2022 RLLR 113
Citation: 2022 RLLR 113
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: May 5, 2022
Panel: M. Gayda
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Aisling Eileen Bondy
Country: Bahamas
RPD Number: TB9-32744
Associated RPD Number(s): TB9-32745, TB9-32789
ATIP Number: A-2023-01023
ATIP Pages: N/A
DECISION
[1] MEMBER: This is the decision in the refugee protection claims of XXXX XXXX XXXX, she is the 58-year-old principal claimant. The principle file number is TB9-32744. Also claiming refugee protection is the principal claimant’s younger sister XXXX XXXX XXXX, who is 47 years old, and the third claimant is the principal claimant’s XXXX XXXX daughter, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and she is now 18 years old.
[2] The claimants are citizens of the Bahamas and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I’ve heard testimony from the principal claimant as well as the associated claimants today.
[3] I have considered their testimony and the other evidence that is before me as set out in the consolidated list of documents, those are our Exhibits in this claim. I have also considered and applied the applicable IRB Guidelines, and that includes Guideline 4, the Gender Guidelines.
MY DETERMINATION
[4] I find that the claimants are Convention refugees and I therefore accept their claims. I find that the claimants would face a serious possibility of persecution in the future pursuant to Section 96 of the Act. The claimants allegations are set out in detail in their Basis of Claim form and the amendments to that form. This is found at Exhibits 2 and 4.
[5] In summary, they allege to face ongoing physical and psychological violence at the hands of the principal claimant’s former boyfriend’s wife and her family. This former boyfriend is the father of the principal claimant’s first child, a son who remains in the Bahamas and is 21 years old. I will reefer to this woman as CC, as these are her initials.
[6] The principal claimant and her sister, the associated claimant, allege to have become targeted by CC and CC’s family when they were forced to return to Nassau on the island of New Providence in early XXXX 2019 after their home and most of the infrastructure on Abaco Island were destroyed by Hurricane Dorian. They were in fact evacuated to Nassau. CC viewed their return to Nassau as a threat as there was a past history of threatening violence from CC toward the principal claimant and that this was a primary reason that the PC had originally relocated to Abaco in the mid 1990’s.
[7] The claimants allege that CC. is angry at the PC, and when I say PC I mean principal claimant, sorry. The claimants allege that CC is angry at the principal claimant due to her belief that the principal claimant and now the associated claimant, her sister, as well has some kind of plan to take her husband away from her given that the principal claimant previously had a relationship with CC’s husband. And as noted he is the father of the principal claimant’s son and the principal claimant had previously been in this relationship with the father of her son while CC was also in a relationship with this man.
[8] The claimants allege that CC’s cousins harass them, driving them off the road in Nassau, and also physically assaulted the associated claimant, XXXX. They also allege that CC and her family threatened them to leave Nassau as well as vandalize the principal claimant’s brothers cars.
[9] The claimants also allege that as women they fear pervasive gender-based violence in Bahamas such as sexual assault, and that they are particularly vulnerable to this form of gender-based violence as internally displaced women who’s home was destroyed in Hurricane Dorian and who also lost their sources of employment as a result of this natural disaster.
[10] The associated claimants allege to have faced past experiences of being targeted for sexual violence while residing at a government temporary relief shelter for displaced persons after the hurricane. The principal claimant and her sister, the associated claimant, have also described past experiences of living through former physically abusive relationships with men in Bahamas and also surviving other forms of gender-based violence as young persons growing up in Bahamas.
[11] The claimants allege that they attempted to obtain police protection but that this was ineffective and that CC has more than one family member who is in the police, which meant that the police would not do anything to assist them. The principal claimant also alleges that CC’s family has some affiliation with gangs in Bahamas.
[12] The claimants fear that they will continue to be stalked and harmed by CC and CC’s family in Bahamas, and that there is nowhere that they could live in Bahamas where they would not be safe from gender-based violence as single displaced women and where it would not be unduly harsh to live for them due to the continuing problems and aftermath of the 2019 hurricane.
