Categories
All Countries Venezuela

2021 RLLR 32

Citation: 2021 RLLR 32
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 20, 2021
Panel: Daniel Mckeown
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Panteha Yektaeian
Country: Venezuela
RPD Number: TB9-17206
Associated RPD Number(s): TB9-17230
ATIP Number: A-2022-00665
ATIP Pages: 000158-000162

DECISION

[1]     MEMBER: Okay, I have considered the testimony and other evidence in this claim and I am now prepared to render my decision. The claimants are XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and his mother, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. They seek refugee protection against Venezuela pursuant to s. 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[2]     For the following reasons, the Panel finds that the claimants are Convention refugees and this claim is accepted.

[3]     CO-CLAIMANT: Thank you.

[4]     CLAIMANT: Thank you, sir. Thank you very much.

[5]     MEMBER: Mister Interpreter, you can pause at this point, and I will let you know when you can resume.

[6]     For ease of reference, these reasons will make reference to the claimants by their first names.

[7]     This claim was based on the following allegations. XXXX has a history of political involvement in Venezuela, he has participated in numerous protests and often engaged with and clashed with Venezuelan police during these protests. He has travelled to Panama and Argentina in 2014 and again in 2017, to avoid the heated situation in Venezuela and also for educational purposes and other personal reasons related to his sexual orientation.

[8]     XXXX and his mother fled Venezuela for the final time on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019. Shortly after he left, he learned that he received notifications that he was under investigation. XXXX had no political involvement in Venezuela since 2014, she fears returning to Venezuela because she was targeted for extortion by a taxi driver after a traffic accident.

[9]     Since the first hearing, XXXX has amended her claim to include an allegation that she is also targeted because of her son’s political activity. Since the prior hearing, she has learned that an investigation has been opened against her as well.

[10]   The identities of the claimants were established on the basis of their Venezuelan passports, the originals of which were seized by the Minister.

[11]   The Panel’s primary concern in this claim with respect to the credibility of XXXX extortion by a taxi driver. Given that XXXX had no political involvement herself since 2014, XXXX appeared to have no nexus to any Convention ground. That was simply not plausible given the limited political involvement she had even to that point, which was limited only to attending demonstrations. There was no realistic or plausible evidence that she was targeted by Venezuelan authorities for this involvement.

[12]   The Panel was also concerned about her narrative of extortion by a taxi driver that — last contact that XXXX had with the taxi driver was in XXXX 2018 and XXXX did not leave Venezuela until XXXX 2019. Clearly there was no threat to XXXX from the taxi driver and accordingly she would not fit the definition of a person in need of protection, let alone a Convention refugee.

[13]   However, the Panel has since received credible evidence that XXXX has been identified as a person of interest on the Tascón List. This is a list containing the names of persons known to be opponents of Hugo Chavez and his successor, Nicolas Madura, and who have voted against him. XXXX gave credible evidence as to how she found out about this list and the fact that she was on the list. Essentially, she found out about that through her legal counsel, who is now representing her at this hearing.

[14]   Counsel has previously represented clients who have had access to that list and an affidavit was provided by Counsel’s assistance.

[15]   XXXX has also provided disclosure of the notice of investigation she received dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 2020. The Panel had no reason to question the authenticity of this document or of the authenticity of the evidence surrounding the Tascón List, especially coming from Counsel, who is an officer of the court.

[16]   Accordingly, despite concerns with other elements of XXXX claim, the Panel is prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt based on the strength of the Tascón List evidence, the notice of investigation, and also based on the strength of her son’s profile and evidence.

[17]   Given the strength of the XXXX claim and evidence, it is not implausible that Venezuelan authorities have also targeted XXXX as a means of getting to XXXX.

[18]   In respect to XXXX claim, the Panel had no significant concerns.  XXXX spoke about his political involvement and background. He spoke about his attendance at protests and his clashes with police and about his reluctance to seek their help when he was robbed.

[19]   The Panel had no reason to question any of XXXX testimony. He was straightforward and direct, he elaborated his allegations spontaneously and with a level of detail that one would expect of a person who had actually lived through the experiences that he described. There were no inconsistencies and there did not appear to be any attempt to embellish his evidence. Where the Panel did have concerns, they either had reasonable explanation or otherwise they were minor in nature and did not affect the outcome of this claim.

[20]   The Panel found XXXX testimony was compelling. XXXX evidence was supported by the notices that he was under investigation, several letters of support, and extensive copies of his Facebook postings, which provided excellent detail about his political involvement. The Panel found this documentation was compelling and there was no reason to question any of its authenticity.

[21]   Can everyone still hear me?

[22]   CLAIMANT: Yes.

[23]   MEMBER: Okay.

[24]   CLAIMANT: Yes.

[25]   MEMBER: Where the Panel did have concerns, again, they were either reasonably explained or minor in nature and did not undermine the evidence in support of this claim.

[26]   The National Documentation Package for Venezuela supports these allegations. The Panel has access to credible and reliable sources, such as the United States Department of State report and the CIA Factbook. These documents make clear that the government of Venezuela is conducting a brutal campaign of oppression against political dissent of any kind. Over 2,000,000 Venezuelans have fled the country as refugees, and a large majority of these refugees have come from the upper and the middle classes. These claimants clearly fit that profile.

[27]   Sorry, Counsel, we lost you for a moment.

[28]   COUNSEL: Yeah, my apologies.  Internet — I have mentioned this to the screen, I am hot spotting [inaudible] so we are fine, thank you.

[29]   MEMBER: Did you miss anything that I should go over?

[30]   COUNSEL: No, I am good. Thank you.

[31]   MEMBER: These claimants certainly fit that profile given their employment and education history, given the political and economic profile of the claimants. The Panel finds that they are indeed at significantly high risk if they were to return to Venezuela.

[32]   [inaudible] the state is the agent of persecution, the claimants have rebutted the presumption that state protection would be adequate and forthcoming to them. Likewise, there is no location in Venezuela they could go where they would not face a serious possibility of persecution. They have no viable internal flight alternative.

[33]   The claimants are presumed to be truthful unless there is a reason to believe that they have not been credible. I did have some concern, especially with XXXX claim. The adverse evidence in this case is not sufficed to undermine the credibility of the claim as a whole.

[34]   Okay, Mister Interpreter, you can start again.

[35]   INTERPRETER: Yes.

[36]   MEMBER: For all of these reasons, the Panel finds that this claim is credible. The claimants’ fear is well-founded. The claimants face a serious possibility of persecution in Venezuela on account of their political opinion. The claimants are Convention refugees, and this claim is accepted.

[37]   Thank you both very much for being here and for speaking with me, and I have no doubt that the past year has been very stressful for you, waiting to get back to this hearing.

[38]   So, I thank you very much for your patience and for coming back to speak with me again.

[39]   And Counsel, for your assistance, thank you very much as well.

[40]   COUNSEL: Thank you.

[41]   MEMBER: Mister Interpreter, thank you as well.

[42]   INTERPRETER: You are welcome.

[43]   CLAIMANT: We are very grateful to you and really appreciate your contribution that you have made to our security and our protection. Thank you.

[44]   MEMBER: Thank you very much.

[45]   INTERPRETER: Thank you.

[46]   MEMBER: Everyone have a wonderful day.

———-REASONS CONCLUDED———-