Citation: 2022 RLLR 43
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: October 21, 2022
Panel: Candida Quinn
Counsel for the Claimant(s): David P. Yerzy
Country: Georgia
RPD Number: TC2-18302
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01960
ATIP Pages: N/A
DECISION
[1] MEMBER: I am ready to make my decision in this case. These are the reasons for that decision, in the matter TC2-18302, Mr. XXXX XXXX.
[2] Mr. XXXX alleges citizenship in Georgia and seeks the protection of Canada pursuant to section 96 or 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which I will refer to as the Act.
[3] The claimant’s allegations may be found in full in his Basis of Claim, that is B-O-C, BOC, and narrative, at Exhibit 2. He also submitted an amended BOC, found at Exhibit 5.
[4] In summary, he alleges that he has been harmed and fears further severe harm from Georgia’s Georgian Dream party, which I will call the GDP, and government.
[5] He alleges that the threat arises because he opposes the government as a member of the United National Movement, or UNM.
[6] I find that the claimant has established that he is Convention refugee under section 96 of the Act.
[7] My reasons follow.
[8] First, with respect to identity.
[9] The claimant has demonstrated his personal and national identity, on a balance of probabilities, through his testimony and by a copy of his Georgia passport and national identity card. Those are at Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 6, document 2.
[10] Next, nexus.
[11] As the claimant alleges harm on account of one of the Convention grounds enumerated in section 96 of the Act, that is, political opinion, I evaluate his claim under section 96.
[12] Now, as to credibility.
[13] A claimant’s sworn testimony is presumed truthful, absent a valid reason to doubt it. The determination about whether it is credible is made on a balance of probabilities.
[14] The claimant testified today in a manner fully consistent with the core allegations set forth in his BOC and amendment. My questioning covered his background, political opinion, and the harm resulting from that opinion.
[15] His responses were spontaneous, responsive, and sufficiently detailed yet unembellished. He was able to fill in details about the allegations when asked, and to easily address the allegations out of chronological order. The testimony was internally consistent, and I detected no material contradictions with, or omissions from, the documentation submitted.
[16] The claimant testified, as alleged in his BOC and amendment, that he is a XXXX XXXX XXXX, having XXXX for several years through 2021 with XXXX XXXX XXXX, known as the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, after its founders. He has XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and the company is popular with Georgians. It XXXX around Georgia and internationally. The claimant was featured on the XXXX 2020 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and has been viewed over 1.3 million times XXXX in a XXXX 2020 XXXX XXXX of a XXXX XXXX. He submitted a copy of the XXXX XXXX and the video, found at Exhibit 6, document 20.
[17] I do not see a reason not to find them authentic; they corroborate these allegations and I give them full weight.
[18] I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant is well known in Georgia as a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.
[19] Concerning his political views, the claimant testified, again consistently with his BOC and amendment, that he never agreed with the GDP, but kept quiet about it until 2022, out of respect for the XXXX XXXX ban on political expression. Because of his mother’s Ossetian background, and because he grew up in an area he sees as subsequently occupied by Russia, he despises the GDP’s pro-Russian position.
[20] He chose to join the UNM opposition party in XXXX 2022, because he happened to have befriended a former party official, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, after being invited over to Mr. XXXX house after a performance. Over the coming period, he was active on social media about his political views.
[21] The claimant submitted documents to support his allegation that he formally opposed the GDP and joined the UNM. These include a letter from the UNM’s leader, which he testified that he obtained through his friend XXXX, and screenshots of the claimant’s 2022 social media denouncing Russia and the GDP. These documents may be found at Exhibit 6, document 5, and documents 15 through 17.
[22] They appear authentic, on a balance of probabilities, and they corroborate an open anti-GDP stance.
[23] I give them full weight, therefore, and find that the claimant has openly displayed a political opinion openly hostile to the GDP government and party, and in line with the UNM.
[24] As to the fallout from the claimant’s open political opinion, he testified consistently with the BOC and amendment, about the escalating harm that befell him before leaving Georgia. He first received an anonymous phone call insisting that he stop his political expression, about a week after he joined the UNM. Shortly thereafter, someone smashed into his car. That incident was followed by a phone call to let him know that he needed to stop political advocacy or—
——— AUDIO #1 ENDS (03:59:58) ———
——— AUDIO #1 BEGINS ———
…face worse harm than occurred to his car.
[25] The following month, XXXX 2022, he was driving when a car tried to cut him off, distracting him and causing him to run into the car in front of him. He got out to discuss and noticed that both drivers were approaching. They kicked him, he fell, and they kicked him some more. Before leaving, they told him that this was the final warning, or he would be killed.
[26] He sought medical treatment and provided verification of this at Exhibit 7, document 6, from the hospital to which he drove.
[27] During XXXX (XXXX) days there, he spoke with police who returned to tell him that they would not help him as it would jeopardize their jobs. I see no error in the medical certificate and give it full weight as to the injuries sustained, timing, and length of stay.
[28] And I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant was harmed and ultimately attacked by GDP operatives in XXXX 2022, plus threatened with death if he did not silence his political, his anti-government political expression.
