Citation: 2019 RLLR 84
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: April 25, 2019
Panel: R. Jackson
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Micheal F. Loebach
Country: Burundi
RPD Number: TB7-08140
ATIP Number: A-2020-01459
ATIP Pages: 000023-000026
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] [XXX], a citizen of Burundi, is claiming refugee protection pursuant to ss. 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act1 (IRPA).
FILE REVIEW PROCESS
[2] The panel issued this decision without a hearing in accordance with paragraph 170(f) of the IRPA and the relevant instructions.
DETERMINATION
[3] The panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee, as he has established that he faces a serious possibility of persecution on Convention grounds, if he returns to Burundi, by reason of his imputed political opinion and ethnicity.
ALLEGATIONS
[4] The claimant is 21 years old and a Tutsi.
[5] The claimant’s allegations are contained in his Basis of Claim (BOC) form. In summary, he fears returning to Burundi because he has been targeted in the past by Jmbonerakures and other state actors due to his ethnicity and imputed anti-government political opinion. The authorities and state actors have also persecuted his family members over the years, due to their Tutsi ethnicity and real or imputed political opinions.
ANALYSIS
Identity
[6] The claimant’s identity as a national of Burundi was established by a copy of his passport.2
Credibility
[7] The claimant’s allegations were credible and supported by probative evidence.
[8] He presented various documents supporting certain aspects of his claim, particularly regarding the treatment his family members’ have received in Burundi.
[9] The National Documentation Package (NDP) for Burundi shows the political violence in Burundi, government repression and violence against anti-government protesters and political opponents3.
[10] The objective documentation mentions that protests against the government have involved Hutu and Tutsi; that Tutsi are often targeted4; and that family members of political opponents to the government’s third term of the president are subject to violence from government authorities or supporters due to their imputed political opinion.5 Sexual violence remained pervasive and was often used as a means of torture to obtain information or confessions from detainees. Rape was also committed while police officers or members of the Imbonerakure arrested a victim’s spouse or relative accused of belonging to an opposition party.
[11] An example that illustrates the situation in Burundi is that on December 11, 2015, police and military personnel summarily executed dozens of persons in Bujumbura Mairie, including in Nyakabiga and Musaga. The bodies of persons who had been executed were also found in the commune of Mukike (Bujumbura Province). The extrajudicial executions that took place in December 2015, on a scale that exceeded those reported since April 2015, were accompanied or followed by torture, rape and arbitrary arrests.6
[12] There are reports of summary executions by the Imbonerakure, acting either as auxiliaries of the defense and security forces or on their own initiative.7
[13] There is ample evidence in the NDP indicating that there is a risk to Tutsis in Burundi when they are associated with political opposition, such as residing in an area associated with anti-regime protests or with a high population of Tutsis.
[14] The objective documentation is consistent with the claimant’s allegations. The panel therefore accepts his allegations and that he has a subjective fear of returning to Burundi.
STATE PROTECTION
[15] There is clear and convincing evidence before the panel that the state is unable or unwilling to protect the claimant, since the state is the agent of persecution. As noted in the objective documentation referred to above, the government has effective control of its territory.
INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE-IFA
[16] Based on the evidence before the panel, there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Burundi.
[17] As indicated in the evidence above, the state is the agent of persecution and the government has effective control of its territory and would probably eventually find the claimant in another area of Burundi. Remaining in hiding in that country is unreasonable.
CONCLUSION
[18] The claimant, [XXX], is a Convention refugee due to his imputed political opinion.
[19] The panel accepts his claim.
(signed) R. Jackson
April 25, 2019
1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c.27 as amended.
2 Exhibit I – passport.
3 Exhibit 3 – National Documentation Package (NDP) for Burundi (March 29, 2019), items 2.1, 4.7 and 13.1.
4 Ibid., items 2.1 and 13.6.
5 Ibid., items 2.1 and 4.14.
6 Ibid., item 2.10.
7 Ibid.