Citation: 2022 RLLR 55
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: June 21, 2022
Panel: Carolyn Adolph
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Harjot Singh
Country: India
RPD Number: TC2-05981
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01960
ATIP Pages: N/A
DECISION
[1] MEMBER: This is a decision for XXXX XXXX, file number TC2-05981. I have considered your testimony and the other evidence in the case, and I am ready to render my decision orally.
[2] You are claiming to be a citizen of the Republic of India and no other country. And you are claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
I ca [sic]
DETERMINATION
[3] I find that you are a Convention refugee because you face a serious possibility of persecution. And here are my reasons.
ALLEGATIONS
[4] You allege the following.
[5] You are a citizen of India. You allege that you are persecuted because of your decision to become a practising member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
[6] In addition, you say that as a Dalit, you are a person who is subjected to rules that include your inability to choose your own religion. And as a result, you say that members of Indian society at large as well as Hindus, as well as extremist Hindus, including the members of the BJP, as well as the police in your home state of Punjab, all are part about the fabric of your persecution. You say that you fear a risk to your life if you were to return to India. And you say that there is no state protection or a viable internal flight alternative for you in India.
Identity
[7] Your personal identity as a citizen of India has been established by your testimony and the supporting documents filed in the exhibits, including the copies of the passport that I found there, which bears your photograph, which you know is unmistakeably you.
[8] And therefore, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that both personal identity and country of nationality have been established.
Nexus
[9] I find that there is a link between what you fear and one (1) of the five (5) the Convention grounds, specifically, religion. And further, I find that your claim cannot be properly understood unless we also take into account your membership in a particular social group, Dalits. And so, I find that it is the combination of both of these Convention grounds that represents your risk.
Credibility
[10] In terms of your general credibility, I have found you to be a highly credible witness. And I, therefore, accept on a balance of probabilities what you have alleged in your oral testimony as well as in your Basis of Claim form.
[11] Your testimony and the evidence are presumed to be true. And this includes two (2) major things. Number one (1) that you established with me that you are a Jehovah’s Witness through your credible testimony about your beliefs and what drew you to that faith, and why it is that you believe so deeply that your home is there. And the other thing is that you have established through your credible testimony as well as supporting documents that you are a member of a Dalit caste. And so, I accept these things to be true.
[12] You also told me that your father was taken into police custody and tortured until he later died because of what happened in there. You have testified to me that your brother has been in hiding since 2018 because of the whole concern that the society around you had with your decision to become a Jehovah’s Witness. And you have also established with me through your credible testimony alone that you were physically attacked.
[13] And so, I also want to point out that there are documents on file to support your allegations, and these include the medical records of your injuries, your documents to support your membership of a scheduled cast via your father. You provided an affidavit concerning the death of your father after having been in police custody. And so, I find all of these things to have been established, and therefore I find that the claimant has established that he fears death at the hands of the police and death at the hands of members of the general public because of his decision as a Dalit to become a Jehovah’s Witness.
[14] And I find that the claimant has established his subjective fear of returning to India.
Objective Basis
[15] The BJP was named by the claimant as an organization he fears, including its membership. This party is in its second term as a central government of India. During its tenure, intolerance against non-Hindus has been on the rise. India’s Constitution defines the nation as secular, and it protects freedom of religion or belief, including the right to proselytize, as Jehovah’s Witnesses are called upon to do. This is according to the United States Commission on Religious Freedom 2020 report, at Tab 12.2. However, religious freedom, it reports, is “subject to public order” and this has been used to justify anti-conversion laws.
[16] The BJP has also challenged the secular principles of the constitution by implementing policies that reflect Hindu nationalist ideology. And its rise in extremist violence is documented at Tab 12.8. The Panel accepts this subjective evidence and finds it establishes a climate of hostility in India generally towards non-Hindus.
[17] Now, the claimant has established he is a member of the Dalit caste, and the objective evidence at Items 13.2 and 13.4 indicate that caste-based discrimination is prevalent everywhere in India.
[18] Now, one (1) of these documents talks in-depth about the attraction many Dalits feel toward Christianity, including Jehovah’s Witnesses, because there is generally a climate in which all church members are treated as equals. Now, the claimant testified that he had not even been allowed to fully practise his Hindu faith because he is a Dalit. However, he testified Jehovah’s Witnesses welcomed him with open arms.
[19] According to these documents, violence against Dalits continues and that Dalits have been victims of violent attacks by vigilante cow protection groups who are Hindus. These incidents have involved killings, mob violence, assaults, and intimidation, and the Panel accepts this subjective evidence and finds that it establishes the following.
[20] Number one (1), there is a longstanding hostility in the general Indian population toward Dalits, and there is growing hostility in the general Indian population, which is majority Hindu, towards non-Hindus.
[21] Furthermore, the objective evidence with regard to the police in India is worthy of consideration, as your counsel pointed out. For this, the Panel relies on Tabs 10.8 and 10.10. These establish that the police in India are a law onto their own. They operate with impunity, and they use torture as a way to extract information. The Panel accepts this objective evidence and finds it corroborates the claimant’s allegation that his father was tortured until he died because of the claimant’s decision to follow the Jehovah’s Witness faith.
[22] The Panel finds that the claimant has established that there is an objective basis for his objective fear of serious harm, including death. And therefore, I find the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution.
State Protection
[23] Now, the claimant also established through his credible testimony that police did not assist him when he went to them following an attack he suffered. He testified at that time that the police told him he was a Dalit; he should not be a Jehovah’s Witness.
[24] The claimant established with his credible testimony as well as documentary evidence found at Exhibit 6 that his father died as a result of what he endured in police custody. He testified that his father was arrested by the police, who told the family they expected that the family would produce the claimant. And the Panel accepts this documentary evidence and testimony and finds the police are among the agents of persecution since they have taken up the cause of trying to get hold of the claimant and punish him for his decision to become a Jehovah’s Witness.
[25] Therefore, I find in these circumstances, it would be unreasonable for the claimant to seek the protection of the police, which is one (1) of the agents of persecution. And I also find that given the objective evidence concerning the police all over India, the claimant would not receive better service from a police force of the central government or the police force of any other jurisdiction.
Internal Flight Alternative
[26] It is up to the claimant to establish that there is no viable internal flight alternative for him anywhere in India. And the Panel canvassed him about two (2) locations, New Delhi and also the region of Manipur out to the far east of the country, at the farthest point away from Punjab.
[27] However, the Panel finds that there is no viable internal flight alternative because the objective evidence establishes that wherever there are Hindus, there are Hindu extremists. And everywhere, therefore, there is a risk to the claimant because as a Jehovah’s Witness, and as he testified, he will continue to be a Jehovah’s Witness.
[28] The Panel finds the objective evidence establishes, and the Panel takes judicial notice that Jehovah’s Witnesses have a firm obligation to spread the word that they believe in to others. And the claimant has testified the same.
[29] The Panel finds given the climate of hostility everywhere toward Christians as non-Muslims, and toward Dalits, it is very unlikely that the claimant would be able to find a safe place anywhere in India where he could practise his religion openly and freely.
[30] The Panel, therefore, finds on a balance of probability that there is no viable internal flight alternative for the claimant. The test fails on the first prong, that of safety.
[31] In conclusion, based on the totality of the evidence, I find the claimant to be a Convention refugee, as he faces a serious possibility of persecution because of his religion and also because of his membership in a particular social group, Dalits. And therefore, his claim is accepted.
——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———