Citation: 2019 RLLR 33
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 20, 2019
Panel: O. Adeoye
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Amedeo Clivio
Country: Turkey
RPD Number: TB9-19724
ATIP Number: A-2021-01124
ATIP Pages: 000186-000190
[1] MEMBER: I’ve considered your testimony and your other evidence before me today, which includes your documentary evidence, and I’m ready to render my decision orally.
[2] This is a claim for refugee protection made by [XXX], who claims to be a citizen of Turkey and is seeking refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Allegations
[3] The summary of the claimant’s allegations are contained his Basis of Claim form and I will not repeat them all here.
[4] In summary, the claimant alleges that he fears to return to Turkey because he’s involved in the Hizmet Movement, which is also known as the Gülen Movement.
[5] He alleges that he supports the ideas of the movement’s leader or founder, Fetullah Gülen, and that these ideas deal with, among other things, religion, society, charity, and education.
[6] He further alleges that due to his Kurdish ethnicity and his family’s longstanding history of being involvement with pro-Kurdish politics, he may be imputed to be a separatist Kurd or HDP supporter.
Determination
[7] The Panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee because he faces a serious possibility of persecution on the Convention ground of his imputed political opinion in Turkey as a Hizmet follower.
Identity
[8] The claimant’s identity as a national of Turkey is established by his testimony and certified true copy of his Turkish passport attached to Exhibit 1.
[9] Also, the Panel finds that the claimant has established his Hizmet identity based on his affiliation with the Hizmet Movement, again through his testimony and supporting documentation attached to Exhibit 5.
Credibility
[10] Overall, the Panel has found the claimant to be a credible witness on a balance of probabilities on what is core to his claim. In this case, his imputed political opinion as a follower of the Hizmet Movement.
[11] The Panel therefore believes what he has alleged in support of his claim.
[12] He testified in a straightforward manner and there were no relevant inconsistencies in his testimony or contradictions between his testimony and other evidence before the Panel that were not satisfactorily explained.
[13] The claimant testified generally in a straightforward manner regarding his involvement in the Hizmet Movement, his reasons for becoming involved in the movement, his actions, his roles in support of the movement and affiliated institutions, and also he provided credible testimony regarding the movement as a whole, as well as providing information about members of the movement being mistreated by the Turkish authorities, which includes his family members.
[14] Therefore the Panel finds on a balance of probabilities that the claimant has been able to - that the claimant was involved in the Hizmet Movement since he was a child and in 2003 when he attended — was a child when he attended meetings with his uncle, and 2003 when he attended Hizmet affiliated prep school, and finds on a balance of probabilities — also finds on a balance of probabilities that he volunteered with Hizmet affiliated charities, purchased Hizmet affiliated, and subscribed to Hizmet affiliated publications.
[15] So the Panel therefore finds on a balance of probabilities that the claimant is credible, accepts his allegations as credible, and that he has established his subjective fear.
Well-Founded Fear of Persecution
[16] As it relates to the well-foundedness of the claimant’s fear of persecution, the Panel finds that the claimant’s subjective fear has an objective basis based on the objective documentary evidence before the Panel.
[17] There is ample corroborating evidence in the country condition documents about the Turkish authority’s harsh treatment of members of the Hizmet Movement, which was worsened after the attempted coup in July 2016, for which the Turkish regime held the Gillen Movement responsible.
[18] Item 2.3 in the National Documentation Package titled, “Freedom in the World 2017” states that:
[19] “Turkey has a large number of active non-governmental organizations. However, authorities have mentioned and harassed many NGOs in recent years. In particular, those affiliated with the Gillen Hizmet Movement.
[20] In the aftermath of the coup, 1,229 foundations and associations and 19 trade unions were shut down without judicial proceedings.”
[21] Also:
“375 more associations and NGOs were closed for alleged links to terrorists and their assets were seized by the government.”
[22] The National Documentation Package also reports that:
“There are significant problems with arbitrary and indefinite detention and mistreatment of those arrested or suspected to be Hizmet Movement and increasing lack of judicial independence, especially after the dismissal of more than 3,000 judges following the attempted coup, relaxation on restrictions on the use of torture, and widespread impunity for officials who commit human rights abuses persist in Turkey.”
[23] There is also considerable evidence that:
“The authorities in Turkey have targeted family members of suspected Hizmet sympathizers or those who are wanted for arrest and cancelled their passports or even detained them.”
[24] Furthermore, the evidence in the National Documentation Package notes the:
“Closing of Hizmet affiliated universities in Turkey and the broader negative effects on academic freedom and freedom of speech in Turkey that have resulted from Turkish authority’s crackdown on Hizmet followers, affiliated educational institutions, and other academics who have voiced criticism of the regime and its actions.”
[25] After reviewing all this evidence which the Panel finds — after reviewing all this evidence, the Panel finds that the claimant’s allegations are consistent with the objective country condition documents with regards to the harsh treatment currently being made out against Hizmet supporters in Turkey, including dismissal from employment, increased closing down Hizmet affiliated education institutions, seizure of assets, detention, and mistreatment.
[26] Therefore, based on this country documentary evidence and the credible allegations, the Panel finds that the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution in Turkey by reason of his imputed political opinion.
State Protection
[27] As the state is the agent of persecution — as the agent of persecution is the Government of Turkey, the Panel finds that it would be objectively unreasonable for the claimant to seek protection of the Turkish Government in light of the claimant’s particular circumstances.
Internal Flight Alternative
[28] The Panel also finds that the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution throughout Turkey, especially given the objective documentary evidence that the Turkish authorities operates similarly throughout Turkey.
[29] Therefore the Panel finds that there is no viable internal flight alternative available to the claimant.
Conclusion
[30] The Panel finds that the claimant has established that he will face a serious possibility of persecution upon his return to Turkey on the Convention ground of his political opinion.
[31] And based on the foregoing analysis, the Panel has determined that the claimant is a Convention refugee as per section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and therefore accepts his claim.
– – – DECISION CONCLUDED – – –