Citation: 2021 RLLR 7
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: June 10, 2021
Panel: Kristy Sim
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Johnson Babalola
Country: Bahamas
RPD Number: VC1-03028
Associated RPD Number(s): VC1-03029
ATIP Number: A-2022-00210
ATIP Pages: 000214-000220
DECISION
This transcript constitutes the member’s written reasons for decision.
[1] MEMBER: This the recording of a reserved decision of the Refugee Protection Division in the claim of XXXX XXXX, the principal claimant, and XXXX XXXX XXXX, the minor claimant, file numbers VCl-03028 and VCl-03029. In assessing this claim, I have considered and applied the Chairperson’s Guideline on Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution and the Guideline on Proceedings Before the IRB Involving Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression (or the SOGIE Guideline).
[2] The principal claimant provided a letter of consent from the minor claimant’s father as well as a copy of the minor claimant’s birth certificate, Exhibit 6. The claimants are citizens of the Bahamas are claiming refugee protection pursuant to Section 96 and Subsection 97 (1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Their allegations are set out in full in the Basis of Claim forms at Exhibit 2.1, 2.2, and amended BOC narrative in Exhibit 10.
[3] In summary, the principal claimant is a XXXX XXXX year-old woman who grew up in a Christian family. While she was in school, she found women beautiful but suppressed these feelings out of fear as her family, her religious community, and Bahamian culture is deeply homophobic. She found high school difficult due to her struggles over her own sexuality and her fear of being rejected. The principal claimant came to realize that she was bisexual and had her first romantic relationship with a woman in XXXX 2014. They met at work and kept their relationship secret. ln 2015, she entered a romantic relationship with a man with whom she had a child, the minor claimant, in XXXX XXXX. This relationship ended shortly thereafter. In XXXX 2016, when the claimant started her job at the XXXX XXXX she met XXXX XXXX (ph) whom I will refer to as her ex-partner throughout. They soon began a relationship; she did not discuss her bisexuality with him as she feared how he would react. The principal claimant said she was very much in love and the two of them moved in together along with the minor claimant over whom the principal claimant had full custody.
[4] The principal claimant eventually learned that her ex-partner was having a relationship with another woman; however, she felt unable to leave him. They eventually worked out their differences and got engaged in XXXX 2017, although she describes this relationship as emotionally abusive and him as obsessive. The principal claimant got a second job in the XXXXof a XXXX where she met XXXX XXXX in XXXX 2018. They quickly formed a close friendship and eventually it became romantic. XXXX XXXX XXXX identifies as a lesbian. The two women professed their love for each other in XXXX 2018 but kept the relationship a secret. A few friends of theirs suspected them of being romantically involved, however, they were careful to socialize in a group usually after work and with other co-workers. The principal claimant is not aware of any safe spaces for members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (or LGBTI) community.
[5] The claimant went to Florida in XXXX 2019 with XXXX XXXX XXXX and some other friends. They were secretly intimate with each other on this trip but were not open about it to their friends. The principal claimant’s relationship with her ex-partner was deteriorating primarily due to her desire to be with XXXX XXXX XXXX. In XXXX 2019, her ex-partner went through her phone and saw messages between her and XXXX XXXX XXXX. He asked who it was, and the principal claimant brushed it off and responded that it was a misunderstanding. However, they argued, and the principal claimant left the home to clear her head and also to see XXXX XXXX XXXX. When the principal claimant returned late that evening, her ex-partner confronted her, and she confessed to being in love with XXXX XXXX XXXX. He was enraged and violently assaulted her. The minor claimant witnessed much of the violence including his mother being choked and her ex-partner saying that he would kill her. The principal claimant eventually grabbed a knife from the kitchen to defend herself, but her ex-partner knocked out of her hands and slapped her until she fell to the ground, then he walked away. She ran out of the home with her son and had a friend take her son to his grandmother’s house and her to the police station. The police were nonchalant and told her to first get treatment at the hospital. She went to the hospital and received stitches to her face. She returned to the police station to report the assault the police did not take a report but offered to take her back to the house to get her clothes which she did. There was no discussion of a restraining order or a protection order and the police told the principal claimant to find somewhere to stay that night.
[6] The principal claimant followed up with the police by telephone, in person, and with emails as she intended to follow through on the assault charges against her ex-partner. However, nothing happened, and the police did not take the matter seriously. The principal claimant immediately moved into her mother’s home, stopped working at the XXXX XXXX and blocked all contact with her ex-partner. He stalked her wanting to know why she was not talking to him and demanding that she return to him and their relationship. He also followed her and XXXX XXXX XXXX as they left work one night until the principal claimant drove into the parking lot of the police station at which point, he left. He repeatedly tried to contact her on Facebook using different identities and demanding that she return to him. The principal claimant took her son to Disneyland with some friends in XXXX 2019 for a short trip. Her ex partner intercepted her as she attempted to board the flight as he had access to the XXXX XXXX and to this area of the airport through XXXX XXXX. He grabbed her arm and told her not to run as he would find her and make things bad for her if she continued to avoid him.
