Citation: 2020 RLLR 158
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 23, 2020
Panel: Kim Bugby
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Victoria A Bruyn
Country: Colombia
RPD Number: TB9-00965
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-00210
ATIP Pages: 000123-000126
DECISION
[1] MEMBER: So, this is the decision for the claimant XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The claimant is claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I’ve considered the testimony and the other evidence in this case and I am ready to render a decision orally.
[2] I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee as defined under Section 96 of the Act and I accept the claim. The allegations are set out in the Basis of Claim form. In summary the claimant was targeted by the AGC, the Black Eagles, and the Revolutionary Forces of the People, as a result of his work for XXXX XXXX, an organization focused upon promoting the rights of LGBT persons in Columbia.
[3] The Nexus is political opinion as expressed through his work as a XXXX XXXX XXXX for the LGBT community and membership in a particular social group, as a gay man XXXX as XXXX XXXX.
[4] The claimant on a balance of probabilities has established his identity through testimony and submission of his Columbian passport and other identity documents.
[5] Based upon the claimants’ credible testimony and as substantiated by the documents submitted into evidence, I accept the following facts. The claimant was employed by the XXXX XXXX XXXX from 2010 to 2018. During his time with the organization, the claimant was responsible among other duties for the investigation of human rights abuses against LGBT persons and the collection and publication of related data. In XXXX 2017, the organization published and publicly presented a report which highlighted abuses of LGBT persons in education, employment, society, and by public officials. Shortly after publication of the report the claimant began to receive threats of harm by phone and text from various para-military groups.
[6] Death threats were also received at the XXXX XXXX offices. The written threats included reference to social cleansing of clients’ of XXXX XXXX but also those who worked for and supported them. The organization was unable to provide any protection to its employees or its clients’ and took the position that such threats had always been a known possibility. The claimant reported the threats received at the offices of XXXX XXXX and the threats he personally received by phone and by text to both the ombudsman’s office and the prosecutor’s office seeking protection. Reports were taken but no protection was ordered. The claimant went into hiding at a friends home and disconnected his cell phone. However, his family continued to receive threatening calls at the claimant’s home number. The claimant fled Columbia in XXXX of 2018.
[7] The objective country documents are consistent with the claimant’ s evidence. At Tab 1.7 the NDP speaks to the high-risk profiles of social leaders and human rights defenders. At Tab 2.9 of the NDP, the documents indicate a constant level of violence against social leaders and the human rights activists, perpetrated by the Bacrim. Based upon the claimant’s personal circumstances and the objective evidence I find that the claimant has established on a balance of probabilities a well-founded fear of persecution.
[8] With regard to state protection the claimant reported the threats to government authorities but was not granted protection. The claimant’s evidence is consistent with the objective country reports at Tab 7.3, which indicate that the claimant does not fit the profile of those eligible for protection. At Tab 7.23 the NDP indicates that protection measures for victims are very limited and the measures in place do not yet meet the needs on the ground. Further, at Tab 2.6 the reports indicate that the political culture views human rights defenders as obstacles rather than guarantees for the rule of law in a democratic system with correspondingly high levels of impunity in Columbia, related to aggressions against human rights defenders. Reporting an impunity rate close to 90% in cases of a tax, a tax against defenders.
[9] Based on the claimant’s personal circumstances and the objective country documentations, I find that the claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence. Adequate state protection is not available to the claimant.
[10] With respect to internal flight alternative, on a balance of probabilities I find that there is no viable internal flight alternative that would be safe for the claimant. The claimant was responsible for investigation of cases of abuse against LGBT persons and for assisting those same people when they proceeded with legal action against the perpetrators of the abuse. Those accused of the abuse include both police and criminal groups. The publication of data regarding this persecution on a balance of probabilities, led to the threats against the claimant and would remain a motivating factor for the armed groups to seek out the claimant.
[11] The principal claimant has been declared a military objective. The country conditions indicate at Tab 7.2 that the, sorry, at 7.21 the country conditions indicate that when a person is declared a military objective it means that their life, physical integrity, and freedom are endangered, and that this threat also extends to their family. Essentially being declared a military objective is being issued a threat to be killed.
[12] The claimant has been targeted due to his XXXX XXXX work and the country conditions are consistent with the claimants’ evidence that XXXX activists are at risk throughout the country. At Tab 2.2 the report indicate that XXXX XXXX defenders continue to be one of the main victims of the ongoing armed conflict. At Tab 2.9 the reports indicate that there are historically high levels of impunity in Columbia related to aggressions against XXXX XXXX defenders and this has been one of the structural causes for the repetition of these serious crimes, and again the reports indicate an impunity rate of 90% in cases of attacks against defenders.
[13] Lastly, the claimant identifies as a gay man XXXX with XXXX XXXX. The objective country reports indicate instances of police violence against LGBT persons, societal abuse and discrimination, and further that criminal groups target homosexual and transgender individuals. Well the claimant has not been open
about his sexuality in Columbia, he would face further risk were his personal circumstances to come to light in Columbia.
[14] Considering the claimant’s XXXX XXXX work, his profile as a gay man XXXX with XXXX XXXX XXXX and the objective country conditions, I find that there is no viable internal flight alternative that would be safe as the claimant faces a risk of persecution in all parts of the country.
[15] Based on the totality of the evidence, I find the claimant to be a Convention refugee and I accept the claim.
———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-