Citation: 2020 RLLR 72
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 2, 2020
Panel: Diane L. Tinker
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Larry Butkowsky
Country: Nepal
RPD Number: TB8-07438
Associated RPD Number(s):
ATIP Number: A-2021-00800
ATIP Pages: 000082-000086
REASONS FOR DECISION
INTRODUCTION
[1] The claimant, [XXX] is claiming to be a citizen of Nepal. The claimant claims to have a well-founded fear of persecution at the hands of the splinter Maoists, a group called the Biplav in Nepal under sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act[1] (IRPA).
ALLEGATIONS
[2] The claimant alleges that he and his family have been involved in Nepali politics, namely the Nepali Congress, one of the oldest political parties in Nepal for many years. The claimant joined the youth wing of the Nepali Congress while a student. The claimant first had trouble with the then Maoist party while he was a [XXX] in [XXX] 2003 as he was kidnapped and told to teach what the Maoists believed in. The claimant left the country and went to work on an [XXX] in Iraq for a number of years. The claimant returned to Nepal in 2010 since the Maoists had ended their war. The claimant rejoined the Nepali Congress party and commenced [XXX] again. Eventually, the claimant rose through the ranks and ended up in [XXX] 2017 of becoming a [XXX] to [XXX]the number of [XXX] who were abducted, tortured and killed by the Maoists. However, as a result of his involvement with this [XXX] and which had been publicized in Nepali newspapers, the claimant started to receiving threatening telephone calls from a splinter group of the Communist Maoists, the Biplavs. The claimant then received letters from the Biplavs demanding money and for him to join their party. The claimant went to the police as a result of the threats but nothing was done. On [XXX] 2017, the claimant was beaten which required hospitalization and again threatened by the Biplavs. Again, the police were contacted by nothing was done. The claimant had applied for a Canadian visitor’s visa in [XXX] 2017 but was rejected. The claimant then hired an agent who secured a visitor’s visa to France and Italy with the intent of then proceeding to Canada. The claimant went to the aforementioned countries on [XXX] 2017 and unable to secure a Canadian visitor’s visa at that time, returned to Nepal on [XXX] 2017. The agent was then able to secure a Canadian visitor’s visa and the claimant arrived in Canada on [XXX] 2017 and filed for refugee protection in [XXX] 2018.
DETERMINATION
[3] I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee for the following reasons.
ANALYSIS
Identity
[4] The claimant’s oral testimony and the supporting documentation[2] establish that he is a citizen of Nepal.
Credibility
[5] I find that the claimant to be a credible witness and therefore accept what he has alleged in his oral testimony and in his Basis of Claim form.[3] I find that the claimant’s testimony was straightforward and in keeping with his Basis of Claim form with a very detailed narrative and I noted no contradictions, inconsistencies or omissions in his testimony.
[6] The claimant provided extensive documentation[4] including documents pertaining to his membership in the Nepali Congress party, employment as a [XXX] medical and police reports as well as newspaper articles confirming his job as a [XXX] the disappearance and killings of [XXX] by the Maoists.
[7] I therefore find that the claimant was a member of the Nepali Congress political party, that he was [XXX] the disappearances and killings of [XXX] by the Maoists in Nepal and as a result, was targeted by the Biplav faction of the Maoists was threatened and physically assaulted by them.
[8] This claim is therefore being assessed under section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Objective Country Documentation on Persecution
[9] The claimant had indicated in his testimony that he had contacted the police on three occasions concerning the threats made by the Biplav Maoists with no response.
[10] The National Documentation Package for Nepal[5] states that state protection for victims of extortion is largely incapable and increasingly so in the aftermath of the earthquakes. This same document states that the Biplav Maoists are involved in extortion, kidnapping and capturing land from opponents. In the documentation provided by counsel,[6] numerous newspaper articles from 2015 into the early 2018 confirm many aspects of the claimant’s testimony. These articles state that the Biplavs have taken responsibility for many bombs, killing government officials and business leaders in Nepal as well as attacking candidates from other political parties with basically impunity. The Biplavs maintain that they want to seize power in Nepal and will do whatever to obtain it.
State Protection and Internal Flight Alternative (IFA)
[11] I therefore find that state protection and an internal flight alternative is not available to the claimant as a member of the Nepali Congress and an [XXX] into the killings of [XXX] by the Biplav Maoists. The claimant and his family did move from their home to Kathmandu and were contacted by the Biplavs on more than one occasion. The claimant indicated that his wife is still being harassed by the Biplavs although she has moved to a different location in Kathmandu.
CONCLUSION
[12] I therefore determine that the claimant is a Convention refugee. The Refugee Protection Division therefore accepts his
[1] The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), S.C. 2001, c.27, as amended, sections 96 and 97(1).
[2] Exhibit M-1, Photocopy of claimant’s Nepalese passport; Exhibit C-7 Academic certificates.
[3] Exhibit C-2, Basis of Claim form
[4] Exhibit C-7, Membership card of Nepali Congress party, employment documents, medical and police reports, newspaper articles.
[5] Exhibit R-3, NDP for Nepal (April 30, 2019), item 4.7.
[6] Exhibit C-6 Counsel’s country documentation.