Citation: 2022 RLLR 34
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: April 25, 2022
Panel: Kay Scorer
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Tina Hlimi
Country: Ethiopia
RPD Number: VC1-00716
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01960
ATIP Pages: N/A
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (the “RPD”) in the claim made by XXXX XXXX XXXX (the “claimant”), a citizen of Ethiopia, who is claiming protection pursuant to section 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “Act”).
[2] In hearing and assessing this claim, I have considered and applied the Chairperson’s Guideline on Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution,[1] which offers guidance in recognizing women as members of a particular social group and also with respect to other gender specific issues present in this claim.
ALLEGATIONS
[3] The claimant’s allegations are contained in full in her Basis of Claim[2] and testimony at the hearing. The following is only a brief summary of those allegations.
[4] The claimant fears persecution in Ethiopia on the basis of her imputed political opinion. The claimant’s family has long been associated and connected with the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF). As a result, members of her family have been targeted, harassed, and in some cases killed, by the Liyu police in the Ogaden region of Ethiopia.
[5] The claimant comes from the Ogaden region, known as the Somali region of Ethiopia. Her uncles XXXX XXXX XXXX within the ONLF. Her brother and brother-in-law were both members of the ONLF. As a result of the family’s close connection to the ONLF they were constantly targeted and threatened by the Liyu police. Both her father and sister were murdered by the authorities based on their connections to the ONLF. In about 2013, the claimant herself was detained by the authorities, raped, and threatened. She was only about 14 at the time. Shortly after this incident, the claimant fled Ethiopia with her mother and younger siblings.
[6] The claimant first fled to Yemen with her mother and younger siblings in about 2013. The claimant’s mother had an aunt living in Yemen. She remained there for approximately a year and a half. While in Yemen, her mother and siblings were presumed deceased after a house fire in about 2015. She then fled with her mother’s aunt to Sudan, and then took a vehicle to Libya. Prior to reaching Libya, the aunt passed away. The claimant remained in Libya for approximately XXXX months, and then took a boat to Italy. The claimant was advised by others on the trip not to make a claim in Italy but instead to travel onwards to Sweden. The claimant did this and eventually arrived in Sweden where she initiated her claim for protection.
[7] The claimant’s application for refugee protection in Sweden was ultimately denied in about 2017. The claimant explained that her claim was decided in Sweden without a hearing, in part based on her credibility and also because the Swedish authorities felt the new leader of Ethiopia was making things better for the citizens of that country, and that she would not be at risk on return.
[8] The claimant has no identity documents. The claimant was not born in a hospital and had only ever lived in a rural village in the Ogaden region of Ethiopia. She states that the only identity document she has ever received was the one issued to her by the Swedish authorities when she sought asylum in that country. The spelling of her name on this card is incorrect given the translation from Somalia to English. The claimant testified that she had no legal representation to assist her with her forms, or corrections of those forms, in Sweden.
[9] The claimant fears that if she is returned to Ethiopia, the authorities will continue to view her as connected to the ONLF and persecute her as a result. She fears arrest, detention, or worse should she return to Ethiopia.
DETERMINATION
[10] I find the claimant is a Convention refugee.
[11] I find the claimant has established a nexus to the Convention ground of political opinion. I have therefore assessed this claim under section 96 of the Act, and not section 97.
ANALYSIS
Identity and Credibility
[12] When a claimant swears to the truth of their allegations, this creates a presumption that those allegations are true, unless there is reason to doubt their truthfulness. In this case, I found the claimant to be a credible witness. In coming to this decision, I have considered the personal circumstances of this claimant, including that she is uneducated, fled from her country of origin as a minor child, and also including the fact that she has suffered immense loss and trauma in her life that would reasonably impact an individual’s ability to recall and speak about difficult experiences. Despite these obvious barriers, the claimant testified in a spontaneous, forthcoming and detailed manner that was consistent with the other evidence before me. There were no material inconsistencies or omissions not reasonably explained. I found the claimant to be emotive and forthcoming in her responses. Overall, I believe the claimant’s allegations.
