection” under sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection (IRPA).

DECISION

[3] The Tribunal concludes that the claimant is a person in need of protection under section 97 of IRPA.

ANALYSIS

[4] The determinative issues are identity and credibility.

IDENTITY

[5] The claimant’s name is as indicated in his Yemeni passport: [XXX].

[6] The claimant has established his identity by means of the certified copy of his Yemeni passport which was seized by Canadian authorities when he claimed for asylum.¹

[7] The claimant lived in Saudi Arabia from 2011 until February/March 2016 according to his Generic Application Form and his Schedule A Form. He moved to the USA to Study in [XXX] or [XXX] 2016 and never had any problem in Yemen, according to his CBSA interview dated March 12, 2019. He left the U.S. to come to Canada on [XXX] 2019², to claim asylum.

Allegations

[8] The story of this claim is as follows.

[9] The claimant alleges that he is a citizen of Yemen but he was born and resided in Saudi Arabia and never loved or resided in Yemen. He says that he is married to a Saudi citizen but has no permanent residence in that country or citizenship. He fears of being deported to Yemen where he may be targeted by the militias, including the houthis, as an outsider.

[10] He alleges that his relatives were assassinated in Yemen in 1974, 2013 and 2015 and he has no known relatives in Yemen. He is afraid to return to Yemen because, as a Yemeni from abroad, he could be targeted by various militias there.

[11] In his interview with CBSA authorities, the claimant recognized that he had no personal history of persecution or harm in Yemen³.

CREDIBILITY

[12] The claimant has established, on the balance of probabilities, that as a young Yemeni citizen who never lived or resided in that country, that he may face harm because of the ongoing civil war in Yemen.

[13] The evidence shows that he was born in Saudi Arabia and married a Saud citizen, which does not grant him the right of citizenship in Saudi Arabia. His family also resided in Saudi Arabia and outside Yemen, which would leave the claimant vulnerable if he was to be sent to Yemen.

[14] The documentary evidence shows that Yemen is not governed by a strong central government and various militias control several parts of the country and as a person who never lived in Yemen and carries foreign identity documents, the claimant could easily become identifiable thus a target of those militias.

[15] Given the fact that there is no state protection and the situation is similar all over the country, the Tribunal concludes that there is a risk to the claimant’s life if he was to be sent back to Yemen.

DECISION

[16] Therefore the claim is accepted.

(signed) Harry Dortelus

November 29, 2019

¹ Notice of Seizure of the claimant’s Yemeni passport dated March 12, 2019.
² Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) interview dated March 12, 2019.
³ Note No. 2.