2022 RLLR 130
Citation: 2022 RLLR 130
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 16, 2022
Panel: Huyen Dam
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Hart A. Kaminker
Country: Georgia
RPD Number: TB8-13724
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2023-01023
ATIP Pages: N/A
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] These are the reasons for the decision in the refugee claim of XXXX who alleges to be a citizen of Georgia, and is seeking protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).
ALLEGATIONS
[2] The claimant’s allegations are fully set out in his Basis of Claim (BOC) form and amended BOC forms, found at Exhibit 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3. In short, the claimant alleges that he was a XXXX. On August 1, 2017, some top officials from City Hall of Tbilisi ate at the XXXX but refused to pay for their meal. When the claimant confronted the men, a man named G.P. – who XXXX to the former General Prosecutor of Georgia (i.e., O.P.) with connection to criminal groups in Georgia – threatened him with serious harm by stating that he will soon regret his actions. On August 16, 2017, the claimant was confronted by three individuals at his home. In this exchange the claimant was told that he was to pay 50% of his profit every month. The claimant reported these threats to the police but did not receive any assistance. On September 12, 2017, the same three individuals attacked the claimant. A report was made to the police and despite follow ups he was later told that his complaint to the police was not registered. The claimant followed-up with the Office of the Prosecutor but no assistance was forthcoming.
On January 2, 2018, the claimant was attacked by a group of unknown men who forced him to sign papers, handing over his business to a man name G.G. He was beaten and found unconscious by the gravedigger the next day. He was taken to the hospital where he received medical treatment and stayed for eight (8) days. Following this, he received calls from an unknown person who threatened him with death. The claimant was told by a friend, a former police officer, that those threatening him are likely those who cooperate with O.P. The claimant and his family hid in Khashuri. With the help of an agent, he left Georgia on XXXX 2018. When he arrived in Montreal, Canada, he made a claim for refugee protection at the airport.
[3] After his arrival in Canada the claimant asked his spouse to talk to a lawyer in order to take steps to have his possessions returned, including his XXXX which he had been forced to
RPD.52.08 (June 1, 2021) sign away during the January 2018 attack. On January 18, 2019, the claimant’s spouse was threatened with death by an unknown individual who told her that she and her family would be killed if she did not stop pursuing the lawsuit. Following this, the claimant withdrew his legal pursuit.
[4] The claimant alleges that those persecuting him are in collusion with the Georgian Police and General Prosecutor’s Office. As such, there is no state protection or internal flight alternative.
DETERMINATION
[5] The Panel finds the claimant to be a Convention refugee for reasons of his imputed political opinion, for the following reasons.
ANALYSIS
Identity
[6] The claimant’s identity has been established on a balance of probabilities by way of a certified copy of his Georgian passport on file, found at Exhibit 1.
Nexus
[7] There is a nexus between the harm the claimant fears and his imputed political opinion. When the claimant confronted the government officials and G.P., this was perceived as an act of defying them. Following this, he was targeted for extortion and beaten. This claim will therefore be assessed pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA. The test under s. 96 is whether there is a serious possibility of persecution should he return to Georgia, and the claimant has met that test.
Credibility
[8] The claimant’s testimony has been consistent with the other evidence on file. The claimant provided spontaneous details of the events that took place in Georgia and explained why he left. He testified in a straightforward manner and made no attempts to mislead the Board. There were no relevant contradictions that would go to the core of his claim.
[9] The claimant tendered the following documents to support the credibility of his claim, found at Exhibit 6.l and 6.2:
- Medical record of his hospitalization from XXXX, 2018, to XXXX, 2018, corroborates the admission period and injuries he suffered as a result of being attacked on January 2, 2018.
- Police statement dated July 4, 2019, corroborates that the police statement was taken at the hospital on XXXX 2018, that he was found at the Kukia graveyard, and his injuries are consistent with the alleged attack. Additionally, the document indicates that the case (i.e., file number N52148/18) was closed and investigation terminated on May 10, 2018, due to inadequate evidence and no witnesses. No perpetrators were named.
- Business registration for the XXXX corroborates that the claimant is the owner of a commercial entity in Tbilisi.
- Letters from friends, family, and a neighbour attest to the harm the claimant faced in Georgia, and the ongoing threat to him and his family.
- Letter from the claimant’s lawyer attest to the legal proceedings his wife initiated and reasons why they withdrew is consistent with the claimant’s testimony.
[10] After reviewing these documents, the Panel finds no reason to cast any doubt on its veracity. As such the Panel places weight on these documents to support the claimant’ s allegations of threat from G.P. and the men that attacked him.
[11] The claimant’s wife participated as a witness on the day of the hearing. Her testimony was straightforward and consistent with the material evidence on file. The Panel finds no reason to cast doubt on the veracity of her allegations. As such, the Panel determined that she was trustworthy and credible, on a balance of probabilities.
[12] The Panel finds that, on a balance of probabilities, the claimant has established that because of his action on August 1, 2017, his imputed political opinion has made him a target for
G.P. and the men responsible for his attack. The Panel accepts the claimant’s full allegations.
Well-Founded Fear of Persecution
[13] The Panel look to the objective evidence to assess the claimant’ s risk of persecution in Georgia. The National Documentation Package (NDP) for Georgia, found at Exhibit 3, established that those who opposes the Georgian government are at risk of persecution in that country. The United States Department of State Report at Tab 2.1. indicates that there are significant human rights issues in Georgia including serious problems with the independence of the judiciary along with detentions, investigations, and prosecutions for those considered to be politically motivated and the problem spans nationwide. It also states that the courts are only independent in theory, and that the principle of due process is not respected by the state.
