Citation: 2022 RLLR 31
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 3, 2022
Panel: Siobhan Yorgun
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Jacques Beauchemin
Country: Sudan
RPD Number: VC1-06798
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01960
ATIP Pages: N/A
DECISION
[1] MEMBER: I have considered your testimony and the other evidence in the case, and I am ready to render my decision orally.
INTRODUCTIONS
[2] These are the reasons for the decision in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, a citizen of Sudan who is claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refuge Protection Act.
ALLEGATIONS
[3] The claimant’s allegations were fully set out in his Basis of Claim form. To briefly summarize, the claimant is a 41-year-old citizen of Sudan and no other country. The claimant is a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for a contracting company, was working on a road project for local government in South Sudan starting in 2009. In XXXX 2010, he received a substantial payment in cash for completion of the project from XXXX XXXX. He requested XXXX XXXX office manager XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to keep the money for him, as there was fighting in the area at the time, until it was safe for him to travel with the payment back to his company in Khartoum. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX failed to return the money to the claimant. After the claimant complained that he would take the matter up with XXXX XXXX, he was assaulted at his home and threatened not to approach XXXX XXXX office and to keep his mouth shut.
[4] The claimant returned to Khartoum and explained the situation to his boss. His boss was disbelieving and threatened to file a suit against the claimant. The claimant said his manager could follow the matter up with the governor in question. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX then called the claimant saying he had only himself to blame for failing to keep his mouth shut. The claimant was informed by a neighbor that two (2) men came looking for him at his house, whereupon he fled to his uncle further north in Atbara, after which he fled to Egypt and then on to Oman when his uncle told him three (3) men had come looking for him at his uncle’s house in Atbara. When his job was terminated in Oman, and the claimant could not find another to prevent the cancellation of his work visa, he fled to Canada via the US, where he had a visa to attend an international civil engineering conference. The claimant fears for his life at hand of security forces under the influence of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.
DETERMINATION
[5] I find the claimant is a Convention refugee the pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA.
ANALYSIS
Identity
[6] I find the claimant’s personal identity and identity as a national of Sudan has been established on a balance of probabilities by his Sudanese passport and birth certificate.
Nexus
[7] I find the claimant’s allegations establish a nexus to the conventional ground of imputed political opinion because he claims to fear persecution (inaudible) his conflict with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the next spokesperson for the ruling Military Transition Council, will be considered or construed as opposition to the government. Opposition to corruption or criminality may constitute a perceived political opinion when it can be seen to challenge the state apparatus, and indeed the claimant’s personal knowledge of the wrongdoing of a senior political and military figure has been identified as a challenge to the state apparatus, and the state apparatus engaged in addressing this perceived threat. As such, I have examined this claim under section 96 of the IRPA.
Credibility
[8] When a claimant swears to the truth of certain allegations, this creates presumptions that those allegations are true unless there is reason to doubt their truthfulness. Claimant’s testimony was forthright, and he provided spontaneous detail and testimony that was fulsome and consistent with his BOC and supported by the documentary evidence submitted. Which included, the letters confirming his employment in Sudan and Oman, and educational qualifications as a civil engineer. Birth certificates of his immediate family, supporting letters from family and friends attesting to their knowledge of certain events, and information on the conference for which he received a US visa. The claimant also submitted two (2) news articles from 2019, which include reference to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as a spokesperson for the Transitional Military Council. Having assessed these documents, I have no reason to doubt their authenticity and find on a balance of probabilities that they and are genuine and give them full weight as they corroborate the claimant’s narrative.
[9] In light of the claimant’s credible testimony and the corroborative evidence, I therefore find that the claimant entrusted a considerable sum of money to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, then XXXX XXXX for the local government for safekeeping while in Malakal and the south of Sudan during a period of fighting. That this money was intended as payment for XXXX XXXX to the claimant’s company for completion of the (inaudible) project. And that when the claimant asked XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to return the funds so that he could deliver it to his company in the north, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX failed to do so. When the claimant threatened to report the matter to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX superior, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX threatened him and had two (2) men dressed in local suits assault the claimant.
[10] I find the claimant on return to Khartoum had a court case initiated against him by his company for the loss of money. A company which the claimant testified was owned by the brother of then President, al-Bashir. I find the claimant was warned by his neighbour in Khartoum that two (2) men not in uniform, but in smart suits, the neighbor understood as indicating they were government security, had been looking for him. After the claimant had fled from his uncle further north in Sudan in Atbara to Egypt, his uncle called him with a similar description of three (3) men wearing suits, who appeared to be government security, looking for the claimant.
[11] I find XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is both a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and currently in a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, described by the claimant as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in Sudan. I find that the claimant has established on a balance of probabilities that he has personal knowledge of threatening behavior of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and that official’s theft of monies from local government intended for a politically connected company. And I find the claimant has been personally threatened twice by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to silence him, and is on balance of probabilities, being sought by security apparatus of the state at the instigation of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. And that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX has a continued interest in the claimant remaining silent, as his reputation and influence grow.
Well-founded Fear of Persecution
[12] The claimant fears returning to Sudan as he alleged he will be on a wanted list and immediately captured by security and made to disappear to maintain the security and reputation of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. As well as having a subjective fear of persecution, I also find that the objective evidence before me establishes that the claimant’s fear of by persecution by security agents of the state are objectively well-founded.
[13] The country condition evidence has outlined in the National Documentation Package for Sudan supports the claimant’s allegations regarding the treatment of perceived opponents to the state in Sudan by state agents. Corruption is endemic throughout Sudan and occurs with impunity. Those who speak out against it are punished. US Department of State report from the NDP for Sudan states that the World Bank rates corruption as a severe problem in the country. Officials found guilty of corrupt acts could often avoid jail time if they returned ill-gotten funds.
[14] Journalists who reported on government corruption were sometimes intimidated, detained, and interrogated by security forces. Freedom House similarly reports that citizens who exposed public malfeasance faced arrest. And the rule of law is increasingly perceived as conditional on political connections. According to the US Department of State, the Sudanese government engages in arbitrary or unlawful killings, including of detainees. There are disappearances by or on behalf of the government authorities. Security forces continue to beat and torture detainees. Even without torture, prison conditions in Sudan are harsh, overcrowded, and life threatening. Arbitrary arrest and detention is common and for extended periods.
[15] I find that the country conditions evidence establishes that those who have evidence of government corruption and perceived opponents of the state are arrested, tortured, and killed, amounted to persecution. I find that this threat remains ongoing for any person such as the claimant identified as a political reputational risk. As such, I find that there is more than a mere possibility of persecution should the claimant return to Sudan.
State Protection
[16] There is a presumption that unless in complete breakdown, states are capable of protecting their citizens. However, I find that presumption has been rebutted in this case, as the agent of persecution in this case is the state, and the NDP is clear on a politically dependent inability to take action against corruption. Accordingly, I find that there is no effective state protection available to the claimant.
Internal Flight Alternative
[17] I find that the claimant does not have a viable internal flight alternative, that there is nowhere within Sudan that the claimant will be able to relocate without fear of persecution. The state of Sudan has effective control over its territory. The claimant would not be able to enter into or move within Sudan without coming to the state’s attention. There is no evidence before me to suggest that there are adequately independent state authorities in Sudan who claimant could approach for protection in any part of the country. The claimant does not have an area within Sudan safe from persecution, and so does not have an internal flight alternative.
CONCLUSION
[18] Based on the analysis of both, I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA. and I accept this claim.
——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———