Citation: 2020 RLLR 123
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 12, 2020
Panel: Jeffrey Brian Gullickson
Counsel for the Claimant(s): N/A/S.O.
Country: Turkey
RPD Number: MB9-15978
Associated RPD Number(s):
ATIP Number: A-2021-01106
ATIP Pages: 000039-000042
REASONS FOR DECISION
INTRODUCTION
[1] [XXX] is claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. His passport proves his identity and that he is a citizen of Turkey.
ALLEGATIONS
[2] He was a practicing [XXX] in Turkey and a supporter of the Hizmet movement since age
13. His family were supporters as well. His father and brother were suspended from their jobs and criminally charged in 2016 for suspected connections to a terrorist organization in relation to the Hizmet or Fehtullah Gullen movement after the failed coup of 2016. The claimant [XXX] father in his court case. The father was convicted and sentenced to more than six years imprisonment and his appeal was rejected.
[3] The claimant who had not been formally accused of crimes in Turkey, feared being discovered or accused of being a Hizmet follower like his father. Some of the claimant’s [XXX] had already been accused and arrested.
[4] After his father’s failed appeal, the claimant left Turkey for his safety and the claimant made a refugee claim in Canada.
[5] After arriving in Canada, he testified in his refugee hearing the police came looking for him at his home and office and that an arrest warrant has been issued against him in Turkey.
DETERMINATION
[6] The claimant is a “Convention refugee“. He established a serious possibility of persecution on account of his political opinion (Hizmet supporter or follower).
ANALYSIS
Credibility
[7] The claimant was sufficiently credible as a witness regarding his allegation that he is a Hizmet follower or supporter.
[8] There were several other areas where the claimant was not credible but those elements were not determinative and it was necessary to give the claimant the benefit of the doubt for those other elements. An example of a non-credible element that was not determinative was his late disclosure in his hearing testimony where he testified that he, two months ago, became aware that he was the subject of an arrest warrant in Turkey, though he had declared at the start of the hearing that his basis of claim (BOC) form was “complete”, where there was no mention of an arrest warrant against the claimant in his BOC and where his BOC clearly instructs him to make an update of his BOC if there is new information to submit in his hearing.
[9] What I retained as credible was that the claimant probably supported the Hizmet movement, as his father and brother did and for which his father received a lengthy prison sentence.
[10] The claimant submitted probative evidence in support of his claim. He submitted court documents showing the charges against his father, where the claimant was the [XXX], and against his brother and a Turkish government decree naming his father as an accused in association with a terrorist organization and association with FETO (Gullen movement) and its members (Document #4).
[11] Having considered all of the evidence, I conclude that the claimant is not the subject of an arrest warrant in Turkey, he was not accused of connections to the Gullen movement, but that his father was and the claimant himself was forced to hide his support for the Gullen or Hizmet movement in whatever degree he supported Hizmet so not to be accused or arrested in Turkey.
[12] The National Documentation Packages for Turkey (NDP), dated 29 March 2019, shows that the current government in Turkey has forcefully repressed perceived political opponents such as the Gullen movement, including abuse and detention of their friends or family members (NDP, tabs 1.7 and 4.6). The NDP shows that Turkish authorities are reported to have committed abuses and serious mistreatment of detainees (NDP, tabs 1.7, 10.1 and 10.2). Political dissidents have been severely dealt with by the governing power in Turkey (NDP, tabs 4.5 and 13.1).
State Protection
[13] There is clear and convincing evidence before me that the state is unable or unwilling to provide the claimant with adequate protection, for the reasons stated above.
Internal Flight Alternative
[14] On the evidence before me, I find that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Turkey for the claimant, for the reasons stated above.
CONCLUSION
[15] The claimant is a “Convention refugee“.
[16] I accept his claim.