2019 RLLR 65
Citation: 2019 RLLR 65
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: April 1, 2019
Panel: S. Shaw
Counsel for the claimant(s): Md Wazir Hossain
Country: Bangladesh
RPD Number: TB8-14360
ATIP Number: A-2020-01274
ATIP Pages: 000180-000184
DECISION
[1] Member: This is the decision of the refugee protection claim made by Mr. [XXX] file number TB8-14360.
[2] At this point the panel has considered the claimant’s testimony and the other evidence in this case and is ready to render an oral decision.
[3] The claimant is a citizen of Bangladesh and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to Section 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
[4] After review the panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee for the following reasons. Specifically, the claimant has established a serious possibility of persecution based on a Convention ground of perceived political opinion. Regarding the other issues, specifically that of religion of a Convention ground, the panel did not consider that a key issue in this case.
[5] The claimant’s allegations are set out in the Basis of Claim Form and the amendments and further supplemented by testimony and supporting documents.
[6] In summary, the claimant has alleged that he fears persecution at the hands of the Awami League who is the current ruling party in Bangladesh and the Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh herein called the JMB, specifically, because of his perceived political opinion of being anti-Awami League and because of religious beliefs which are different from the JMB Islamic extremist views.
[7] The claimant alleges that he was targeted because of his social work and his business activities. The claimant is a self-employed entrepreneur and founded [XXX] organizations in Bangladesh.
[8] He alleges that his fears began in [XXX] of 2015 when he was assaulted by Awami League members following a protest rally he organized against Awami League members which included Monir the mayor of Bhola City. Threats to the claimant continued until [XXX] of 2018.
[9] The claimant alleges that he was assaulted in 2016 because he refused to pay money to fund the Awami League’s Independence Day activities.
[10] The Awami League visited his home and threatened him to stop protesting against Monir and the Awami League and he was again attacked in [XXX] of 2016 which led to medical treatment at the local medical clinic.
[11] In [XXX] of 2017 the Awami League and associates demanded that the claimant sell his land to the Awami League, and in [XXX] of 2018 the JMB visited the claimant’s office, ransacked it, and threatened him with death.
[12] In [XXX] of 2018 two Islamic leaders also visited the claimant’s [XXX] and assaulted his spouse and two other female employees.
[13] Further, in [XXX] of 2018 the claimant was again attacked by Awami League members causing him to be hospitalized for [XXX] days, and on [XXX], 2018 three armed Awami League members tried to abduct the claimant and his two daughters.
[14] This incident prompted the claimant’s decision to flee Bangladesh and he left Bangladesh on [XXX], 2018, arriving in Canada [XXX], 2018, and claiming refugee protection soon after.
[15] With regards to the analysis, the panel considered all of the evidence submitted and determined the following.
[16] On a balance of probabilities, the claimant’s identity as a citizen of Bangladesh is established by testimony and also by a certified true photocopy of his passport and the claimant’s national identity card and his Bangladesh Road Transport Authority card. Both of which were submitted at the hearing as oral … as original documents at the hearing. The panel finds no reason to doubt the veracity of these documents.
[17] With regard to credibility, testimony given under oath is presumed to be true unless there is a valid reason to doubt its truthfulness. As such, the panel has considered the claimant’s testimony as a whole and find the claimant to be a credible witness and believe what he has alleged relating to the issue of his perceived political opinion.
[18] The panel finds that the claimant’s testimony was generally straightforward with regard to central elements of this case, and any inconsistencies, contradictions or omissions that were considered central to this claim was adequately explained.
[19] Specifically, the panel asked why the claimant returned to Bangladesh prior to his final … fleeing from Bangladesh in [XXX] of 2015. Sorry, [XXX] of 2018, given that his fears began in [XXX] of 2015. The panel notes that the claimant had returned to Bangladesh prior to the [XXX] 2018 final reason when he left.
[20] After review, the panel accepts that the claimant’s final crystalizing fear did not occur until [XXX] 2018 and [XXX] 2018, and those two incidents in 2018 were the incidents that crystalized his decision to finally leave Bangladesh in fear of his safety. The panel accept this as reasonable considering the circumstances.
