Citation: 2022 RLLR 65
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: July 11, 2022
Panel: Moyosore Sadiq-Soneye
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Peter G. Ivanvi
Country: Maldives
RPD Number: TC2-03546
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01960
ATIP Pages: N/A
DECISION
[1] MEMBER: This is a decision of the Refugee Protection Division in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX, file number TC2-03546 as a citizen of Maldives who is claiming refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the IRPA. The Panel considered and applied the Chairperson’s guideline 9, proceedings before the IRB involved sexual orientation and gender identity and expression.
ALLEGATIONS
[2] The allegations are fully set out in the claimant’s Basis of Claim form located in Exhibit 2. In summary, the claimant alleges that she fears the Maldivian authorities, ex-religious extremist groups, society and ger family for turning away from the Islamic faith and choosing apostasy. And also because of her sexual orientation as a bisexual woman.
DETERMINATION
[3] The Panel finds that the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution in Maldives on the basis of her apostasy and sexual orientation as a bisexual woman. The Panel therefore finds that the claimant is a Conventional refugee pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA and accepts her refugee claim. The Panel’s reasons are stated below.
ANALYSIS
Identity
[4] The claimant’s identity as a citizen of Maldives was established based on a balance of probabilities by her testimony and the copy of her Maldives-issued passport located in Exhibit 1.
Credibility
[5] The Panel finds that the claimant is a credible witness and the Panel therefore accepts her testimony and the statements that the claimant has made in her Basis of Claim form. The claimant’s testimony was straightforward, spontaneous and very detailed and it was entirely consistent with her Basis of Claim form. The claimant credibly described that journey to apostasy. The feeling of helplessness she felt when she was being forced to practice Islam. How she (inaudible) her religious views about the religion to avoid persecution. How she did not wear hijab when she studied in Sri Lanka and how she was forced to wear long sleeves and hijab by her mother and sisters in Maldives. The claimant testified that she had to pretend to recite prayers, wear hijab and pretend to still believe in Islam most of the time when she was in Maldives. The claimant testified about getting physically assaulted by her mother, if she missed the prayer or was unable to recite the Quran. She testified that her mother told her that if she turned away from Islam, her mother would dismember the claimant’s four (4) limbs and leave her to fester with maggots. And she would leave her alive for as long as possible so she could feel as much pain as possible and this made the claimant feel very bad. The claimant testified that her mother is a Muslim with extremist views, who could not tolerate sexual minorities.
[6] The claimant described the event that made her to start doubting Islam. The Panel finds on a balance of probabilities that the claimant has established that she was a Muslim and she is now an apostate. The claimant credibly described her sexual orientation. She states that she does not see gender but intelligence is what she is attracted to. The claimant testified that she discovered her sexual orientation at the age of 13 years and she told her best friend that she was in love with her. Her best friend’s reaction made hide her sexuality and not act on it. She did not feel free and safe to explore her sexuality and felt she would have been targeted in Maldives and Sri Lanka if she exposed her sexual orientation. The Panel finds that the claimant has established her profile as a bisexual woman on a balance of probabilities.
Failure to Claim in Sri Lanka
[7] The claimant lived in Sri Lanka for four (4) years and testified that she did not wear hijab while in Sri Lanka. She testified that on three (3) occasions, family friends and acquaintances of her parents had seen her and on one (1) occasion, two (2) women saw her at the grocery store and took a recording of her and likely sent the video of her not wearing a hijab to her mother because her mother suddenly started calling her multiple times. The claimant testified that her parents have the resources to find her in Sri Lanka as it is only one (1) hour away by flight. The claimant also testified that there are some extremists in Sri Lanka who do not support the LGBTQ members and so she could not live freely as a bisexual woman in Sri Lanka. And that he she had heard of Maldivian religious extremist going to Sri Lanka to harm or kill Maldivians who denied Islam. The Panel does not draw an adverse finding in regard to the claimant’s failure to claim in Sri Lanka.
[8] In support of the claimant’s case, she provided multiple documents corroborating her allegations. These documents are located in Exhibit 6 and 7, including, but not limited to a support letter from ex-Muslims of North America, corroborating the claimant’s allegations of being an ex-Muslim and the threat by the state and vigilante violence and the persecution of apostates suffered in Islamic nations. A screenshot of messages from the claimant’s sister where the sister told the claimant that ex-Muslims who do not come back to Islam get stoned to death. This was interpreted by the claimant herself because she was unable to find an interpreter. She also provided evidence of her efforts to get an interpreter in the disclosure. Some social media screenshots of hate speech against (inaudible), which corroborates the claimant’s allegations of the treatment of apostates and (inaudible). The Panel finds the documents provided to be highly probative because the Panel has no reason to doubt their authenticity. Cumulatively, the documents corroborate the claimant’s allegations on a balance of probabilities. The Panel, hereby, assigns them full weight in corroborating the claimant’s allegations of persecution. Conclusively, an overall assessment of the evidence before the Panel shows that the claimant is a credible witness and that the claimant has established that she is an apostate and a bisexual woman. The claim has established her subjective fear of persecution as a bisexual apostate woman in the Maldives on a balance of probabilities.
