Citation: 2019 RLLR 103
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: October 23, 2019
Panel: M. Dookun
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Esther Lexchin
Country: Eritrea
RPD Number: TB8-09739
ATIP Number: A-2020-01459
ATIP Pages: 000145-000149
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] [XXX] (the claimant) is a 51-year old male citizen of Eritrea. He is seeking refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.1
ALLEGATIONS
[2] The specific details of this claim are set out in the claimant’s Basis of Claim (BOC) form2. In short, he fears persecution at the hands of the Eritrean government based on his Islamic religion and his objection to forced military conscription of himself and his children in Eritrea. He also fears repercussions from the Eritrean government for having made a refugee claim against Eritrea in Canada.
DETERMINATION
[3] The panel has determined that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
ANALYSIS
Identity
[4] The claimant established his personal identity by way of the certified true copy of his Eritrean passport3.
Credibility
[5] The claimant testified in a straightforward manner. He made no apparent attempts to embellish his testimony. There were no serious inconsistencies or contradictions inherent in his testimony. The panel has no serious reason to doubt that the sworn testimony of this claimant was truthful.
Well-Foundedness of Fear
Refugee Claim in Canada
[6] The panel finds on a balance of probabilities that there is less than a mere possibility that the Eritrea government would know that the claimant made a refugee claim in Canada if he returned to Eritrea voluntarily due to the fact that he left Eritrea legally. The claimant testified that he enters and exits Eritrea regularly. He stated that the Eritrean government believes that he is a resident of Sudan who visits Eritrea voluntarily. That being so, he has never had problems entering Eritrea in the past. The panel finds that there is less than a mere possibility that the Eritrean authorities would question the claimant upon entry regarding whether or not he made a refugee claim in Canada.
Religion
[7] The panel finds there is less than a mere possibility that this claimant would face persecution in Eritrea because of his Muslim religion. The claimant testified that there is no difference between the religion he practises and the state-sanctioned Islamic religion in Eritrea. The claimant was asked whether he had any problems practicing his religion while in Eritrea. He responded that he had no problems that related to him specifically. He was then asked what kind of problems he thought he would have if he returned to Eritrea now. He responded that he did not believe that there would be issues because of his specific beliefs. The panel thus finds based on the claimant’s own testimony that he would not face problems in Eritrea based on his religion.
Military Objection
[8] That being said, the panel does find that the claimant could face problems in Eritrea because of his objection to military service. The documentary evidence4 states that by law all Eritrean citizens between ages 18 to 50 must perform national service. The claimant, at 51 years old, is past that age range. In addition, he has already performed and completed his mandatory military service.
[9] However, in 2012 the Eritrean government created the “People’s Army”. The People’s Army is composed of citizens released from the national service as part of their open-ended national service. Eritreans up to 70 years of age can be conscripted into the People’s Army. Those who ignore the People’s Army conscription notices may face imprisonment.5
[10] The claimant stated that he is opposed to carrying arms and opposed to serving the Eritrean regime in any manner. His refusal to cooperate may be seen as having a political opinion contrary to the Eritrean Government. This would place the claimant at risk should he return to Eritrea.
State Protection and Internal Flight Alternative
[11] The panel finds that as the state authorities are the agents of persecution, there would be no state protection available to this claimant anywhere in Eritrea should he return. For the same reason, the panel also finds that there is no viable internal flight alternative available to this particular claimant anywhere in Eritrea.
CONCLUSION
[12] To conclude, the panel finds on a balance of probabilities, based on his objection to military service, that the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution in Eritrea based on his political opinion. As such the panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The Refugee Protection Division accepts this claim.
(signed) M. Dookun
October 23, 2019
1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), S.C. 2001, c.27 as amended.
2 Exhibit 2.
3 Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 7.
4 Exhibit 3, item 2.1.
5 Exhibit 5, page 53.