Impunity remains a problem, including a lack of accountability of the police and security force. According to a 2021 report from Freedom House, at Tab 2.4, the source indicates that corruption persists within government authorities. These sources provide clear and convincing evidence of corruption, which is pervasive throughout Georgia.
[14] The Panel also consider the claimant’ s country condition documents, found at Exhibit
6.2. The first article, from the US department of treasury, dated December 22, 2017, states that the Thieves-in-Law is a Eurasian crime syndicate that has been linked to a long list of illicit activity across the globe. The Treasury has designated the Thieves-in-Law as part of a broader strategy to disrupt the financial infrastructure of transnational criminal organizations that pose a threat to the United States and their allies.
[15] At Exhibit 6.2, the second article from June 8, 2018, by INTERPOL identifies the Thieves-in-Law as the highest-ranking organized crime members who control the activities of less powerful criminal groups following their own code of honour. Their influence can extend across multiple crime networks and involve numerous crimes or property crime, or trafficking in drugs or human beings. The source indicates that the Thieves in Law often manipulate businesses and control entire sectors of a country’s economy. Georgia was among delegates attending the INTERPOL meeting represented.
[16] Exhibit 6.2, an article titled, “Former chief prosecutor Otar Partkhaladze was acquitted in the case of beating Lasha Tordia” (page 60 of the claimant’s disclosure) it reports that he was acquitted of beating former Auditor General Lasha Tordia. Page 63 reports that Transparency International Georgia continued a systematized process of collecting information about cases of alleged high-level corruption in Georgia which have been revealed in recent years and have not been investigated. At page 67 there is a report that property was unlawfully transferred to Otar Partskhaladze’s company BSR-CDG Development which was believed to be the result of a corrupt deal.
[17] The Panel also considered the IRB’s evidence on the Thieves-in-Law and state corruption, found atExhibit4.4. At page 3, the source indicated that the Thieves-in-Law group has grown into a vast criminal organization that has spread throughout the former Soviet Union, Europe, and the United States, and they are linked to crimes such as money laundering, extortion, bribery, and robbery. At page 4, the source indicates that elite corruption persists and there has been significant backsliding as rulers consolidate power, cut deals with senior judges, and effectively capture and manipulated the state for their own benefit.
[18] The Panel finds that the objective evidence supports the claimant’ s testimony that the Thieves-in-Law have targeted him for extortion, on a balance of probabilities. Additionally, the claimant’s evidence supports that O.P. have been linked to the acquisition of unlawfully transferred property and acquitted of corrupt activities in Georgia, on a balance of probabilities.
[19] Taken together, the Panel finds that the claimant faces a risk of persecution in Georgia due to his imputed political opinion. The Panel finds that, on a balance of probabilities, the claimant has established the objective basis for his well-founded fear of persecution.
State Protection
[20] The claimant testified that he approached the state for help on January2, 2018. He testified that help and state protection did not materialize. As indicated in his police statement, found at Exhibit 5.1, the investigation was dismissed.
[21] At Exhibit 4.4, page 59 the document indicates that the authorities have reportedly failed to respond to credible allegations of corruption made against high-ranking government officials and other influential individuals with ties to the ruling party.
[22] At Exhibit 3, the Freedom House report found in the National Documentation Package states that despite ongoing judicial reforms, executive and legislative interference in the Courts remain a substantial problem as does a lack of transparency and professionalism surrounding judicial proceedings. Thus, there is evidence of high-level corruption which has continued in Georgia with impunity. The evidence indicates that authorities have failed to grapple with and interfere in this continued high-level corruption.
[23] The claimant was subjected to corrupt activities from high level individuals. In this case the claimant lost his business and was seriously beaten. Further, when efforts were made to try to recover his business, his wife was threatened in no uncertain terms.
[24] With clear and convincing evidence, the Panel determined that, on a balance of probabilities, the claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection.
Internal Flight Alternative
[25] The Panel considered whether a viable interna! flight alternative exists for the claimant and named Kutaisi and Batumi as potential locations.
[26] The claimant testified if he were to return to Georgia he could easily be located because the agents of persecution in this case are connected to the government and connected to individuals who have ties to high levels of the government. Further, he testified that they would seek him because they would be concerned that he would take steps to try to reclaim the property that had been unlawfully taken from him during the attack in January of 2018. In fact, his wife had made efforts to reclaim that property after the claimant departed Georgia only to be met with threats against both her and her family.
[27] Given that the Panel finds that the evidence reviewed above, confirms that the oppressive treatment of those perceived as political opponents is nationwide and given that the claimant’ s agents of persecution is associated with the government, the Panel finds that there is a serious possibility of persecution for the claimant throughout Georgia. Additionally, the Panel notes that the country is small and given this geographical limitation, an internal flight alternative is less viable for him in Georgia. Taken together, the Panel finds that there is no viable interna! flight alternative for the claimant anywhere in Georgia. The IFA test has failed on the first prong.
CONCLUSION
[28] Having considered the totality of the evidence, the Panel determined that the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution in Georgia if he were to return. The claimant is a Convention refugee, and his claim is therefore accepted.
(signed) H.DAM
November 16, 2022