Objective Evidence
[9] The claimant’s subjective fear has been established and the claimant has credibly established that she is a bisexual apostate woman who fears persecution in the Maldives based on her apostasy and sexual orientation The Panel notes the intersectionality between the claimant’s gender, religious views and sexual orientation. Objective evidence supports the claimant’s allegations. The United States Department of State, US DOS, reports, that the constitution in Maldives designates Islam as the state religion. It requires citizens to be Muslim and requires public office holders, including the President, to be followers of Sunni Islam. The constitution provides for limitations on rights and freedoms to protect and maintain the tenet of Islam. The law states both the government and the people must protect religious unity. Propagation of (inaudible) religion — of any religion other than Islam is a criminal offence. The law criminalizes criticism of Islam and speech in any manner likely to cause religious segregation. The same report states that non- governmental organization continue to report the persistent, online and in-person, threats against individuals perceived to be insufficiently Muslim. Effectively foreclosed the possibility of meaningful discussion of religious issues in Maldives. The US DOS reports instances of individuals, deemed secularists or apostates, receiving death threats and being cyberbullied.
[10] In August, the MJA, Maldives Journalist Association, published a survey. Responses to the survey also reported an increase in anonymous social media accounts believed to be linked to government officials or groups characterized as religiously extremists that harass journalists. It is reported that government continue to fail to take action against online death threats and attacks, against those perceived to be critical of Islam. The Us DOS reports that, “The Maldives law prohibits the conversion of a Muslim to another religion. By law a violation may result in the loss of the convert’s citizenship.” Although a judge may impose a harsher punishment by Sharia jurisprudence, the report states that although the law in Maldives does not stipulate such punishment, Sharia jurisprudence is often understood by the public and religious scholars to provide for the death penalty in cases of conversion from Muslim, that is, apostasy. But the government has made no such statement. According to Amnesty International in their report on Maldives 2021/2022. The report states that the space for freedom of expression and dissent shrunk, the impunity enjoyed by Islamist groups had a chilling effect on civil society and opposition voices. In May, a bill was proposed in Parliament criminalizing hate speech. Media reports claimed that the bill targeted conservative Muslim groups and that the MP who propose it had received threats from these groups. The Human Rights Watch stated in the world report 2022 on Maldives that authorities have also done little to address threats posed by extremist Islamist groups that have targeted people perceived as apostates. On May 6, 2021, Parliament Speaker and former President, Mohamed Nasheed, was accused of being an apostate by his opponents and was targeted in a bomb attack.
[11] The Human Rights Watch report states that the Maldivian Penal code criminalizes adults consensual same-sex sexual conduct. Punishment can include imprisonment of up to eight (8) years and hundred lashes and applies equally to men and women. Same-sex marriage is out-lawed and punishable by up to a year in prison. Extremist groups in the Maldives use social media to harass and threaten those who promote the right of LGBT people. The US DOS states that the code, however, grants judges the discretion to impose Sharia penalties for such offences including apostasy and homosexual acts, if proven beyond all doubt. The Penal code require that all appeal processes be exhausted prior to the administration of Sharia punishment specific to these offences, including stoning, amputation and similar punishments.
[12] The claimant provided objective evidence on country conditions that supports the claimant’s allegations. These country conditions are located in Exhibit 7. The Panel finds that the objective evidence shows that the Maldivian law criminalizes both apostasy and same-sex relations. And those who partake in either or both face persecution. The Panel finds that claimant has established on a balance of probabilities that she has a well-founded fear of persecution in Maldives because of her apostasy and her sexual orientation.
State Protection
[13] The Panel finds that it would be unreasonable for the claimant to approach the state for protection, given that the state authorities are part of the agents of persecution, and objective evidence has shown you little effort by the authorities to stop the death threats uttered against those who are part of the sexual minority or apostates. The law criminalizes and punishes apostasy and bisexuality. The claimant has established that she is a bisexual apostate. Therefore, the Panel finds on a balance of probabilities that there is clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption of state protection in this case and that adequate state protection is not available to the claimant.
Internal Flight Alternative
[14] Claimant both established that they face persecution or harm throughout their country of nationality. In the present case, the Panel finds that an IFA does not exist for the claimant in Maldives. The objective evidence shows that apostasy and bisexuality are both criminalized throughout the Maldives. And thus, the Panel finds that the claimant has established that there is no viable internal flight alternative for her in the Maldives. The Panel finds that the claimant has established that she faces a serious possibility of persecution throughout the Maldives based on her apostasy and sexual orientation and that there is therefore no viable internal flight alternative for her.
CONCLUSION
[15] Having considered all the evidence, the Panel finds that the claimant has established a serious possibility of persecution due to her apostasy and sexual orientation. And the Panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee as set out in section 96 of the IRPA. Her claim is therefore accepted.
[16] Congratulations I wish you the very best.
[17] CLAIMANT: Thank you so much, Ma’am. Thank you so much, Peter.
[18] COUNSEL: Congratulations. We will talk soon.
——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———