Citation: 2022 RLLR 33
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: April 7, 2022
Panel: Persia Sayyari
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Stephanie K. Fung
Country: Cameroon
RPD Number: VC1-04999
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01960
ATIP Pages: N/A
DECISION
[1] MEMBER:
INTRODUCTION
[2] These are the reasons of the Refugee Protection Division for the decision in the claim of XXXX XXXX, XXXX, who claims to be a citizen of Cameroon and is claiming protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
ALLEGATIONS
[3] The claimant’s allegations were outlined in detail in his Basis of Claim form at Exhibit 2 and in oral testimony before the Board. There are also some minor amendments to the Basis of Claim form at Exhibit 4. The following is only a brief summary. The claimant is a 49-year-old man who is a citizen of Cameroon and no other country. He is anglophone, and in Cameroon, he had a long career as a XXXX at different XXXX XXXX XXXX. Most recently, he worked at the XXXX XXXX XXXX, an anglophone region, as a XXXX and XXXX for about eight (8) years. In 2016, the claimant participated in peaceful protests to protect anglophone XXXXrights. Those protests ultimately spiraled into a situation of civil war in Cameroon between the majority francophone government forces and anglophone armed groups that is ongoing. The claimant and his family have been targeted for attack by anglophone militants seeking support for their ongoing fight against government forces. And also, the claimant has been arrested by government forces who wish to punish him for being involved in the XXXX protests. The claimant has been kidnapped at gunpoint and received threats that escalated in the context of the December 2020 elections in Cameroon. He and his family relocated within Cameroon to try and escape these threats, but they continued. Many of the claimant’s colleagues have been harmed or killed. The claimant fled to Canada in XXXX 2020 and his Basis of Claim form on file is signed in July 2021.
Determination And Nexus
[4] I find the claimant is a Convention refugee as he faces a serious possibility of persecution in Cameroon. There is a nexus between his allegations, and his perceived political opinion. He has been targeted by government forces who perceive him as having an anti-government political opinion due to his participation in XXXX protests and his profile as anglophone XXXX and XXXX in the XXXX XXXX. Also, he has been threatened by supporters of anglophone separatism as anglophone militants have targeted him and his family for threats in order to compel material support for their struggle against the government. I also recognize that apart from political opinion, there is a possible nexus to a particular social group, as the claimant is an anglophone male of fighting age who has spent time abroad outside of Cameroon. This could result in him being perceived as a supporter of anglophone separatism by francophone authorities in Cameroon. In this case, I find the claimant’s overall profile as an anglophone man who has participated in the XXXX protests to support anglophone rights, and who has spent significant amount of time outside of Cameroon establishes that he faces a risk of persecution from the Cameroonian government, as Cameroonian government authorities are likely to perceive him as a political opponent due to the specific profile.
ANALYSIS
Identity
[5] The claimant’s identity was established on a balance of probabilities by his passport at Exhibit 1. The claimant also provided identity documents that speak to his Cameroonian nationality as well at Exhibit 4. These documents include his birth certificate, his marriage certificate, birth certificates for his children, and his driver’s licence. I accept on a balance of probabilities the claimant’s identity is what he alleges it is and he is Cameroonian. For the record, I would like to note that the claimant’s name is entered incorrectly in the Refugee Protection Division’s digital case management system. In the Refugee Protection Division’s digital case management system, as of today’s date, on April 7th, 2022, the claimant’s name is entered backwards. However, the claimant confirmed at the hearing that his name, as it appears in his Cameroonian passport, is correct. His family name is XXXX, and his two (2) first names are XXXX XXXX. The claimant’s allegations about his name line up with his name as it appears in his passport, and I find the reversal of his name in the Refugee Protection Division’s digital case tracking system is simply an error, and I accept the claimant’s identity is what he says it is and his name is as it appears in his Cameroonian passport on file at Exhibit 1.
Credibility
[6] I find the claimant to be a credible witness. He testified in a straightforward manner, and I did not identify any material contradictions, omissions, or inconsistencies within his testimony or between his testimony and the documentary evidence before me. I have no reason to doubt that his allegations are true, and I accept on a balance of probabilities that all of his allegations are true.