[29] The claimant left Georgia on XXXX XXXX, 2022, shortly after the attack, using a Canadian visa that he already had for professional reasons. He entered Canada the same day.
[30] I questioned why he did not report his fears to CBSA upon entry. He answered that he was afraid to, and I accept this reasonable in his circumstances. He signed his BOC soon thereafter, on March 21st, 2022.
[31] I asked, as well, about whether the threat from the GDP had abated because he left. He testified consistently with his XXXX XXXX, 2022, BOC amendment, that his brother in Georgia had been beaten up and injured on May 2020 22 (sic) by GDP by supporters. At Exhibit 6, documents 9 and 10, he submitted a medical certificate and a letter from his parents about the harm both the claimant and his brother experienced, linking it to the GDP.
[32] These documents appear authentic and corroborative, and I give them full weight.
[33] I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant is still in the sights of the GDP because of his politics.
[34] For these reasons, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant has credibly established that he has been threatened and attacked by the GDP because of his expressed anti-GDP political opinion. As well as that, he continues to face a risk in his country for this reason.
[35] I also find that he has established a subjective fear of harm about what would await him in Georgia, because of his political opinion.
[36] I now must assess whether there is objective evidence sufficient to support the claimant’s subjective fear.
[37] I find, on a balance of probabilities, that there is, that the fear is well founded.
[38] Open opposition to the GDP Georgian government can be dangerous, as the objective evidence describes widespread government monitoring of political opposition, and continued reports of politically motivated violence. The most recent National Documentation Package at Exhibit 3, reports that the Georgian government threatens and abuses those that it disfavours.
[39] The US State Department found that credible reports last year of cruel treatment and arbitrary and selective investigations, detention, and prosecutions. That information is at Exhibit 3, Tab 2.1.
[40] The claimant here was beaten, injured, and threatened with death by the GDP. He testified reasonably that his prominence in Georgia made him more likely to be a target of a corrupt and repressive government.
[41] The election system in Georgia, and politics there as a whole, have been troubled by corruption, and this persists. During the 2020 parliamentary elections, there reportedly were “pervasive allegations of pressure on voters and blurring of the line between the ruling party and the State.” That quote is at Exhibit 3, Tab 2.1, paragraph 52.
[42] The US State Department reports that Georgian NGOs submitted hundreds of electoral complaints about those 2020 elections and that six (6) of those NGOs described the October 31st, 2020, elections as the worst the GDP has ever held. Again, that’s at Exhibit 3, Tab 2.1. They featured voter intimidation and violence against journalists trying to report accurate news. Transparency International describes the ability of voters to speak and vote freely may well have been impacted, compromised, may well have compromised the outcome of the election in favour of the GDP. Again, that is at Tab 2.1.
[43] With stakes this high, the GDP party and government would not be expected to tolerate open opposition by persons of prominence and with connections in Georgia, such as the claimant.
[44] On a balance of probabilities, I find that the claimant’s subjective fear is well founded and that he continues to face a serious possibility of persecution for openly defying the GDP government.
[45] I turn to state protection now.
[46] Except when in complete breakdown, a state is presumed capable of providing its citizens adequate protection, and a claimant must present clear and convincing evidence that the protection is not adequate.
[47] Georgia is not in complete breakdown, but the objective evidence does indicate that the Georgian government is not willing to provide adequate protection for those who are perceived to oppose it. The claimant reported to the police the serious attack he experienced in XXXX 2022, to no avail. When the police returned to the hospital after taking his report, they told him that they would not investigate because they wanted to keep their jobs.
[48] Georgian law enforcement is not independent of the GDP government, and is subject to the same sort of corruption described in a consensus of the NDP items.
[49] Voter intimidation, for example, has been reported to involve law enforcement. Georgia’s constitution provides for the right of political speech and assembly for political protests without obtaining government permission. The Human Rights and Education Monitoring Centre reported in 2016, however, that these rights were often violated when convenient for the government. This is to be found at Exhibit 3, Tab 10.3, chapters two (2) and three (3).
[50] Beginning in 2012, the Centre states, Human Rights Watch observed the Georgian government performing arbitrary arrests and taking punitive measures against political activists and others expressing political opinions. The Centre states that Georgia’s police system is “sharply centralized,” posing a high risk that officers will be used for political ends.
[51] For these reasons, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the presumption that adequate state protection would be available to the claimant in Georgia, has been rebutted.
[52] Finally, I address internal flight alternative.
[53] Protection in Canada is to serve as a surrogate for the protection that a claimant ought to be able to find in the home country. I now address whether there is a location within Georgia in which the claimant could live without facing, on a balance of probabilities, harm, in this case a serious possibility of persecution.
[54] I find that there is not.
[55] Zugdidi was proposed as a potential IFA at the outset of the hearing.
[56] But because Georgia’s national government is intertwined with the GDP political party, and has demonstrated a willingness to engage in persecution for political opinion, and because the claimant is well known to the GDP and around Georgia, and is still sought by the GDP, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that he has no viable internal flight alternative.
[57] To conclude, for the reasons given, I find that the claimant has established a serious possibility of persecution in Georgia, because of his political opinion and I accept his claim.
——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———