Citation: 2022 RLLR 64
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: July 12, 2022
Panel: M. Saleem Akhtar
Counsel for the Claimant(s): (In abstentia Michael F. Loebach) Omolola Fasina
Country: Colombia
RPD Number: TC2-03607
Associated RPD Number(s): TC2-03615, TC2-03619, TC2-03621
ATIP Number: A-2022-01960
ATIP Pages: N/A
DECISION
[1] MEMBER: This is the decision for XXXX XXXX, who is the principal claimant in this matter; and for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX, who are associate claimants.
[2] All of you allege to be citizens of Colombia and are seeking refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
[3] The allegations of your claim are found in your Basis of Claim forms.
[4] In short, madam, you as a principal claimant allege fear of persecution at the hands of members of a criminal group called, Dagoberto Ramos Mobile Column, who are the FARC dissidents.
[5] You further allege that it is an account of your imputed political opinion, due to your profile as a social activist, that the FARC dissidents group turned against you.
[6] As per your narrative, your social activities included trying to assist more vulnerable groups in the community, such as boys and girls, including adolescence, and women requiring special education, behavioural and medical needs. It also included members of the LGBTQ community.
[7] Such activities gave you prominence as a social activist and a human rights defender in the community against gender violence, domestic violence and abuse against children. Particularly against their recruitment by guerrilla criminal groups, including FARC dissidents groups.
[8] You further allege that you did this work primarily in the communities of XXXX area.
[9] You were helping marginalized communities with the guerrilla armed groups, such as the Dagoberto Ramos Mobile Column of the FARC dissidents, who are working against the interest of the vulnerable population.
[10] And you did not stop working for the interest of the marginalized groups of XXXX, despite warning from the guerrilla armed group. This made them turn against you, and they threatened to harm your family as well.
[11] Having assessed the evidence in its totality, including your sworn oral testimony and that of your husband, as well as documentary evidence presented, relevant portions of the NDP sources for Colombia, and considering and applying the guideline regarding women refugee claimants fearing gender-related persecution. As well as guide (inaudible) child refugee claimants.
12] I find you, XXXX XXXX, TC2-03607; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, TC2-03615; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX TC2-03619; and XXXX XXXX XXXX, TC2-03621, to be Convention refugees within the meaning of section 96 of the Act.
[13] Reasons of my decision are as follows.
[14] Having reviewed your passports and other relevant documents, as well as based on your sworn oral testimony and that of your husband. I find, on a balance of probabilities, that you have established your own personal identity and country of reference, which is Colombia. As well as that of your husband and children who are associate claimants in this matter.
[15] I find, on a balance of probabilities, that you have established a nexus to a Convention ground based on your imputed political opinion.
[16] I also find that all three (3) associate claimants have a nexus to a Convention ground based on their membership in a particular social group as your family members, namely spouse and children respectively.
[17] In terms of credibility, the Refugee Protection Division holds a view that when a claimant swears the truth of certain allegations, this creates a presumption that they are true, unless there’s reason to doubt their truthfulness.
[18] The determination regarding whether or not evidence is credible is made on a balance of probabilities.
[19] I find, on a balance of probabilities, that both you and your husband offered direct, clear and spontaneous testimony.
[20] You answered the questions asked accurately and to the best of your knowledge and understanding.
[21] You did not attempt to exaggerate the incidents of harassment and threats committed against you to embellish and boost your claims.
[22] You also provided ample evidence to substantiate your involvement as a social activist and a human rights defender for the interest of vulnerable members of the society in your community.
[23] You credibly testified and you believed that the FARC dissidents groups turned against you because you were trying to empower the vulnerable communities against all guerrilla groups so that they could understand their rights. And then stand up to protect their rights and interest against such criminal groups and their allies in their criminal activities.
[24] You credibly testified that on several occasions you were threatened and warned to stop your activities helping community members. As the threats increased in intensity, you became more fearful for your life as well as that of your spouse and children.
[25] You moved to different location within Colombia, hoping that you would not be located by the agents of persecution in heart. However, that did not happen, they found you and threatened you.
[26] Based on your general knowledge and observation having been raised in Colombia, you also believe that the police or other state agencies would not be either willing to help and protect because they are corrupt or would not be able to protect for lack of requisite resources.
[27] Hence, you did not report the matter to police because you were also afraid that your confidential information would be leaked out to the agents of persecution, and they would become more vindictive towards you and your family.
[28] This whole situation led you and your husband to realize and believe that your life would be constantly in danger if you stayed on in Colombia. You were already in possession of valid U.S. and Canadian visas.
