Citation: 2021 RLLR 44
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 8, 2021
Panel: Oluwabukola Adeoye
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Ian Wong
Country: Turkey
RPD Number: TB9-23616
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-00978
ATIP Pages: 000124-000127
DECISION
[1] MEMBER: I have had the opportunity to consider your oral testimony and also review your documentary evidence and I am prepared to render my decision orally.
Introduction
[2] The claimant, XXXX XXXX, is claiming refugee protection pursuant to s. 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and claims to be a citizen of Turkey.
Determination
[3] I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee for the following reasons. I find that the claimant has established a serious possibility of persecution on the grounds of political opinion, as per s. 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Allegations
[4] The claimant’s allegations are contained in her Basis of Claim form and I will not repeat them here, but in summary, the claimant alleges the following. The claimant alleges the fear of persecution in Turkey because of her Kurdish ethnicity and political opinion, specifically, she alleges that she is a member of the HDP and that she was arrested, detained, physically and verbally assaulted by the Turkish authorities because of her participation at anti-government rallies and demonstrations.
Analysis
Personal Identity
[5] Your identity as a national of Turkey is established by your testimony and a certified copy of your Turkish passport attached to Exhibit 1.
Political Identity
[6] In terms of the claimant’s political identity, I find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant has established her anti-government profile as a member and a supporter of the HDP. These were based on her oral testimony and several probative documentary evidence, which includes photographs of the claimant at HDP rallies in Turkey.
Credibility
[7] Even though, the Panel had concerns about the letter issued by the HDP, overall, the Panel found the claimant to be credible witness on the balance of probabilities on what is called to her claim that is her political opinion.
[8] The Panel, therefore, believes what she has alleged in support of her claim. The claimant testified in a straightforward manner, and there were no relevant inconsistencies in her testimonies or contradictions between her testimonies and other evidence before me that were not satisfactorily explained. Also, the Panel notes that the claimant was forthcoming in when she was asked questions and she did not know the answer, she clearly stated so and did not embellish her answers or tried to make up testimony on the spot.
[9] The Panel also finds that the claim was documented with documents found primarily in Exhibit 5, 6, 7, and 8, which includes a letter from the Toronto Kurdish Community and Information Centre, a letter of support from the claimant’s father, photographs of the claimant at rallies in Turkey and Canada, and a government issued print out of the claimant’s entry and exit from Turkey, in and out of Turkey. The Panel gives significant weight to these documents as it corroborates the claimant’s oral testimony in regard to her political profile and the persecution she suffered as a result of a political opinion.
[10] So, therefore, I accept your allegations due to your anti-government activities and affiliations with the HDP. You were targeted by the Turkish authorities. I, therefore, find that on a balance of probabilities that the claimant is credible, accept her allegations as credible, and that she has established her subjective fear.
Well-Founded Fear
[11] As it relates to the well-founded fear of the claimant’s fear of persecution, I find that the claimant’s subjective fear has an objective basis based on the objective documentary evidence before me.
[12] The National Documentation Package indicates that those persons who are or are perceived to be members of political opposition groups are subjected to a variety of human rights violations in Turkey. Under the guise of the emergency decrees and anti-terrorism laws, the Turkish government disproportionately subjects Kurdish, Alevi-Kurdish, and those critical of the government to these human rights violations.
[13] While Turkey is no longer in a state of emergency, the emergency decrees granting abusive powers remain enforced. Despite, the public declaration of a repeal of the state of emergency there is no change in the treatment of Kurdish persons or persons who are opposite to be critical of the government, just like the claimant.
[14] According to the United States Department of State Country Reports and Human Rights Practices of Turkey, there are approximately, 4,000 criminal persecutions for insulting Turkish leaders, politicians, or Turkishness. This number represents a significant increase in persecution compared to the pre-coup period.
[15] The documentary evidence also states that the problems reported included alleged tortured and abuse of detainees at times leading to their death, police violence against peaceful citizens, abuse of inmates in prisons, harsh and sometimes life-threatening prison conditions, detentions without warrant, and incommunicado detention. The documentary evidence also confirms that the authorities beat and threaten the opposition activists to force them to confess to false charges as in the case of the claimant.
[16] In regard to the HDP party, the documentary evidence confirms that the HDP recognizes and fights for the right of Kurdish people to [inaudible] determination and seek peaceful democratic solution to the Kurdish question based on equal rights and voluntary togetherness.
[17] It also confirms that the HDP has been the target of a number of attacks in the months that preceded and followed the 2015 elections in June 2015 and November 2015. The party reported that between July and October 2015 an important number of its members were taken into custody and that some HDP members were charged with the deformation of public authorities including insulting the president and most of them were detained and also charged with terrorism charges.
[18] The test in assessing your risk of harm is forward looking. You testified credibility about your fears regarding returning to Turkey and the treatment you would receive. Your testimony was consistent with the country conditions in Turkey just like I have read, and thus, I find that there is an objective basis to support your fear and I therefore, find that your fear is well-founded.
State protection
[19] With respect to state protection, given that your fear of persecution is at the hands of the Turkish government, it will appear to be unreasonable for you, the claimant, to approach the state for protection. Based on objective documentary evidence, I find that there is no adequate state protection and therefore, the presumption of state protection has been rebutted.
Internal Flight Alternative
[20] Given the information that the authorities in Turkey operate similarly throughout the country, I find that the claimant faces a serios possibility of persecution throughout Turkey and therefore, I find that there is no viable Internal Flight Alternative for the claimant anywhere in Turkey.
Conclusion
[21] Based on the foregoing analysis, I have determined that the claimant has established that there is a serious possibility of persecution on the convention ground of her political opinion and I therefore find that that claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to s. 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and I therefore accept her claim.
[22] So, this will conclude the hearing. I want to thank, Madam Interpreter. And thank you, Counsel.
[23] And congratulations to the claimant.
[24] COUNSEL: Thank you very much, ma’am.
[25] MEMBER: In the absence of any question, concerns, I am going to formally end the hearing.
——–REASONS CONCLUDED——–