[13] Moving to the issue of identity, I find that the claimants personal and national identities as citizens of the Bahamas has been established on a balance of probabilities through their credible testimony and their supporting documentation. Before me in Exhibit 1 are the certified true copies of their Bahamian passports and these were seized by the Canada Border Services Agency at the airport when they started their refugee claims. I therefore find that the claimants have credibly established their personal and national identities on a balance of probabilities and that the country of Bahamas is the only country of reference.
[14] The nexus in this claim to the refugee Convention ground is the claimants membership in two particular social groups, namely women and family. The claimants have been targeted for harm due to their gender and their relationship to the principal claimant. They face harm from the principal claimant’s former boyfriend’s present wife and that wife’s family. They are also placed in this position of harm due to the way in which Bahamian society treats women through prevailing discriminatory attitudes and the treatment of women. The risk of being internally displaced persons after the natural disaster of Hurricane Dorian in September 2019 also exacerbated the threat that they faced as women as the two associated claimants were targeted for sexual violence outside the relief shelter where they were forced to live after this disaster.
[15] I find that the associated claimants face a serious harm in relation to their gender and that this intersects with their membership in the particular social group of family in that it is their relationship to the principal claimant who’s connection to the father of her son and that is the man who’s wife and the wife’s family is targeting the principal claimant and now the associated claimants, that it’s this family connection that also puts them in harms way. I have considered the intersection of the claimants gender and their relationship toward each other in terms of their family and how this impacts the risks that they face.
[16] Moving to the issue of credibility. I find that the claimants were credible witnesses. Their testimony was generally consistent with their amended Basis of Claim form narrative and the other forms before me. There were no relevant inconsistencies or contradictions that would lead me to disbelieve their core allegations. The claimants also credibly testified with respect to certain aspects of their claim and they did not appear to be evasive or to be embellishing facts of their claim and their testimony.
[17] I find that the claimants have credibly established on a balance of probabilities that they were targeted by the wife of the principal claimant’s former boyfriend and this woman’s family for both physical and psychological harm in terms of being stalked, threatened, and physically attacked by them. I also find that the claimants have credibly established that the associated claimants faced an attempted sexual assault outside the temporary relief shelter where they were residing after the hurricane.
[18] The principal claimant and the associated claimant, her sister, testified credibly as well about their experiences of past gender-based violence in Bahamas, and also about their personal experiences and their fears in returning to that country. I asked the claimants about their interview at the airport when they arrived given that they had only described their concerns for their well-being in being homeless and without government assistance after the hurricane and they did not refer to the targeted risk that they have alleged from CC and her family.
[19] The claimants before me today provided credible and reasonable explanations for this omission in that at the airport they did not mention the risks that they faced from CC and her family given that they had just arrived after a major disaster where they had lost everything and that was only 17 days prior to them arriving at the airport in Canada. And speaking about gender-based violence was not something that came naturally to them based on the culture in which they were raised. These topics were not discussed openly as there was a fear of being blamed as the victim as well as internalized shame, and that to bring up issues of attempted sexual assault with an airport immigration officer would not have been something that they could’ve done based on their own personal circumstances and the culture that they came from.
[20] Therefore I find that based on this explanation and the objective country conditions evidence before me about the treatment of women and girls in Bahamas society and specifically the attitudes that exist in that country towards gender-based violence, I accept these explanations for this omission as credible and reasonable.
[21] I also find that the claimants have credibly established on a balance of probabilities the threats of physical violence from CC and her family, that this remains and is a continuing motivation for CC to harm them in Nassau, Bahamas. I’ll note that the claimants provided some corroborating documentation, a copy of a birth certification of the principal claimant’s former boyfriend showing that he is married to CC.
[22] The principal claimant testified credibly about how she obtained this document from her son in Bahamas who was able to get it from the registry office and take a photo of it and send it to her. Also provided is a letter from a lawyer in Bahamas who indicates that he made a request on the claimant’s behalf for documents from the police in Bahamas about the principal claimant’s complaint against CC and this request was made at the end of August 2021.
[23] The principal claimant testified that no response had been received from the police and that this lawyer had told her that he followed up with the police three or four times but was not able to get anything from the police in writing. Also provided were letters with photo ID attached to them from the principal claimant’s and the associated claimant’s, her sister’s brother, and the principal claimant’s son, which corroborate their first-hand knowledge of some of the experiences in Nassau when the claimants were residing with the brother and that the incidents that had happened based on the son and the brother being with the claimants at the time.
