Citation: 2019 RLLR 215
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 7, 2019
Panel: A. Rico
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Rebeka Lauks
Country: Turkey
RPD Number: TB8-27274
Associated RPD Number(s): TB8-27297, TB8-27337
ATIP Number: A-2020-00859
ATIP Pages: 000810-000814
DECISION
[1] MEMBER: This is the reasons for decision of the Refugee Protection Division in the claim protection filed by XXXX XXXX first name is spelled, XXXXX. last name is spelled, XXXX, XXXX first name is spelled, XXXX last name is spelled, XXXX and· first name is spelled, XXXX middle name is spelled XXXX last name is spelled XXXX, under Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
[2] The allegations are fully set out in the Basis of Claim Forms found at Exhibits 2, 3, and 4. In short, the claimants allege a fear of persecution at the hands of the Turkish Government because the principal claimant’s … because of the principal claimant’s real or perceived political opinion as a diplomat and person affiliated to the Hizmet/Gulen movement. Which led to his discharge under emergency decree from public service on allegations of terrorism.
[3] For the following reasons I find that the adult claimants are Convention refugees. However, I also find that the minor claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
[4] I am satisfied that the claimant’s … I’m satisfied of the claimant’s identities based on their certified true copies of their passports and I am satisfied that the adult claimants are citizens of Turkey and that the girl minor claimant is a citizen of Turkey and the United States. Evidence of which can be found at Exhibit 1.
[5] I will assess the claim for the minor girl claimant against the United States first before assessing the adult claimant’s claim against Turkey.
[6] The law states that if a claimant is a national of more than one country the claimant must show that he or she is a Convention refugee with respect to all such countries.
[7] The girl minor claimant is a citizen of the United States of America as she was born in that country and has right of citizenship by virtue of her birth. She must show that she faces a serious possibility of persecution or, on a balance of probabilities, a danger of torture or a risk to her life or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment throughout the United States of America.
[8] The principal claimant alleges that he believes that the minor claimant is in danger as he believes that the US has made a secret deal with a high profile US citizen when that person was released from prison in Turkey. He believes that the secret deal is that the US will return Turkish citizens of interest to Turkey. The principal claimant forms this belief based on his past work as a diplomat.
[9] I find the principal claimant’s testimony to be completely speculative. The principal claimant has no direct knowledge as negotiations for release of a high profile US citizen. He was not present for the negotiations. He’s basing this belief primarily from his own fear of persecution in Turkey.
[10] I note that the claimant’s counsel advanced no evidence of persecution in the US for the girl minor claimant. I further note that the claimant’s counsel advanced no evidence of an objective basis or well-foundedness of the claim against the United States for the girl minor claimant.
[11] I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the principal claimant’s belief is not well-founded.
[12] The US is a democratic country, the rule of law, and respect for basic human rights. There is no objective or concrete evidence beside the principal claimant’s belief that the US would extradite a minor, age approximately nine, to Turkey nor that Turkey would expel the resources required to extradite said minor who has very tenuous links to the Gulen movement.
[13] While I find that it would be a hardship for the girl minor claimant to return to the United States on her own without her parents, I find that this hardship does not constitute persecution or a need for protection.
[14] Neither the claimants nor their counsel presented any persuasive objective evidence that the girl minor claimant faced any risk in the United States. As such, the girl minor claimant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. I must reject her claim for refugee protection.
[15] I now tum to assess the claims made by the adult claimants. I am satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimants have established their profile as persons who are or perceived to be members of the Hizmet/Gulen movement.
[16] The claimants presented a wealth of documentation that the principal claimant … principal claimant is a … was a diplomat. That he applied to various courts to resolve the issue with the Turkish Government. That the Turkish Government’s belief in his involvement in the coup attempt is formed by his attendance at Hizmet affiliate education institutions and his previa work … previous work at the Evidence of which can be found at Exhibit 9.
[17] Despite my concerns regarding the adult claimant’s delay in claiming in the United States and their abandonment of their claim in the United States, the adult claimant’s have still established, on a balance of probabilities, a profile which the documentary evidence cited below indicates that persons with this profile are persecuted by the Turkish State. As such, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimants have established their profiles. The adult claimants have established their profiles as persons affiliated to the Hizmet/Gulen movement and that these profiles place them at a serious risk of persecution if returned to Turkey.
[18] The persecution of persons with a similar profile of the adult claimants is objectively well founded.
[19] The information in the National Documentation Package found at Exhibit 5 confirms that in July 2016 there was an attempted coup against the Turkish Government. The government blames various sections of the Turkish society who are perceived to be part of the Hizmet/Gulen movement for this attempted coup, including but not limited to, persons associated with the Hizmet/Gulen institutions, persons employed at or studied at Hizmet affiliated educational institutions, public servants, the judiciary, government officials, military personnel, bilok(p) users, etcetera. Evidence of which can be found, as I state earlier, at Exhibit 5 Items 1.7, 2.1, and 2.5.
[20] Counsel also submitted documentary evidence to support that diplomats who have an affiliation to the Hizmet/Gulen movement are persecuted in Turkey.
[21] The government considers these persons to be terrorists, as it considers the Hizmet/Gulen movement to be part of a terrorist organization.
[22] Under the guise of the emergency decrees and anti-terrorism laws, the Turkish Government subjects these persons to various human right violations including but not limited to arbitrary detention, torture, and extrajudicial killings.
[23] Despite the public declaration of a repeal of the state of emergency, there is no persuasive evidence before me to indicate that there is a change in the treatment of persons who are or perceived to be part of the Hizmet/Gulen movement.
[24] Therefore, based on this country documentary evidence and the credible allegations I find the adult claimants have a well-founded fear of persecution in Turkey by reason of the principal claimant’s real or perceived political opinion.
[25] As the agent of persecution is the Government of Turkey I find that it would be objectively unreasonable for the adult claimants to seek protection of the Turkish Government.
[26] I also find that the adult claimants face a serious possibility of persecution throughout Turkey, especially given the country documentation that indicates that the authorities operate similarly throughout Turkey. Therefore, viable internal flight alternatives are not available to the adult claimants.
[27] I conclude that adult claimants are Convention refugees and I therefore accept their claim. However, based on the analysis outlined above I find that the minor girl claimant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection and I reject her claim for refugee protection.
[28] We can pull the mics forward again.
[29] This concludes today’s hearing. We will be going off the record.
—REASONSCONCLUDED–