Citation: 2022 RLLR 51
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: August 18, 2022
Panel: Richard Long
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Ariel M. Hollander
Country: Bangladesh
RPD Number: TC2-08675
Associated RPD Number(s): TC2-08679, TC2-08682
ATIP Number: A-2022-01960
ATIP Pages: N/A
DECISION
[1] MEMBER: All right, we are back on the record. These are the reasons for the decision in the claims for refugee protection by XXXX XXXX XXXX, TC2-08675, XXXX XXXX XXXX, TC2-08679, and XXXX XXXX, TC2-08682. You are all claiming to be citizens of Bangladesh and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I have considered your testimony and the other evidence in your case, and I am ready to render my decision orally.
[2] My determination is I find that you are all Convention refugees who face a serious possibility of persecution in Bangladesh. I note that due to the allegations raised by the associate claimants, I considered and applied Chairperson’s Guideline 4, Gender Considerations in Proceedings Before the Immigration and Refugee Board.
[3] Your allegations are found in your Basis of Claim forms at Exhibit 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3, and were expanded upon through your testimony today. You allege that you face a serious possibly of persecution in Bangladesh from state and non-state actors due to Mr. XXXX — the principal claimant’s being a publicly vocal atheist who is viewed as anti-Islamic.
[4] Mr. XXXX, you allege that you are a long-time XXXX and XXXX XXXX user who posts regularly about, among other things, atheism, secular topics, and some criticism of Islam. You spent more than 10 years living outside of Bangladesh in Bermuda and Canada while engaged in these activities, and though you did receive some online threats, you were not particularly concerned. However, on a return to Bangladesh in XXXX 2022, you received a call that your wife and mother-in-law, the associate claimants, had been kidnapped, directly related to your anti-Islamic online activity or your perceived anti-Islamic online activity. The associate claimants were able to escape their captures, however, not before being told that they would be taught a lesson due to Mr. XXXX anti-Islamic or perceived anti-Islamic activity, and both the associate climates were physically and sexually assaulted by their captors prior to their being able to escape. You stayed in hiding at your sister-in-law — the sister of associate claimant and daughter of the other associate claimant, for several days, and then all fled to Canada using your valid Canadian visas and made refugee claims shortly after your arrival. You alleged that there was nowhere you could be safe in Bangladesh and that state protection is not available to you.
[5] Regarding your identities, I find that your personal and national identities as citizens of Bangladesh were established on a balance of probabilities by your testimony and by the certified copies of your Bangladesh passports on file at Exhibit 1 as well as additional identity documents including the national ID card for XXXX XXXX and birth certificates at Exhibit number 5. I did have some concern about a previous passport in Exhibit 4 for XXXX XXXX that has a different spelling of her name and a different ID number. However, that was discussed in the hearing, and I received a fully plausible and credible explanation that she had had a voter ID card with incorrect information, that was what the passport was based on, and she needed to have the voter ID and the passport corrected to give her the correct spelling of her name, resulting in a changing of the ID card number, which resulted in a new ID card number on the passport, and I find this is credibility explained, and I find you have all established your identities on a balance of probabilities.
[6] I did also raise an issue of possible exclusion for Mr. XXXX under article 1E of the Convention, as he did live and work for nearly a decade in Bermuda. But, sir, you testified that your status there was only through a work permit taken care of by your employer. I note you held no permanent status there. I find your testimony is supported by the information in the Bermuda National Documentation Package at Exhibit 3.1 — or 3.2, sorry, specifically document 3.1 of that package outlines the strict requirements for attaining permanent resident status in Bermuda, which you would not have met based on your 10 years being there on a work permit. Therefore, I find that you do not hold and have not held status in Bermuda with the rights and obligations of a national and are thus not excluded.
[7] Regarding nexus for Mr. XXXX, I find there is a nexus by reason of your religion or a lack thereof, atheism, and your imputed religious profile of being anti-Islamic, and for the associate claimants by reason of your membership in a particular social group, particularly being female family members of someone deemed to have anti-Islamic views and who are at risk of gender-related violence. Thus, I find there is a nexus for all three (3) of you to the refugee Convention and assess your claims pursuant to section 96.
[8] For credibility, I have found you all to be credible witnesses, although I note that the bulk of the testimony did come from Mr. XXXX, as his allegations are the primary one (1)’s in the heart of the claim. I accept what you have alleged in your oral testimony and your Basis of Claim forms. Your testimony was relatively straightforward. There were no material contradictions, omissions, or discrepancies between what you said and the documentary evidence, and you were able to give a detailed testimony when asked. I found you, sir, credible regarding your being an atheist who has made XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX promoting secular views critical of Islam. You were able to speak in some detail of your journey to atheism and why you find yourself with this set of beliefs.
[9] You also provided nearly 50 pages of XXXX XXXX at Exhibit 5. Now, I note that almost none of these postings are translated into English or French, so I cannot give them great weight for the most part for the content or the specifics of their content, however, there are several comments in English which do support your allegation that you were making a commentary that would be viewed as critical of Islam and offensive to conservative Muslims in Bangladesh. You included screenshots of your own account, showing your username as a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX which you said would be viewed as XXXX by conservative Muslims in Bangladesh. Also, you included posting of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, including the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and your critical commentary, which was in English, of these figures. And your posts also show that you were engaged in communication publicly with individuals well known as XXXX XXXX and publishers who were later murdered by extremists in Bangladesh for their XXXX and XXXX XXXX. This is supported by the news articles you presented at Exhibit 7, which speaks specifically about these individuals who you were friends with on Facebook being murdered. Therefore, I can assign these documents some weight in establishing that you were engaged in public posting of religiously sensitive material and were engaged in public discussions with a number of individuals whose imputed anti-Islamic views led to their own murders.