[24] For example, the brother of the principal claimant and the associated sister claimant speaks of his car being vandalized when the claimants came to reside with him in Nassau after the hurricane and that the claimants were also facing physical harm at the time that they were living with him, and it was due to fearing for the safety of his own family that he asked the claimants to leave to stay at the relief shelter in Nassau and drop them off there. I note that these letters are not near recitations of the Basis of Claim form information, rather they appear to have details that are outside the four corners of the Basis of Claim narrative and forms, and that they are written from first hand knowledge of these family members. I find them to be credible evidence.
[25] I’ll note that the information in these documents are also consistent with the allegations that the claimants have made in their amended Basis of Claim form narratives and as noted the claimants have reasonably testified and provided clarification in responses to my questions about certain aspects of this corroborating documentation. I therefore find that the claimants have credibly established the core allegations of their claims.
[26] Moving to the issue of the well-foundedness of the claim. I find that the claimants have established that their claims are well-founded subjectively. The claimants left Bahamas very soon after the associated claimants were attacked and almost sexually assaulted on September 14th. They also made their claims at the airport and Canada upon their arrival. Therefore I find that the claimants have a genuine subjective fear of persecution.
[27] With respect to the objective basis of their fear of persecution. I find that there is a well-founded objective basis for the claimants fear of gender-based violence targeting them as women who will be internally displaced and single without savings if they were to return to Bahamas, and also that the objective evidence supports that targeted violence is a concern in Bahamas and this is with respect to the principal claimant’s, or rather all the claimants fears of CC and her family.
[28] The National Documentation Package for the Bahamas, Exhibit 3, and Counsel’s country conditions evidence, this is Exhibit 6 and 7, these sources in these documents note the high rate of gender-based violence as well as domestic violence in the country. Sources note that there is a high prevalence of violence against women in the Bahamas.
[29] For example, item 5.8 it indicates that Bahamas has the highest number of rape cases reported throughout the Caribbean in spite of the fact that a small percentage of survivors actually report incidents of rape to the police. Therefore the numbers may not necessarily reflect the actual rate of those impacted. Item 5.5 is a UN report from 2018 and it notes that the Bahamas Crisis Centre describes domestic violence in the country as an epidemic on the island and that due to the over riding attitude that it is seen as a private matter, there are low levels of reporting of domestic violence.
[30] In 5.3 is another UN report and this report confirms that violence against women in the Caribbean is widespread and normalized. Patriarchal attitudes and deep-rooted stereotypes regarding the roles in Bahamian families continue and that this perpetuates the normalization of violence against women. This normalization of violence against women leads to under reporting as well as the stigmatization of victims who do come forward. Gender based violence is directed at women because they are women and includes acts that include physical, mental, and sexual harm. This is also included in the item 5.3 UN report.
[31] In Bahamas I’ll also note that violence against women and girls is evident in not just in the home but also in the community and work place. This is found in item 5.3. I will also note that the United States Department of State report at item 2.1 notes that violence against women in the Bahamas has worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic and that this is due in part to lockdowns and curfews that have prevented victims from seeking assistance. I’ll also just note that the causes of the high prevalence of gender-based violence is also noted in another UN report, which is the report of the special repertoire on violence against women from 2018, and this is item 5.7. It notes that despite Bahamas being what can be considered one of the wealthiest Caribbean countries, there is this dichotomy that in reality violence against women in the Bahamas is deeply rooted in existing patriarchal attitudes and persisting gender stereotypes. It is embedded in sex and gender-based laws, customs and practices that discriminate against women. It describes violence against women as being widespread in the Bahamas and largely perceived as a private matter and it is accepted as normal.
[32] Now turning to the issue of state protection. I find that the claimants have rebutted the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence, and that state protection is not available to them from gender-based violence.
[33] I will note for example item 5.8 indicates that there is no stand alone legislation that explicitly addresses violence against women in Bahamas however, it can be addressed under the Domestic Violence Act, Protection Orders Act, and in this piece of legislation it is noted that protection orders are available when there are certain forms of violence against a spouse, partner, child, any other person who is a member of the household or a dependent, and that such conduct it is limited to conduct which takes place in the home. I do note that in the particular circumstances of this claim the agent of persecution is the principal claimant’s child’s father’s current wife and her family, and they do not appear to meet this definition.