[7] I note the claimant provided extensive documentary evidence in support of his allegations at Exhibit 4. This includes evidence of his work as a XXXX in Cameroon, such as his XXXX XXXX, and lists of employees working at the XXXX XXXX XXXX, as well as evidence of his earlier work as a XXXX XXXX. The claimant also provided documentary evidence corroborating his allegations about threats of harm from both government agents and anglophone militant groups in Cameroon. There is a testimonial letter from his spouse and a testimonial letter from his colleagues about threats against him, as well as photographs of damage to his home and damage to his car caused by bullets. Records of emails exchanged between the claimant and his spouse indicate that the Amba Boys group continued to ask about the claimant at his former home, as they want to know who owns the compound. Also in documentary evidence is a letter from the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Greater Toronto Area chapter, confirming the claimant has been involved in their events since coming to Canada, as well as emails from the group XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, which corroborates the claimant’s allegations that he remains interested in the political situation in Cameroon and opposed to violence in Cameroon, including violence inflicted by the Cameroonian government. Having examined these documents in the context of the overall evidence before me, I have no reason to believe the claimant has submitted anything false or fraudulent, and I accept his documents corroborate the material allegations that he is an anglophone XXXX from Cameroon who has suffered repeatedly from violent threats from both government agents and militant anglophone groups.
[8] In assessing credibility, I have considered the claimant visited the United States in 2020 for about XXXX (XXXX) weeks but did not claim asylum there. I questioned the claimant about why he returned to Cameroon despite the fact he says in his Basis of Claim form he felt unsafe in Cameroon. He explained that he was motivated to return to Cameroon by profound concern for his family there, including his spouse and four (4) children who are all minors. He explained he made the difficult decision to leave Cameroon a second time to flee to Canada only after threats intensified in Cameroon and he had no other choice or ability to change his family situation in Cameroon. I found the claimant’s explanation highly credible, and I accept it. I do not find his failure to claim asylum in the USA demonstrates a lack of subjective fear, and I do not draw any negative inference regarding his credibility from his failure to claim there. Also in assessing credibility, I questioned the claimant why there was apparently a delay of several months between when he arrived in Canada in XXXX 2020 and when his Basis of Claim form was signed in July 2021. The claimant explained he decided to claim asylum in Canada in late January 2021 after considering the implications of this decision very carefully, and after learning about the recent death of one (1) of his colleagues. He furthermore explained he attempted to make his claim in approximately February 2021 but there were some administrative delays related to mistakes about the order of his first and middle and last names. As a result, the final paperwork was not submitted until July 2021. I accept the claimant’s explanation and I do not draw any negative credibility inference from the record before me suggesting there was a delay of some months before his Basis of Claim form was signed.
[9] In summary, I find the claimant to be a highly credible witness, and I also accept he has provided probative and genuine documentary evidence in support of his allegations. On a balance of probabilities, I find all of his allegations are true.
Risk Of Harm
[10] I find the claimant would face a forward-looking risk of persecution if returned to Cameroon. This persecution would take the form of physical violence, arbitrary arrest or detention, and psychological abuse from police authorities in Cameroon. The claimant also faces a risk of detention, physical abuse, and psychological harm from anglophone militant groups in Cameroon. Both of these agents of harm, I also find, may kill the claimant should he return to Cameroon. Both of the agents of harm are motivated to harm the claimant as a direct result of their perception of his political opinions. Cameroonian authorities perceive the claimant as having an antigovernment opinion due to his profile as a XXXX XXXX who is anglophone phone and has been out of the country for some time. Anglophone militants perceive the claimant as not adequately supportive of their violent efforts against Cameroonian authorities and, therefore, their wish to retaliate against the claimant is also based in a perception of political opinion.
[11] I have based my findings on the following country condition information, which corroborate the claimant’s allegations. At Tab 2.1 of the National Documentation Package, there is a US Department of State Report indicating that Cameroonian authorities have conducted unlawful or arbitrary killings, including extrajudicial killings by security forces. Most of these killings have recently been associated with the armed conflict between anglophone militant groups and the majority francophone government. Many unarmed civilians have been affected by this violence, and the government is known to use excessive force on citizens. They are known to raid anglophone neighborhoods in Cameroon while searching for suspected militants. A report at Tab 2.3 confirms the conflict between government security forces and anglophone separatists has resulted in widespread civilian deaths and displacements. And a report at Tab 2.5 confirms armed groups and government forces committed widespread human rights abuses including extrajudicial or summary executions and mass killings across Cameroon’s anglophone regions throughout 2020. The report at Tab 3.2 indicates Cameroonian authorities have imposed restrictions on anglophone regions including curfews, a ban on public meetings, and other restrictive measures. Armed forces in Bamenda have fired live ammunition, sometimes raiding homes during the night for searches, and carrying out arbitrary arrests and excessive force in various circumstances. The claimant’s own experience in Bamenda relates to this information.
