Citation: 2020 RLLR 130
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 5 2020
Panel: N. Stocks
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Jeffrey L. Goldman
Country: Albania
RPD Number: TB9-05661
Associated RPD Number(s):
ATIP Number: A-2021-01106
ATIP Pages: 000088-000092
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] [XXX] (claimant) is a citizen of Albania. He claims refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).
ALLEGATIONS
[2] The particulars of his claim are detailed in his Basis of Claim Form (BOC)[1] and were explained further in his oral testimony. In summary, the claimant alleged he is a bisexual male. He had a boyfriend in his hometown. The relationship became known after the sister of his boyfriend, [XXX] found text messages on his phone. The claimant was assaulted with a bat by [XXX] uncles. The claimant was taken to the hospital where he was treated by hospital staff. When they discovered why he was attacked, the doctor and nurse stated this is what happens when people try to pervert/corrupt men. The hospital staff refused to treat him.
[3] The claimant also alleged that after his father died, his uncle took care of the family. His uncle, [XXX] is a policeman. When he learned that the claimant was in a same sex relationship, he was outraged. He blamed the claimant’s mother for giving him “the gay disease”. [XXX] beat the claimant’s mother and brother. Later, [XXX] with other police officers found the claimant who had been in hiding; he was beaten by [XXX] and the other officers.
[4] The claimant fears returning to Albania. He asserts that he cannot seek protection in Albania. The people of Albania are homophobia. The police will not protect him. His uncle is a member of the police and has influence. He cannot live safely anywhere in Albania.
[5] The panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee for the reasons that follow.
ANALYSIS
Identity
[6] The panel finds that the claimant has established his identity as a national of Albania, based on a certified copy of his Albanian passport on file.[2]
Credibility
[7] When a claimant swears that certain facts are true, this creates a presumption that they are true unless there is valid reason to doubt their veracity. The determination as to whether a claimant’s evidence is credible is made on a balance of probabilities. Having considered the claimant’s testimony, the panel found the claimant testified in a spontaneous and forthright manner. There were no material inconsistencies or omissions.
[8] The claimant provided satisfactory evidence to establish on a balance of probabilities that he is at risk in Albania. This includes but is not limited to the profile of the claimant’s uncle who is a police officer. While same sex relationships are not illegal in Albania, there are strong homophobic sentiments. This in itself would be insufficient to grant protection; however, in the case of the claimant, taking into account his personal circumstances, the panel finds that there is more than a mere possibility of persecution owing to his sexual orientation.
[9] The Constitution of Albania provides protection from discrimination in general, but does not specifically refer to the grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity. Hate crimes and hate speech on the grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity are prohibited in the Penal Code; however, the legislation only created a contradictory situation in Albania, combining an outward appearance of legal protection with hostility and discrimination still present within key institutions.[3]
[10] A state is presumed to be capable of protecting its citizens, except in cases where the state is in complete breakdown. Albania is a functioning democracy.[4] The panel has assessed state protection in Albania in the claimant’s particular circumstances. As indicated in item 2.1 of the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Albania, “[p]olice did not always enforce the law equitably. Personal associations, political or criminal connections, poor infrastructure, lack of equipment, or inadequate supervision often influenced law enforcement. Poor leadership and a lack of diversity in the workforce contributed to continued corruption and unprofessional behavior. Authorities continued to make efforts to address these problems by renovating police facilities, upgrading vehicles, and publicly highlighting anticorruption measures.”[5]
[11] As previously noted, the claimant’s uncle, a police officer and the head of the family is included as an agent of persecution. The panel notes that his uncle is well-connected amongst his peers. The panel finds that the claimant has rebutted presumption of state protection.
[12] The panel notes that the documentary evidence consistently indicates that police did not always enforce the laws equitably and that personal associations, political or criminal connections, poor infrastructure, lack of equipment or inadequate supervision often influenced law enforcement.[6] [emphasis added]
[13] In light of the panel’s findings regarding state protection for the claimant in his particular circumstances, and the claimant’s testimony, the panel finds, in these particular circumstances, there is no viable internal flight alternative.
CONCLUSION
[14] The panel finds that the claimant has established a serious possibility of persecution owing to his sexual orientation.
[15] The panel accepts this claim.
[1] Exhibit 2
[2] Exhibit 1
[3] Exhibit 3, NDP for Albania (30 September 2019), item 6.3.
[4] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Albania — September 30, 2019 Version.
[5] Exhibit 3, item 2.1.
[6] National Documentation Package, Albania, 30 September 2019, tab 6.5: Country Policy and Information Note. Albania: Sexual orientation and gender identity. Version 5.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. April 2019.