[34] Moreover, they have been threatened outside any kind of joint family that they would’ve shared with the perpetrator. They in fact do not live with the principal claimant’s former boyfriend or his wife. I therefore find that even the legislation related to protection orders in Bahamas for victims in domestic violence situations would, on a balance of probabilities, not extend to these particular claimants in their situation. I note that this is in addition to the ineffective enforcement of laws as they relate to violence against women in the Bahamas.
[35] For example at page 5 of that same report at item 5.8, barriers faced by those who report cases of sexual violence and other situations of violence against women include discriminatory attitudes towards women and girls from law enforcement officials due to a culture of disbelief, victim blaming, as well as low conviction rates. The large number of cases that remain unsolved and or perpetrators never being identified.
[36] I also note that there are concerns noted in all of the UN documents I previously noted with respect to how the state goes about attempting to respond to the issue of violence against women in the Bahamas, and that while in some situations the police response may be effective, I find that for these particular claimants given their particular circumstances, I accept that state protection would not be adequate for them. Their own experiences were that when they went to report the threats and acts of violence against them they were either not assisted in the sense that for example one time the police came down to take the report, that’s when the principal claimant’s brothers cars were vandalized.
[37] Another time the principal claimant was told that were no police vehicles available and they could not come, and another time the police officer who they were speaking with told the principal claimant that the police could not help her given that one of CC’s cousin was the sergeant and that there was nothing there were going to be able to do to help her.
[38] The claimants also described not receiving any adequate assistance from the National Emergency Management Agency, NEMA, which was the agency that was taking care of the disaster relief in Bahamas after the hurricane. They went to report the attack and attempted sexual assault by the associated claimants to this agency and this occurred outside of the relief shelter where they were staying when the associated claimants went to use the washroom. The claimants described that they were not able to describe what had happened to them in any kind of private manner to the agency that was running the shelter, and that in fact in their Basis of Claim forms they describe the normalization of gender-based violence in Bahamas through their experience of hospital staff saying that they were not the only ones being molested at the relief shelter that was set up in the wake of the hurricane.
[39] I also note there is a source before me, item 5.7, that even before Hurricane Dorian in 2019, the lack of shelters and services for women fearing violence in Bahamas was noted as a concern. For example in this source it notes at paragraph 58 that there were only three shelters for victims of domestic violence in operation at that point, and once again this is before the hurricane. It notes that even in Nassau the options are sparse and that even the shelters that do exist, it’s not clear that women would qualify for them given that one has only three bedrooms and the last one is selective as to which individuals it will assist.
[40] It does also note in this same source that the community in Bahamas is small and interconnected and that the provision of safe and confidential places where women victims can be protected is highly needed. Even where there are shelters they do not always have space readily available for women victims. I will note as well once again this was before the devastation of the hurricane. Based on all of the objective country conditions evidence before me therefore, and the claimants personal experiences as they testified to and in their Basis of Claim forms, I find that state protection would not be adequate to them if they were to return to Bahamas.
[41] Finally I’ve considered whether there is a viable Internal Flight Alternative for the claimants. I proposed the possibility of the claimants relocating to Freeport on Grand Bahamas Island. Based on the evidence before me, I find that they do not have a viable IFA and that the IFA test fails for them on the second prong. I find that the claimants fearing CC and CC’s family appears to be connected to CC’s motivation that the principal claimant and the associated claimant, XXXX, were somehow trying to have a relationship with CC’s husband. The demand of CC and her relatives was that the claimants leave Nassau.
[42] The principal claimant acknowledged that during the many years she lived in Abaco Island, CC did not cause her problems. The principal claimant testified that she did not believe that they would be safe from CC and her family in Freeport because she believes that CC has family everywhere including in Freeport. She testified that CC did not grow up in Nassau. She is from another island called Eleuthera. I do not find however that the evidence establishes that the claimants would face an ongoing risk from CC and CC’s family in Freeport.