[21] In addition, as previously indicated with regards to the claimant’s allegations of fear of the JMB Islamic extremist group, the panel did not consider this the key issue of this claim since the claimant had not met or been threatened personally by JMB extremists, and since the JMB … or fear was related to the [XXX] that the claimant ran the panel notes that this [XXX] was closed since [XXX] of 2018 and as such, the … the panel is of the view that this group JMB did not pose a significant fear to this claimant and hence was not the key fear of this particular claim.
[22] With regard to documentation relating to the perceived political opinion and the fear that arise from that, the claimant provided the following corroborating documents as evidence. Specifically, as noted in Exhibit 5 the claimant’s tax documents and business documents, as well as hospital and doctor’s letters in … and discharge summary report from the hospital. Both of which indicate and diagnose a physical assault that needed emergency attention and multiple deep lacerations that the claimant sustained.
[23] The panel also considered the corroborating documents of a number of police complaints, general diaries, deposition, and court order, as well as an arrest warrant, and a court case filed against the claimant’s perpetrators.
[24] Therefore, after review, the panel is satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant’s allegations are credible and further that the claimant has established a subjective fear of persecution if returned to Bangladesh.
[25] With regards to the objective basis of this claim, the panel finds that this claimant’s allegations are corroborated by the country conditions as noted in the National Documentation Package and counsel’s disclosure package.
[26] The panel accepts that there is an objective basis for this claim, specifically as noted in the NDP Items 1.1(0), 4.1(3), 2.1, and 1.5. These country condition documents confirm that the Awami League is currently by far the largest political force in Bangladesh after recent elections and that the Awami League has consolidated its power which has led international and domestic critics to accuse the Awami League of being authoritarian and heavy handed in its approach to any opposition or anti-government individuals that it is … that it views against the government.
[27] Further, the NDP shows that Bangladesh authorities increasingly use harsh measures including abuse and harassment, and that the Awami League Government is increasingly using imprisonment detention without trial and show trials to silence opposition.
[28] With regards to State protection, the panel finds that the claimant has rebutted the presumption of adequate State protection with clear and convincing evidence that adequate State protection is not available to this claimant and is not reasonably forthcoming in this case.
[29] The panel notes the claimant’s testimony that he has attempted to file complaints in the past, specifically in [XXX] of 2016 which would … sorry. Specifically, in [XXX] of 2018 but it was again refused, and also the panel notes that there is country conditions that specifically speak to the anti corruption efforts of the international community has been weakened because of the Awami League’s politicizing of law enforcement agencies and the judicial process.
[30] In addition, Item 2.3 of the NDP also indicates that there’s a concern which is on the increase about the growing interference by government in the judiciary process, and that Item 1.1(7) indicates from the United States State Department report which indicates that public has a deep distrust of police and security services which has deterred many Bangladeshis from approaching police for assistance or reporting criminal incidents.
[31] With regards to internal flight alternative, the panel has also considered whether a viable internal flight alternative exits for this claimant. After review, the panel is satisfied that there’s no viable internal flight alternative because this claimant would face a serious possibility of persecution throughout Bangladesh considering that some of the agents of persecution are the Awami League and its members which are integrally linked to the ruling government.
[32] The panel notes that the claimant and his family did attempt to internally relocate by going and staying at their parent’s home, as in the claimant’s in-laws home in [XXX](sic) District which a [XXX] kilometres away from the claimant’s home in Dhaka. However, the claimant was found one week later by the Awami League, and also the claimant again relocated to the [XXX] Region in [XXX] of 2018, but again was found by the Awami League, and the Gibot(ph) League.
[33] After review and based on the profile of the agents of persecution and their affiliation with the ruling government who has control throughout the country of Bangladesh, the panel finds that this claimant would face persecution throughout the country of Bangladesh. Therefore, the panel is satisfied that there’s no viable internal flight alternative available to this claimant.
[34] In conclusion based on the totality of the evidence and the previously mentioned analysis the panel finds that the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution based on the perceived political opinion. Therefore, this panel concludes that this claimant is a Convention refugee as defined by Section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. As such, the panel accepts this claim for refugee protection in Canada.
[35] That is the end of the decision and its reasons.
[36] This hearing is now concluded. That brings me to the end of the hearing. We are now off record. Thank you all for attending. Interpreter and everyone, thank you. Thank you.
———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-