[13] A material issue in this case is the claimant’s identity. The claimant arrived in Canada on a Swedish Passport under the name XXXX XXXX XXXX. The claimant testified that she obtained this passport using an agent in Sweden. She testified that the photograph on the passport is not a photograph of the claimant and that the agent facilitated her entire travel to Canada, including providing her the passport and plane ticket. Despite the existence of this passport, the claimant has maintained at all times that she is XXXX XXXX XXXX of the Ogaden Region of Ethiopia.
[14] Possession of a national passport can create a rebuttable presumption that the claimant is a national of that country. In this case I find this presumption has been rebutted. I accept the claimant’s testimony that she obtained this passport fraudulently in an attempt to facilitate her journey from Sweden to avoid deportation to Ethiopia. It is not uncommon for claimants to utilize the assistants of agents to facilitate their travel to Canada, often including fraudulently obtained passports. Further, I also find the photograph on the passport is not of the claimant as the photograph does not sufficiently resemble the claimant on a balance of probabilities.
[15] The claimant does not have any government issued identify documents form Ethiopia. She explained in testimony that this is because she was born a rural part of the Ogaden region, in a village hut. She was not issued a birth certificate, has never had a passport, and the only identity document she has ever had was the refugee ID document she received when she initiated her claim in Sweden. She fled from the Ogaden region in 2013 after she experienced a violent rape by a police officer, and after her father and sister had been murdered by police for the family’s connection to the ONLF. She left without any documentation.
[16] I questioned the claimant at length about her upbringing in XXXX XXXX XXXX, Ethiopia. Her testimony was detailed, spontaneous and consistent with the other evidence before me. She was able to describe the lay out of the village, the houses in the village, and how many people occupied the village. She explained her father’s position in the village as a teacher of the Qur’an, and was able to describe where the lessons were held in the village and how many other students would attend these lessons.
[17] Along with the claimant’s testimony about her upbringing in Ethiopia, I also found the other elements of her testimony to be detailed, consistent and spontaneous. Overall, I found the claimant to be a credible witness on a balance of probabilities, and so I believe what she has alleged in her Basis of Claim and very detailed narrative, including the elements of the testimony relating to her identity as a national of Ethiopia only. The claimant explained her harrowing journey from Ethiopia, to Yemen, to Libya, and then to Sweden. Her testimony was detailed. She described her experiences with emotion, including the hardships she faced along the way which included having to work as a minor child in Yemen and the difficulties that she and her family faced. Her testimony about her journey to Canada was consistent with her very detailed Basis of Claim form in Exhibit 2, and both were materially consistent with the detailed interview notes taken by the Border Officers when the claimant first arrived in Canada and initiated her claim.
[18] Along with the claimant’s credible testimony, she was also able to provide a supporting letter from the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (XXXX). The letter, written by the organization’s XXXX XXXX, corroborates that the claimant is known to be from the Ogaden region of Ethiopia. The letter states that the organization interviewed the claimant, along with another individual from the same region, and ascertained that the claimant is from the Ogaden region of Ethiopia, and specifically that her family is known to be from XXXX XXXX XXXX. I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of this document and I assign it weight as it corroborates the claimant’s identity.
[19] The claimant also had a witness testify to corroborate her identity as a national of Ethiopia, and in particular the Ogaden region of the country, and also to her allegations of risk. The witness appeared by video. He explained knowing the claimant from their village in XXXX XXXX XXXX in the Ogaden region of Ethiopia. He testified that his father was a close friend to the claimant’s father. The witness’s father was XXXX XXXXof the sub-clan that both the witness and claimant belong to in Ethiopia. The witness was able to identify the detailed family tree of sub-clan, down to the branch where the claimant and the witness’s ancestral lines diverge. The witness was also able to provide details about what he knows of the claimant’s father (including his role in the community as a XXXX XXXX), the claimant’s mother, and their circumstances in Ethiopia as having been targeted for the family’s connection to the ONLF. I found the witnesses testimony to be consistent, detailed and spontaneous. I believe what he has stated in support of the claimant’s identity, and I assign his testimony weight in helping corroborate the claimant’s identity.
