Citation: 2022 RLLR 67
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 8, 2022
Panel: Kim Bugby
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Jean Marie Vecina
Country: Turkey
RPD Number: TC2-02397
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01960
ATIP Pages: N/A
DECISION
[1] MEMBER: I am going to read the decision for TC2-02397. I have considered your testimony and the other evidence in the case, and I am ready to render my decision orally. These are the reasons for the decision in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX who claims to be a citizen of Turkey and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Your allegations are fully set out in the Basis of Claim. In summary, you fear persecution at the hands of the state due to your Kurdish ethnicity and political opinion as an HDP supporter. For the following reasons, I find that you are a refugee pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I find that your identity as a national of Turkey is established by submission of your passport. I find you to be a credible witness and therefore believed what you alleged in support of your claim. There were no relevant inconsistencies in your testimony or contradictions between your testimony and the other evidence before me, which were not satisfactorily explained.
[2] You testified in a straightforward manner regarding your political opinion, how that opinion was formed, and the issues that you faced in Turkey due to your ethnicity and political involvement. You also spoke of being on the state’s radar and therefore your fear of further harm. In addition to your testimony, the following evidence further establishes your allegations as set out above. A letter from the Toronto Kurdish Community Centre substantiating your Kurdish ethnicity, a letter of support from your father substantiating the core allegations of the claim, letters of support from friends substantiating your political activity and the issues you faced as a result, social media posts spanning from 2012 substantiating your antigovernment political opinion, a news article related to the arrest and imprisonment of your 79 year old grandmother for her participation in political protest substantiating your family’s history of political opposition, and a letter from your relatives in Canada substantiating your political opinion and positive RPD decisions related to the above-noted family members.
[3] After reviewing the documents, I have no reason to doubt their authenticity. Given that there are no serious credibility issues with respect to your allegations coupled with the documentary evidence set out below, I find that you have established a prospective risk of arbitrary arrest, detention, or other serious harm. The risk is corroborated by the following documents the objective evidence indicates that the Kurdish minority in Turkey faces ongoing discrimination both from state authorities and from society in general. Turkish authorities have taken harsh measures to suppress the Kurdish identity, and Kurds have regularly been victims of hate speech and discrimination, as well as threats and physical violence.
[4] 11.4 indicates that freedom of expression is excessively restricted, particularly for political opponents, who are increasingly targeted and were victims of arbitrary arrest, prosecution, smear campaigns, stigmatisation, and defamation. That report further indicates that HDP activists are seen by authorities as a threat and can be arrested for simply handing out leaflets, posting on social media, attending marches, meetings, or rallies, or entering or exiting an HDP building. Those who are arrested are reportedly often denied due process and are tried using questionable evidentiary standards. 1.6 indicates that being ethnically Kurdish and outspoken politically could cause the authorities to suspect an HDP supporter of supporting the PKK. 2.1 indicates that the police commonly take brutal measures to contain pro-Kurdish protests. 13.1 indicates that, under the guise of emergency decrees and antiterrorism laws, the Turkish government (57:32 inaudible) and those critical of the government to various human rights violations. 2.5 indicates that many of the legislative provisions adopted following a coup attempt in July of 2016 have been aimed at banning political and social opposition. Pro-Kurdish political activists continue to be targeted through the misuse of terrorism charges. 13.1 indicates, in essence, that for Kurds to live peacefully and without experiencing persecution requires Kurdistan individuals not to engage in pro-Kurdish political activities and not to speak the Kurdish language. In other words, to fully assimilate themselves into Turkish society. The objective evidence supports a finding that you have a well-founded fear of persecution in Turkey.
[5] I have examined your claim under section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. As I conclude that the risk you described constitutes persecution based on at least one (1) of the grounds prescribed in section 96, specifically race and political opinion, I find that there is clear and convincing evidence before me that the state is unwilling to provide you with adequate protection. The agent of persecution in this case is the state. I have also examined whether a viable Internal Flight Alternative exists for you. Based on the evidence on file, I find that you face a serious possibility of persecution throughout Turkey. Again, the agent of persecution is the state, and the objective evidence indicates that the state exercises effective control of its entire your territory. In light of the proceeding, I conclude that you are a refugee pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and accordingly, I accept your claim.
——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———