Citation: 2019 RLLR 20
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: August 27, 2019
Panel: R. Riley
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Tina Hlimi
Country: Haiti
RPD Number: TB8-20008
ATIP Number: A-2021-01124
ATIP Pages: 000137-000140
DECISION
[1] MEMBER: These are the reasons in relation to this claim. The reasons given orally today will be rendered into writing and the transcript of the reasons will be sent to the claimant and his lawyer within a matter of weeks.
ALLEGATIONS:
[2] The claimant alleges that he is a citizen of Haiti. The claimant says that he is targeted by armed bandits associated with [XXX] the Mayor of [XXX]. He states that he was attacked in [XXX] 2018. He was told by the attacker to stop inciting the youth against the mayor of [XXX] and he was also accused of being a member of the opposition.
[3] He left Haiti in [XXX] of 2018, spent approximately six weeks in the United States and came to Canada to claim refugee protection. The claimant alleges that the Government of Haiti will not protect him and that there is no safe place for him anywhere in Haiti.
ANALYSIS:
IDENTITY:
[4] The claimant provided his Haitian passport, a certified copy of which is found in Exhibit 1. The claimant also provided his birth certificate, a copy of which is found at page 7 at Exhibit 4 and his school records, copies of which are found at pages 2 to 6 of Exhibit 4.
[5] The panel is satisfied as to the Haitian citizenship and the identity of this claimant.
CREDIBILITY:
[6] The testimony of the claimant was straightforward and reasonably consistent. The claimant may have exaggerated the role of the person he feared having promoted the deputy mayor to the position of Mayor, nevertheless this was a minor matter, overall the panel detected no serious contradictions or omissions.
[7] The claimant’s testimony that he promoted worthy deeds and thoughts in Haiti is worn out by music video he presented as well as his testimony. The claimant states that he and other students volunteered to clean up streets after it rained in [XXX]. The claimant was involved in donating books to an orphanage.
[8] The music video showed the claimant performing a song with numerous images of young persons on the street and showing the classrooms where those young persons should be studying.
[9] The video also demonstrated the claimant’s commitment to encouraging the youth of Haiti to go to school. All of these good deeds appear on the surface to be non-controversial.
[10] The reality is that the claimant’s good intentions and his declarations were interpreted by the deputy mayor of [XXX] as being implicitly critical of the city administration. By engaging in the actions he did, the claimant was seen to be stating that the city administration was not up to doing it’s job.
[11] This is clear case of attribution of political opinions where perhaps none were originally intended.
[12] The panel accepts the claimant’s testimony that he could continue to write and perform songs about the social conditions in Haiti and that those in authority in Haiti could easily interpret such declarations as statements critical of those politicians who are not doing a good job for the benefit of other Haitians if he were to return to Haiti.
[13] On a balance of probabilities, the testimony of the claimant is credible and trustworthy. Linked to Convention ground, the claimant’s declarations and good deeds were an indirect expression of a political opinion, those good deeds are illustrated by the photos found at Exhibit 5 of the evidence.
[14] The claimant’s declarations and deeds were certainly interpreted as political opinions which were encountered to the opinions of those in power in [XXX].
[15] The peaceful expression of that political opinion caused the claimant actual and prospective harm. Violence was committed against him, his life was threatened.
[16] The panel is satisfied that this type of claim falls within the definition of a Convention refugee when he was under threat of persecution due to political opinion.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE:
[17] The panel has paid attention to the Medical Report found at pages 16 to 18 of Exhibit 4 as well as the police report found at page 19 of Exhibit 4. These documents are supportive of the claimant’s declaration that he was assaulted in late [XXX] 2018.
[18] The claimant also provided support letters from various witnesses in Haiti, those letters are found at pages 9 to 11 of Exhibit 4 and they tend to corroborate the allegations of the claim, in short the documentary evidence supports the credibility of this claim.
STATE PROTECTION:
[19] The agents of persecution belong to or are affiliated with a person in power namely the deputy mayor of the city of [XXX], the deputy mayor appears to have at her disposal a group of thugs who will engage in violent acts to punish those who are against her or who are perceived to be against her.
[20] The documentary evidence indicates that the police in Haiti are known to be corruptible and not to be very good at protecting citizens from those in power.
[21] The panel here is referring to the National Documentation Package. This claimant has no reasonable expectation of protection from persons in authority who are threatening him. It would not be reasonable for this claimant to seek State protection under these circumstances.
INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE:
[22] The National Documentation Package also indicates that persons who are fleeing persecution within Haiti can easily be traced.
[23] There is no satisfactory evidence that there would be, on a balance of probabilities, a safe place of refugee for this claimant within Haiti. The panel concludes that it would not be reasonable for this claimant to seek an internal flight alternative.
CONCLUSION:
[24] Having considered all of the evidence, the panel determines that the claimant has discharged his burden of establishing that there is serious possibility of persecution if he were to return to Haiti. The panel therefore concludes that the claimant, [XXX], is a Convention refugee by reason of his perceived political opinion and the Division accepts his claim and I wish you the very best in future, sir.
[25] CLAIMANT: Thank you.
[26] MEMBER: Thank you counsel for you assistance.
———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-