[20] The claimant also produced a copy of her asylum card from Sweden. Notably, the name on that card is misspelled as XXXX XXXX XXXX. I asked the claimant about the misspelling, and she explained that the misspelling occurred when the name was translated from Somali to English. The claimant received this document without the assistance of counsel, including not having counsel to assist in completing her asylum forms, nor having counsel to assist in correcting any errors resulting from those forms. The Swedish asylum documents do properly note the claimant purported to be from Ethiopia, speaks Somali, and also included the correct birth date information. Counsel submitted a series of post-hearing documents purporting to demonstrate the translation of XXXX to “XXXX” “XXXX XXXX XXXX” and “XXXX XXXX”. Ultimately, I accept that translation from Somali to English would result in perceived spelling errors such as those demonstrated on the claimant’s Swedish asylum ID. I accept the claimant’s explanation for the obvious misspellings on the Swedish asylum documents and do not find these documents undermine her credibility in any respect.
[21] I find the claimant has established that her name is XXXX XXXX XXXX, a national of Ethiopia, from the Ogaden region. Based on her credible testimony and the supporting testimony of the witness, I find she has established that she has been targeted, detained, abused, and violently assaulted by the authorities in Ogaden on the basis of her family’s ties to the ONLF. I find the claimant has established that her uncles held XXXXpositions with the ONLF, that her brother and brother-in-law were both members of the ONLF, that her father and sister were killed by the police for the family’s involvement with the ONLF. I find the claimant has established that she was forced to flee Ethiopia, along with her mother and younger siblings, when she was just about 13-14 years old because of the risk to the family by the police. I find the claimant continues to fear being targeted in Ethiopia for her family’s involvement with the ONLF if she were to return to Ethiopia, and that she fears being targeted by the police because she fled the country against their demands.
[22] I find the claimant has established her subjective fears on a balance of probabilities.
Well-Founded Fear of Persecution
[23] I find that the objective evidence before me establishes that the claimant’s fears of persecution as a perceived supporter of the ONLF in Ethiopia are objectively well-founded. The country condition evidence as outlined in the National Documentation package for Ethiopia[3] supports the claimant’s allegations as follows.
[24] According to the Human Rights Watch report for 2020, the “security and human rights situation in Ethiopia deteriorated…The rights landscape was defined by ongoing abuses by government security forces, attacks on civilians by armed groups, deadly violence along communal and ethnic lines, and a political crisis.”[4]
[25] The claimant is from the Ogaden region of Ethiopia. According to a LandInfo report, “information about the conditions of the Somali region, including the Liyu police, is very limited.”[5] The report explains that the Liyu police were established after an attack in 2007 by the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF). The Liyu police were originally only present in parts of the Somali Region that constituted the heartland of the Ogaden clan, but today are known to operate throughout the entire Somali region. The Liyu police have grown considerably in recent years. The Liyu police operate with a “high degree of legal impunity”[6]. The LandInfo report confirms there is “little doubt that Liyu Police has committed a number of serious violations, including executing civilians.” The claimant explained in testimony that her father and sister were both murdered by the Liyu Police, and she herself detained and raped. I find her testimony is unfortunately consistent with the evidence before me concerning the Liyu police.