[7] The night the principal claimant returned from Florida her ex-partner went to her mother’s house screaming at her to return to him and insulting XXXX XXXX XXXX, he also vandalized her car. The principal claimant called the police, but they did not come. XXXX XXXX XXXX convinced the principal claimant to go to the police station several days later, on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, to report these additional incidents. In explaining what her ex-partner had said and done, the police referred to the principal claimant and XXXX XXXX XXXX in a derogatory way, saying that they did not want to encourage this type of relationship. The principal claimant felt unsafe in Nassau and believed that her ex partner would be able to find her if she moved given how small the Bahamas are and his broad community connections through the XXXX XXXX. She also did not want to have to hide and deny her sexuality any longer.
[8] Feeling like she had no option but to leave the Bahamas, she purchased a flight for her and her son and departed the Bahamas a few days later, on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019. Her ex-partner accessed her private accounts and sent personal and explicit photographs and videos of her with XXXX XXXX XXXX and a previous same-sex partner to friends and family members including her parents. The principal claimant’s family members reacted with anger and told her that she was a disgrace. She is still estranged from her father and her siblings as a result of their learning about her sexual orientation. While her mother struggled with accepting the principal claimant, they eventually were able to re-establish a relationship. The principal claimant’ s sexual orientation was disseminated more broadly throughout the community as well. She fears that if she returns to the Bahamas she would be assaulted or killed by her ex-partner.
[9] The principal claimant also fears mistreatment by members of the public on account of her sexual orientation. She fears that the minor claimant will be harmed by her ex-partner either directly or in witnessing her being abused and harmed by him and that her son will also be mistreated due to her sexual orientation. I find that the claimants are Convention refugees as they have a well-founded fear of persecution in the Bahamas. My reasons are as follows.
Identity
[10] I find that the claimants’ identity as Bahamian nationals is established on a balance of probabilities by the principal claimant’s testimony and a copy of each of their passports in evidence at Exhibit 1.
Credibility
[11] With respect to the claimant’s sexual orientation, she provided testimony that was candid and direct. She testified in a spontaneous and natural fashion about her sexuality and her same-sex relationships. She explained in detail how she met previous girlfriends, how they were able to be together, and why their relationships ended. I find that this testimony was genuine and consistent. The claimant provided corroborative documentary evidence of her sexual orientation including a letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX attesting to their relationship and how they are currently taking a break but remain in love. As well as messages exchanged between her and XXXX XXXX XXXX, photographs, and videos of the principal claimant and XXXX XXXX XXXX as well the principal claimant with a previous same-sex partner in the Bahamas. Letters of support from close friends of the principal claimant about how and when they learned about her sexual orientation. Messages exchanged between the principal claimant and women she was chatting with within Canada and a screen capture of the principal claimant’s registration with The 519 organization in Toronto and those are found in Exhibits 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10. The principal claimant also provided numerous articles about serious issues faced by the LGBTI community in the Bahamas and those are found at Exhibits 1 and 9.
[12] With respect to the domestic abuse aspect of the claim, the principal claimant provided a detailed account of her ex-partner’s attack in her BOC narrative as well as in her oral testimony. The principal claimant explained what the minor claimant experienced and witnessed during this attack. She also testified about what she believes would happen if she were to relocate to another area in the Bahamas. The principal claimant’s response to my questions were emotional, genuine, and credible. The principal claimant also provided documentary evidence which corroborated her allegations of abuse including: a police report from XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019; an email sent by her to the police reiterating that she had been in several times with no progress and stating that she wants the matter to proceed, which was dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019; a video showing the damage to the principal claimant’s car by her ex-partner on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019; a letter of support from a friend the night of her attack about having received several missed calls from the principal claimant; letters of support from friends and co-workers saying that the principal claimant never returned to work at the XXXX after the assault and that her ex partner was angry about her wanting to be with XXXX XXXX XXXX; messages in which the principal claimant was trying and locate the hospital records from the night of her assault; and photographs and videos of the principal claimant and her ex-partner; as well as a referral for XXXX treatment and support, and a XXXX report detailing the XXXX effects of domestic violence, Exhibits 5,7, and 9.
[13] There were no material inconsistencies or contradictions within the principal claimant’ s evidence that caused me to question her credibility. I find her testimony was credible and was supported by corroborative documentary evidence as such I accept that the principal claimant is bisexual and that she has experienced domestic violence as a result of her relationship with XXXX XXXX XXXX and that her ex-partner stopped, threatened, and harassed her following his assaulting her in XXXX 2019.
Well-Founded Fear of Persecution
[14] The principal claimant fears persecution in the Bahamas on account of her identity as a bisexual woman. The principal claimant also fears persecution from her abusive ex-partner. According to the Gender and SOGIE Guidelines, bisexual women and women facing domestic violence both constitute a particular social group. As such, I find that her claim for protection has a Nexus to the refugee convention ground of membership in a particular social group. The principal claimant fears the minor claimant would face persecution in the Bahamas as the son of a bisexual woman. The sexual orientation of a family member in an overtly homophobic country can result in adverse consequences and here I refer to the Federal Court case Corneille which is found at 2014 FC 901. I also find that if the minor claimant returns to the Bahamas, he would be at risk of witnessing his mother’s ex-partner subjecting her to further abuse or even murder. There is a Federal Court authority in the Modeste case at 2013 FC 1262 that children witnessing the abuse of a parent constitutes persecution in itself.