[12] I have also carefully noted information from Tab 13.2 of the National Documentation Package for Cameroon. This report indicates that anglophone Cameroonians who have been living abroad for some time, such as people like the claimant, have been arrested upon their return to the airport in Cameroon. Those arrested include failed asylum seekers. Failed asylum seekers who are anglophone have been imprisoned, harmed, and fined. The claimant himself has already been accused of supporting the anglophone XXXX protest movement that sparked the ongoing conflict in Cameroon, and he has been detained as a result of that. He has claimed protection in Canada as an anglophone person. I find these circumstances contribute to the risk he would face if he returned to Cameroon, as he could be targeted by police for questioning or abuse at the airport if he returned to Cameroon. The claimant’s age as a man who is within fighting age further contributes to this risk.
[13] The claimant has also expressed fear of anglophone militant groups who have repeatedly threatened and attacked him and his family. At Exhibit 4, there are emails from the claimant’s wife indicating that Amba Boys, who are a militant anglophone group, continue to seek out the claimant. Country condition evidence before me corroborates the risk the claimant could also face from anglophone militants if returned to Cameroon. I find the risk the claimant faces from Cameroonian government authorities adequate to accept this claim and I, therefore, find it unnecessary to assess the risk he faces from anglophone militant groups in detail. However, I will note that I do find the claimant credible with respect to the risks and threats he has experienced from anglophone militant groups. At Tab 2.1, 2.5, and 2.7, as well as 2.8 of the National Documentation Package, there is clear and consistent information indicating that anglophone separatist groups have engaged in egregious human rights abuses against civilians in Cameroon including extortion, kidnapping, and extrajudicial killings of people who they see as not adequately loyal to the anglophone cause or supporting the francophone government. The claimant indicated that he was threatened by anglophone militant groups who wanted to prevent him from returning to work as a XXXX as they considered XXXX who return to work as not being adequately loyal to the anglophone cause.
[14] In summary, the evidence before me indicates that Cameroon’s government continues to crack down on people who it suspects of supporting anglophone militants, and that the claimant’s profile matches the profile of people who the Cameroonian government have harmed. I find that the claimant, as an anglophone person and a XXXX who participated in protests for anglophone rights and who has previously experienced abuse from Cameroonian authorities, would face a forward-looking risk of persecution if returned to Cameroon.
State Protection and Internal Flight Alternative
[15] States are generally considered capable of offering adequate protection to their citizens unless the state is in a state of complete breakdown. Although there is some argument to be made that the ongoing civil war in Cameroon may in itself indicate adequate state protection is unavailable, I find that even if the state of Cameroon is found to be in adequate control of all of its territories, there is clear and convincing evidence before me that state protection is not available to the claimant. I have found that the claimant faces a serious risk of harm in the form of persecution from Cameroonian police and security agents, including those who would meet him at the airport in Cameroon if he were to return. There is no evidence before me to suggest there are adequately independent state authorities in Cameroon who the claimant could approach for protection from the state authorities who have targeted him for persecution.
[16] Furthermore, I find there is no viable internal flight alternative available to the claimant. The claimant has demonstrated on a balance of probabilities that he has been targeted for violent attacks and threats by both the Cameroonian government authorities and by militant anglophone groups. He has tried to relocate within Cameroon, as have his family, but the threats continue. I do not believe there is anywhere within Cameroon that he could be safe from a serious possibility of persecution due to his political opinion or imputed political opinion from either Cameroonian government authorities or anglophone militants. In particular, I have noted that there is a serious possibility the claimant would face persecution upon returning to Cameroon at the airport from government authorities who suspect him of an antigovernment political opinion due to his profile as an anglophone XXXX who has spent a significant amount of time abroad. It would, therefore, be not possible for him to even safely relocate within Cameroon even if a viable internal flight alternative existed, which I find it does not.
CONCLUSION
[17] I find the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and I accept his claim.
——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———