[26] I accept the claimant’s testimony that her family has been targeted for their connection to the ONLF. The country evidence before me establishes that the Liyu police, who operate in the Somali region of Ethiopia, were tasked with fighting against the ONLF. I find it likely that if the claimant were to return to the Somali region of Ethiopia, where she is from, that the Liyu police would continue to have an interest in her pursuing her, ultimately leading to her likely detention and persecution as a result. Despite the passage of time since the claimant fled Ethiopia, the country continues to suffer from sectarian divide and violence, and those viewed as part of the political dissent (real or imputed) continue to be targeted by the authorities. The evidence before me demonstrates that the Liyu police have grown considerably since the claimant left Ethiopia and continue to act with impunity. Therefore, I find the claimant continues to face risk despite having left the country in about 2013.
[27] I find the claimant’s subjective fears are objectively well-founded.
State Protection
[28] States are presumed capable of protecting their citizens. In this case, however, I find that the state is the agent of persecution. The country evidence indicates that the ONLF was listed as a terrorist organization by the authorities in Ethiopia until 2018.[7] Despite President Abiy’s announcements on policy reform, “peace agreements with the OLF and ONLF have yet to be fully revealed.”[8] The country evidence indicates that a peace deal was struck between the Ethiopian authorities and the ONLF, however, “the reforms, which the [security sector] is part [of] has started but there is still a long way to go until”[9] the country sees lasting change. I find that the country evidence establishes that despite some marginal signs of reform, those who perceived to oppose the government continue to face arbitrary arrest, detention, cruelty, and ill treatment, and opposition supporters have been subjected to mass arrest and violence, and this is expected to continue. Reports confirm that “individuals who are known dissidents are at high risk of detention”[10] on return home to Ethiopia. The state continues to direct violence at actual and imputed government opponents.[11] The country condition evidence establishes that opposition members, which may include individuals perceived as being members of the ONLF, face risk are persecution by the state in Ethiopia. Further, in this case, the claimant’s uncles held XXXXroles in the ONLF and she herself has already been targeted for her perceived connection to the organization.
[29] Despite marginal improvement in Ethiopia after the election of President Abiy, the country evidence before me continues to indicate the state remains actively engaged in persecuting and harming political opposition. In this way, it is unknown how durable, significant and effective any positive reform brought forward by President Abiy is to have on the nation as a whole. Whether the claimant was to seek state protection from the Liyu Police or from another state agent in Ethiopia, I find she would be at risk of persecution for her family’s tie to an opposition group. Further, given the state’s involvement in persecuting those perceived as political opponents and given the states involvement in directly persecuting the claimant in the past, I find the presumption of state protection has been rebutted in this case.
Internal Flight Alternative
[30] The test for a viable IFA has two prongs and the panel must be satisfied of both on a balance of probabilities in order for there to be a viable IFA. First, the panel must be satisfied that the claimants would not face a serious possibility of persecution and that they would not be personally subjected to a risk to life, of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or danger of torture in the IFA. Second, the panel must be satisfied that it would not be unreasonable in all the circumstances, including those particular to the claimants, for the claimants to seek refuge there.[12]
[31] For reasons similar to those relating to the lack of state protection and including the fact that the state has control over its territory, I find the claimant also faces a serious possibility of persecution by the state and its agents throughout Ethiopia as someone who would be perceived a political opponent given her family’s ties to the ONLF. As the state is the agent of persecution, I find there is no viable internal flight alternative available to this claimant.
CONCLUSION
[32] For the foregoing reasons, I find the claimant is a Convention refugee. I accept her claim.
(signed)Kay Scorer
April 25, 2022
[1] Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution, Ottawa, Canada, March 1993, updated November 1996.
[2] Exhibit 2.
[3] Exhibit 3.1.
[4] Exhibit 3.1, at item 2.3.
[5] Exhibit 3.1, at item 10.3.
[6] Exhibit 3.1, at item 10.3.
[7] Exhibit 3.1, at item 1.5.
[8] Exhibit 3.1, at item 1.8.
[9] Exhibit 3.1, at item 1.13.
[10] Exhibit 3.1, at item 4.16.
[11] Exhibit 3.1, at item 4.21.
[12] Ranganathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] 2 FC 164, Court of Appeal.