Citation: 2021 RLLR 94
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: July 14, 2021
Panel: A. Green
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Howard C. Gilbert
Country: Czech Republic
RPD Number: TC0-12598
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01778
ATIP Pages: N/A
DECISION
[1] MEMBER: The claimant, XXXX XXXX, seeks refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The details of the allegations, specifically of the problems that the claimant faced while living in the Czech Republic, are set out in his Basis of Claim form and amendment to that form.
[2] In summary, the claimant is a twenty-nine-year-old man who was born in Germany on the XXXX XXXX XXXX, 1992. The claimant is a Czech citizen of Roma ethnicity. The claimant alleges that he suffered racism and discrimination while living in the Czech Republic due to his Roma ethnicity. On the XXXX XXXX XXXX, 2020, the claimant entered Canada and filed a refugee claim following his arrival.
Determination
[3] After considering all of the evidence before me, I find the claimant is a Convention refugee because he faces a serious possibility of persecution in the Czech Republic. I make this finding based on the problems that the claimant faced, as a person of Roma ethnicity while living in that country, and the problems he’s likely to face upon return.
[4] The panel looked into whether the claimant can acquire German citizenship, given that he was born in that country. However, after examining the objective evidence and herein the claimant’s testimony, I determine this is not a possibility. The claimant has been assessed only in regards to the Czech Republic. In terms of identity, I find the claimant is a citizen of the Czech Republic.
[5] I rely on his passport and his sworn testimony. In terms of his ethnic identity, relying on the documentary evidence provided, as well as the claimant’s oral testimony, I find that he is of Romani ethnicity. In terms of credibility, the claimant testified in a direct and straightforward manner. There were no inconsistencies between his oral testimony, his Basis of Claim form, or in any of the other evidence before me, and his oral evidence and the Basis of Claim form has consistency with the objective documentary evidence on country conditions.
[6] When looking at subjective fear, I consider the previous trips to Canada, however, the claimant gave a reasonable explanation for why he did not file the claim on the previous trips, and I draw no negative inference. In terms of the objective basis for the claimant’s fear, I rely on the documentary evidence provided by counsel on country conditions, as well as the information in the National Documentation Package.
[7] Item 2.1 of the National Documentation Package for the Czech Republic indicates that hate crimes against Roma and minorities continue to be a problem in that country, and consistent with the claimant’s evidence, it confirms that the Roma population in the Czech Republic faced discrimination in employment, education, housing, and healthcare.
[8] I believe the claimant faced the problems which he described in his narrative and oral testimony, and I find that he faced these problems because of his Roma ethnicity. I find the cumulative acts of discrimination that he experienced rises to the level of persecution. The claimant also testified that he was physically attacked and described these attacks in his oral testimony and also in detail in his Basis of Claim form.
[9] I find that the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution in the Czech Republic should he return based on his Roma ethnicity. The claimant wrote in his narrative and also testified that he made attempts to seek protection from the police to no avail and the claimant believes this is because he is of Roma ethnicity, that’s why the police did not investigate.
[10] Having reviewed the evidence on country conditions, I am mindful of the strides and measures being taken by the Czech Republic to improve the situation of the Roma people. However, I find that the effective of these policies have not yet been adequately measured and reported on. Therefore, given the current conditions in that country, I find that the claimant would not face adequate state protection and that he has rebutted the presumption of state protection.
[11] I also find he would not have a viable Internal Flight Alternative. I base this on the fact that the conditions that individuals of Roma ethnicity face exists throughout the Czech Republic. Based on the foregoing, I find that, as I stated, the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution in the Czech Republic because of his Roma ethnicity. I therefore declare him to be a Convention refugee and accept his claim pursuant to Section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-