[43] I find that the principal claimant’s belief that she and the other claimants would be harmed in Freeport by CC or one of CC’s family members is speculative as I do not see that the evidence establishes that CC would have the motive to have her family seek the claimants out in Freeport. CC’s goal appears to have been to make the claimants leave Nassau and to not be around her husband.
[44] Now as I indicated, or as is well known, the IFA test consists of two prongs. While the claimants have not established, and both prongs of that test must be satisfied in order for there to be a viable IFA, I find that the claimants have established that the second prong of the test it is met in the sense that relocating to Freeport would be unduly harsh for them given their personal circumstances. As noted, they are single women. The principal claimant is 58 years old and the mother to the 18-year-old claimant.
[45] The other associated claimant is the principal claimant’s 47-year-old sister. The principal claimant and her sister, the associated claimant, described facing various forms of gender-based violence in their past and that this was something that they could not talk about openly as society tended to blame victims who reported this abuse. It was also seen as something as normal and which was accepted.
[46] The principal claimant expressed a fear that as internally displaced women with no home to go to, with no one at all that they know in Freeport, with no savings, and that in this situation they would be very vulnerable to gender-based violence if they were to relocate there. They also indicated both the principal claimant and associated claimant that finding employment would be very difficult for them and that while they did not have familiarity with Freeport itself given that the principal claimant and her sister had only visited there very briefly for one day each many years ago, they were able to testify about the destruction of the island of Abaco after the hurricane, and how people still do not have electricity in any reliable way there. There is a lack of clean drinking water and that things are still destroyed. Property is still destroyed there. The infrastructure is lacking.
[47] For example, the Abaco Airport may be working again but it is only with limited flights and a skeleton crew of workers. They believe that these sorts of things and conditions would be the ones that they would face also in Freeport on Grand Bahama Island. I find that given the objective country conditions evidence before me, that these concerns are made out and that the claimants relocating to Freeport would not be objectively reasonable for them. In other words, it would be unduly harsh for them given their personal circumstances.
[48] The objective country conditions evidence before me notes that the destruction from the hurricane on Grand Bahama Island, and that’s the island where Freeport is located, was similar to that on Abaco Island and therefore the claimants testimony with respect to their firsthand knowledge of the destruction on Abaco Island, I find is applicable to the situation on Grand Bahama. Some objective country condition sources compare the destruction on both Abaco and Grand Bahamas Islands as quite similar, with some other sources saying perhaps Abaco was slightly more damaged but nonetheless that Grand Bahama also faced a great deal of damage.
[49] For example in Exhibit 6, this is Counsel’s country conditions evidence at page 58, it is a source that is from a relief web source called The Facts, Hurricane Dorian’s Devastating Effect on the Bahamas, and this is from August 15, 2020. So this was from one year after the hurricane. It notes that in addition to the loss of lives, 29,500 people were rendered homeless and or jobless by the hurricane. It was the strongest Atlantic hurricane on record and the strongest hurricane to have ever hit the Bahamas.
[50] It notes that with the added crisis of COVID-19 and other hurricanes that come about, recovery efforts are still adapting to the new normal. It notes the great devastation that was noted on Abaco and Grand Bahama Islands immediately after the storm. It notes the main airport terminal on Grand Bahama Island was destroyed. Roads were littered with debris and downed trees and fuel supplies were limited. In Grand Bahama, satellite data suggested that 76 to 100 percent of buildings in some areas had been destroyed. Also it notes that 200 wells that provided clean water on Grand Bahama Island were contaminated with salt water due to the high storm surge and extensive flooding.
[51] Today this article notes these, what are called aquifers, are still being restored and that Hurricane Dorian effected about 2,500 small and medium sized businesses in the Bahamas, that’s overall, but in particular on the island of Grand Bahama, 50 percent of Freeport businesses and all businesses on the hardest hit east side of the island were forced to close. This article notes that on the one-year anniversary in the midst of the Coronavirus pandemic, rebuilding efforts were even still challenging. One relief worker is noted as saying that rebuilding efforts on the islands of Abaco and Grand Bahama are slow and in some areas haven’t even started. Residents still do not have safe drinking water flowing through their pipes.