[29] You left Colombia for Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2021, and later filed inland (ph) refugee protection claim in XXXX 2021.
[30] In addition to credible oral testimony, you provided sufficient credible documentary evidence to support your allegations.
[31] These documents include relevant employment documents; affidavits of natural support from family members, friends; and relevant country conditions documentary evidence.
[32] After reviewing these documents, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that they offer probative value; therefore, I have given them weight.
[33] I find, on a balance of probabilities, that your evidence, inherently consistent and plausible in consistent with the evidence on country conditions in Colombia.
[34] I find that you have credibly established, on a balance of probabilities, that the FARC dissidents groups have the motivation and the means to locate and harm you and your family, no matter where you relocated in Colombia.
[35] Hence, I find, you have credibly established a subjective fear of persecution in Colombia.
[36] Objective evidence for Colombia demonstrates that social activist and human rights defenders and their families, face risks from the drug mafia organizations, including the FARC dissidents groups such as Dagoberto Ramos Guerrilla Column, and from their allies as well who are (inaudible) throughout Colombia.
[37] I considered the relevant available documentary evidence as well as your oral sworn testimony and that of your husband to assess and analyze your profiles. I also considered and assessed the profile of the agents of persecution in this context.
[38] After reviewing the relevant documentary evidence, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the FARC dissidents groups are once again regrouping themselves and gaining strength and ground.
[39] Item 7.1 and 7.2 of the NDP note that the FARC dissidents groups are involved in extortion, death threats, kidnapping, money laundering, drug trafficking and murder against those who speak out against their interests and agenda.
[40] I also note in Item 7.37 of the NDP that generally criminal groups target those they perceive as a nuisance or obstacle to their economic objectives in a given region.
[41] The same NDP sources further note in Item 1.7 that when women who oppose human rights violations refuse to stop doing so, some groups result to physical attacks and increase the intensity, frequency and cruelty of psychological, physical or sexual aggression. In several cases, leading to the death of these women or of their loved ones after disrupting or destabilizing their mental, emotional or psychological health.
[42] These documents objectively corroborate your stated fear of persecution by the FARC dissidents groups. And thus, I find you have established a well-founded fear of persecution in Colombia.
[43] As regard to state protection, I find the evidence on state protection in Colombia is mixed. The Colombian government authorities have certainly tried to enhance protection for victims of non-state armed actors, such as FARC dissidents groups.
[44] However, on a balance of probabilities, I do not find that these efforts have resulted in adequate protection on the ground. Particularly considering that problems of corruption and lack of resources limit the Colombian state’s ability to reduce the influence of these groups in the country, as stated in Item 7.1 of the NDP.
[45] Item 7.10 of the NDP states that government protection is limited. It adds that a person in a position of leadership or power by a person who is a public servant in the judicial system might receive protection from the authorities, but not otherwise.
[46] In this I find, on a balance of probabilities, that you who will lose special provision of power nor are you a public servant in the judicial system.
[47] According to Item 1.9 of the NDP, Colombia continues to experience murders and threats of violence against human rights defenders, social activists and others working in the street. These ongoing assaults effect constraints of the Colombian judicial system to effectively prosecute criminals and overcome impunity.
[48] Given the infiltration of all guerrilla groups including FARC into the armed forces, which is one of the most (inaudible) organ of the State, I find it unreasonable in the circumstances to expect the State to be able to adequately protect you and your family on a balance of probabilities.
[49] I also find on a balance of probabilities that there’s no viable internal flight alternative available to you in Colombia.
[50] Having assessed the evidence, I note that you moved to two (2) different locations for your safety; however, the threats continued.
[51] This demonstrated on a balance of probabilities that the agents of persecution in this matter have the ability and the motivation to locate you even after you relocated to a different place inside Colombia.
[52] The NDP for Colombia notes that human rights defenders face the same risks of persecution throughout Colombia.
[53] The objective evidence from Colombia references many times that these paramilitary groups and criminal organizations operate in strategic alliances and target drug related trafficking persons, human rights defenders and social activists in many communities throughout the country.
[54] For them this is a key part of gaining, indicating territorial control, which is essential for the drug trade which is what these groups are really interested in. Social activist and human rights defenders often end up as natural enemies to the drug industry.
[55] Based on the totality of the evidence, I find that you and your family would face a serious possibility of persecution throughout Colombia and that there’s no viable IFA, internal flight alternative, available to you.
[56] Having considered the totality of the evidence madam, I find you, XXXX XXXX; your husband, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; your children XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX, to be Convention refugees within the meaning of section 96 of the Act.
[57] Hence, I accept your claim today.
——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———