[10] Regarding the attacks on the associate claimants in Bangladesh, your testimony, particularly XXXX, was in line with your Basis of Claim narrative and also the statement provided from the associate — from XXXX (sic)’s — or, sorry, pardon me, XXXX daughter — sister, and XXXX daughter at Exhibit 5, who was herself a witness to parts of this event and corresponds with your testimony and Basis of Claim. I can offer this statement significant weight in establishing that the principal claimant was threatened, that the associate claimants were kidnapped and assaulted in relation to the principal claimant’s perceived anti-Islamic activity. Overall, I find you on a balance of probabilities to have credibly established the central elements of your claims, that the principal claimant is an atheist who vocally and publicly engaged in online postings and discussion that was viewed as critical of Islam, that the associate claimants were kidnapped and assaulted in direct relation to this.
[11] Regarding subjective fear, you fled Bangladesh for Canada just days after the attack and made your refugee claim within weeks of arrival here. Therefore, I find on the balance of probabilities that your subjective fear has been established.
[12] Regarding objective support for your allegations, I turn to the National Documentation Package for Bangladesh at Exhibit 3.1 as well as the country disclosure submitted by you and your Counsel at Exhibit 7. I look at document 12.2 of the National Documentation Package which indicates that Bangladesh is majority a Sunni Muslim country. Bangladesh does have secularism as a fundamental principle, however, according to article 2(a) of the Constitution, indicates that state religion of Bangladesh is Islam. The document further indicates that in 2016, alleged Islamic state affiliates in Bangladesh conducted a series of attacks against individuals within religious minority communities, including XXXX XXXX and activists — online activists, which is what you allege you were viewed as, Mr. XXXX. Document 12.8, a United Kingdom Home Office Report indicates that — again, discusses the recent murders of XXXX XXXX and others deemed to be criticizing Islam in the online sphere, and it indicates that while the government did condemn these threats and acts of violence committed in the name of religion, government representatives have also publicly admonished online activists who have expressed critical views on religion, Islam in particular, and have indicated that limits should not be crossed in criticism of religion. In addition to official sanctions, individuals who have publicly criticized Islam had faced significant societal pressure in the form of threats and violence from Islamist militant organizations.
[13] Mr. XXXX, you indicated that you believed that your threat — those who threatened you may have been connected to the XXXX XXXX XXXX. Document 1.5 discusses this organization and says that they XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, threatening the lives of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, who they termed apostates and enemies of Islam. And again, it is also well documented in your articles at Exhibit 7 of the murders of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. According to document 1.17, the Australia Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Report, religion is central to Bangladeshi Culture and professed atheism is extremely rare. Islamic organizations regularly use the term atheist against individuals who criticize Islam, and the government has periodically used blasphemy laws against such individuals such as yourself, Mr. XXXX, and accused them of blasphemy or defamation of religion, and are — those who do so are likely to face legal sanction, which may even include imprisonment, which you, Mr. XXXX, declared that you have personally feared.
[14] For the associate claimants, document 1.5, the European Asylum Support Office Report indicates that rape, sexual harassment, and other gender-based violence is common in Bangladesh and that there are reports that sexual assault and rape has been used in politically motivated violence, which appears to be the case here. Based on the evidence before me, I find that your fear of harm does have an objective basis, and along with your established subjective fear that you all have a well-founded fear of persecution in Bangladesh.
[15] Turning to state protection, there is a presumption of — that states are capable of protecting their own citizens, but that presumption can be rebutted with clear and convincing evidence of the unwillingness or inability of a state to protect a claimant. In your case, you declare that you did not go to police after the abduction and threats, as you fear that you yourself could be arrested, Mr. XXXX, for your vocal online atheism and criticism of Islam, which is supported by the objective evidence I just discussed, and feared for the associate claimants, as female assault victims are often mistreated by police, this is also supported in the National Documentation Package at document 1.17, and the UK Home Office Report at document 5.15 indicates that women face barriers to getting police help due to a prevailing culture of impunity and lack of government commitment for sexual assault survivors.
[16] Furthermore, the Australia Report at 1.17 reports that public distrusted in police and security services in Bangladesh is widespread, and many Bangladeshis do not approach police for help. Human rights organizations have expressed concern over persistent use of excessive force by police and that most Bangladeshis do avoid any engagement with police. So, I find on a balance of probabilities that adequate state protection would not be forthcoming to you and you have rebutted the presumption of state protection in this case.
Internal Flight Alternative
[17] Sir, Mr. XXXX, you have established that you are a vocal atheist and critic of Islam, and I find it would not be reasonable to expect you to keep silent about your religious beliefs, as that would be a violation of your human rights. The country condition documents indicate that the risk of being a vocal atheist and anti-Islamist for most state and non-state actors exists throughout the country, and furthermore, the associate claimants would, on a balance of probabilities, be linked to the principal claimant, as this has already happened within just a month of your return to Bangladesh in 2021. So, I find that they too, on a balance of probabilities, would be at risk throughout the country.
[18] Therefore, I find that there is no viable internal flight alternatives for you anywhere in Bangladesh.
[19] For the aforementioned reasons, I conclude that you all three (3) claimants face a serious possibility of persecution in Bangladesh, and I find you are Convention refugees, and your claims are accepted.
[20] And with that, I will go off the record and close the proceeding.
——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———