[52] Also before me is an article in Exhibit 6 at page 55. This article is also from 2020 and it notes that the road to rebuilding following Hurricane Dorian will be long given that most personal property and key infrastructure were damaged and even though the Bahamian government implements progressive economic measures such as efforts at rebuilding, policy and economic response gaps remained. This article notes that the implementation of government initiatives to increase employment on the disrupted islands is nescient.
[53] And finally I will note another article in Counsel’s country conditions package and while it refers to the Abaco Islands, it is a more recent article from May 10, 2021. It’s at page 50. It’s from NBC Miami and it is entitled Dorian’s Destruction, Abaco Still Recovering Two Years After the Hurricane. So this is an article that is addressing the situation two years after the hurricane from 2021. It notes that there is still a great deal of work to do.
[54] The individuals on the ground from the Bahamas disaster reconstruction authority indicates that they are still very much in the reconstruction phase and trying to bring back Abaco. It also notes the impact the COVID-19 had on the recovery and rebuilding efforts. It indicates that once the pandemic began, the groups that were helping rebuild left the islands and recovery came to a halt. All the NGO’s that had been there, that’s non-government organizations, all the aid groups they were here and they had to leave. So a lot of the reconstruction and rebuilding stopped dead in the water.
[55] So therefore I find that based on this country conditions evidence, it is indicative that the living conditions that the claimants would be returning to in Grand Bahama Island are likely such that finding suitable accommodation would be a tremendous challenge and would be, even if anything was available, it is likely to be extremely costly given that issues with basic infrastructure and that includes things like clean running water, as well as the rebuilding of businesses and the economy are still in its early stages of rebuilding and likely such search for accommodation would be extremely difficult for them.
[56] I also note that given their personal circumstances as women not having savings, that this will be a particularly unduly harsh for them. I also note with respect to employment, just some of the statistics with respect to Bahamas, even before Hurricane Dorian, the CEDAW (ph) report from 2017, and this is at item 5.4, notes that the unemployment rate for women in the Bahamas was 17 percent and that was in comparison to, for men it was 12 percent.
[57] Another report at item 5.5 notes that, and this is another UN CEDAW report, the disproportionally high unemployment rate among women not withstanding their higher level of educational attainment was a concern, as well as was a concern the concentration of women in low wage jobs in formal sectors.
[58] And finally, I note for the younger claimant who is 18 years old, the unemployment rate for youth as noted in item 1.2, and once again this is before Hurricane Dorian, it notes that for unemployed youth, for women who are in the age group of 15 to 24 years of age, and this is based on 2016 statistics, the unemployment rate was 31.6 percent.
[59] I therefore find that the overall unemployment rate of 10 percent as noted in the CIA World Fact Book which of course is pre-hurricane and pre-pandemic, that peeling that back and looking at the particular statistics as they apply to women indicates, and particularly female youth, that the unemployment rate in Bahamas is quite high and that this would have a particular impact on these claimants given their personal circumstances as women.
[60] And finally, item 7.8 is a report from March 2021 from the US Department of State on narcotics control strategy, and it notes the dramatic increase of the overall unemployment rate that is attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic in the Bahamas, and it notes that the pandemic induced unemployment rate increased from an estimated ten percent to 40 percent. So that is a great jump as well, and once again that is a statistic that is for the overall employment rate and is not addressing the unemployment rate rather for women in particular.
[61] I therefore find that when I consider all of this country conditions evidence and apply it to the claimants personal circumstances as women who would be returning without savings to a devastated economy, an island, that it would be unduly harsh for them in terms of finding employment, and as I’ve already noted in terms of finding a place to live as well. I therefore find that Internal Flight Alternative fails for them on the second branch of the test.
[62] I will also note that the country conditions patriarchal attitudes toward gender-based violence as well as the inadequate police response towards such violence against women, that it is not noted as being concentrated only in one area of the country, these are prevalent throughout the entire country. So these particular claimants would also be facing such concerns in the IFA location that was proposed of Freeport. I also find that this contributes to the location of Freeport not being one that is objectively reasonable for these particular claimants based on their particular circumstances.
[63] Therefore in conclusion, I do find the claimants to be Convention refugees pursuant to Section 96 of the Act and I therefore accept their claims.
——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———