[15] I find that the minor claimant’s fear of persecution relates to the Convention ground of membership in a particular social group namely children of bisexual women in an overtly homophobic country and children subjected to domestic violence. The objective evidence in the NDP indicates that sexual minorities including bisexual women face serious mistreatment in the Bahamas. Furthermore, I find that the principal claimant’s identity as a bisexual woman intersects with the risks that she faces from her ex partner in a way that elevates her overall risk of persecution. While same-sex sexual activity is not criminalized in the Bahamas, individuals who identify as LGBTI face widespread stigmatization and discrimination in the country and l refer here to NDP Items 2.1, 2.3, and 6.3. According to NDP Item 6.1, there is strong anti-gay attitudes in the Bahamas as “homophobia is permeated through cultural attitudes and is expressed in religion, music, and other expressions”. The same source notes that due to the strong stigma against homosexuality. Sexual minorities generally hide their sexual orientation out of fear of ostracism, exclusion, ridicule, and violence.
[16] The claimants provided recent media reports about homophobia in the Bahamas even against tourists and that’s an Exhibit 5. Discrimination based on sexuality is not prohibited by law, so LGBTI individuals have no mechanism to seek redress from marginalization, systematic discrimination in the areas of employment and housing and that’s NDP 2.3, 6.1, and 6.2. Sexual minorities face discrimination without redress and cannot live openly without facing various forms of mistreatment including violence and I find this amounts to persecution. Moreover, the principal claimant faces an additional risk of persecution from her ex-partner who attacked and threatened to kill after learning that she’s bisexual and in love with a woman. He was infuriated, he continued to stalk and threaten her, and he refused to accept that she wanted to leave him for a woman. I find on a balance of probabilities that the principal claimant’s ex partner felt rejected and threatened by her sexuality and that this elevates the risk he poses to her and by extension the minor claimant who is at risk of witnessing the principal claimant being further assaulted or even killed by her partner.
State Protection
[17] In all refugee claims, the state is presumed to be capable of protecting its citizens unless a claimant presents clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. In this case, I find that this presumption has been rebutted and that the protection would not be forthcoming. NDP Item 6.1 notes that LGBTI people experience difficulties if they turn to the police for protection that they faced smirking, ridicule, and insults if they are open about their sexual orientation which is certainly reflective of the experience of the principal claimant when she went to the police with XXXX XXXX XXXX. This same source reports that “if an LGBTI reports an incident of violence openly to the police, the police will come down against the victim and will say the person got what they deserved.” The US Department of State Report found at NDP Item 2.1 also indicates there is inadequate protection by law enforcement authorities for members of the LGBTI community. Based on this evidence I find that the principal claimant would not have adequate state protection from persecution due to her sexual orientation. I also find that the claimants would not have adequate state protection from the principal claimant’s ex-partner. While there is anti-domestic violence legislation in the Bahamas and some support for women fleeing violence, women’s rights groups there report a hesitancy from law enforcement to intervene in domestic disputes and that’s NDP Items 2.1 and 5.8. In the present case, the principal claimant reported her abuser to the police several times and attempted to follow up and move forward with assault charges. The authorities helped her to return to her home to get her personal effects the night of the attack but did not issue a protective or restraining order or pursued charges against her ex-partner. While she attended the station with XXXX XXXX XXXX, the nonchalance of the police turned to derision. In light of the circumstances, I find that state protection was inadequate. As the principal claimant lacks state protection from her abusive ex-partner, I find that the minor claimant also lacks state protection from the harm she fears namely bearing witness to violence against his mother.
Internal Flight Alternative
[18] Finally, I’ve considered whether an internal flight alternative available to the claimants. At the start of the hearing, I proposed San Salvador. The first prong of this assessment is to determine whether on a balance of probabilities there’s a risk of persecution, a risk to life, cruel or unusual treatment or punishment, or danger of torture in the proposed internal flight alternative location. According to the objective evidence, the situation for LGBTI individuals is consistent throughout the Bahamas as a result I find there is no location within the Bahamas where the principal claimant would not face a serious possibility of persecution due to her sexual orientation. I also find that the principal claimant’s ex-partner is likely motivated to pursue her throughout the Bahamas. Given the small size of the country, his ability to monitor her movements through his employment at the XXXX XXXX and his strong connections within the community through his membership in the XXXX XXXX XXXX. I find that the ex-partner would also likely have the ability to locate the principal claimant anywhere in the country. As the minor claimant lives with the principal claimant solely, I find that he would also face a possibility of witnessing violence against his mother which I have found amounts to persecution. For these reasons, I do find the claimants have a viable internal flight alternative within the Bahamas.
CONCLUSION
[19] Having considered the evidence, I find the claimants are Convention refugees under Section 96 of the Act and I accept their claims for protection. This matter is concluded.
(signed) Kirsty Sim
———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-