2023 RLLR 100

Citation: 2023 RLLR 100
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 4, 2023
Panel: Radostina Pavlova
Counsel for the Claimant(s): N/A
Country: Haiti
RPD Number: TC2-27957
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2024-00593
ATIP Pages: N/A

                                      

DECISION

 

[1]         XXXX XXXX (hereafter, the “claimant”) is a citizen Haiti who is claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“IRPA”, the “Act”).[1] 

ALLEGATIONS

 

[2]         In summary, the claimant alleges that he fears persecution in Haiti on the part of members of the ruling party Haitian Tet Kale Party (PHTK) on the basis of his anti-government political activity and membership in the opposition party XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. He claims that he joined the party in 2011, because it reflected his views on the direction the country should take and was introduced to it by a mentor of his in university, who is one of the party’s XXXX and was later the claimant’s boss when he worked for the non-governmental organization “XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX”. The claimant alleges that, while still in Haiti, he participated in manifestations protesting the government’s policies and politics, which manifestations were violently cracked down upon by the government forces. He claims that he was personally targeted and threatened by members of the PHTK. The claimant came to Canada in XXXX 2019, to attend a conference on behalf of XXXX, and prolonged his stay waiting for the situation in Haiti to calm down. In that period, he was receiving information of repressions on the part of the government of many of his fellow party members. In XXXX 2019, he claims, a press statement that was critical of the government was published by his party, and the persecution increased, where the party’s headquarters were vandalised. The claimant’s residence in the Delmas zone in Port-au-Prince was attacked by unknown armed persons, who terrorized his younger sister, who was living there; she was helped to escape by a neighbour and ultimately left the country to settle in the Dominican Republic. The claimant alleges that he continues his political activity from abroad and participates in online meetings and other activities as a member of the opposition party XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

DETERMINATION

 

[3]         For the reasons that follow, I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee under s. 96 of the IRPA on the basis of his political opinion. 

ANALYSIS

The claimant’s identity is established

 

[4]         The claimant’s identity was established on balance of probabilities through his oral testimony and the certified true copy of his Haitian passport,[2] containing a Canadian visitor visa, which is on file. 

 

Nexus to a Convention ground is established 

 

[5]         The claimant alleges that he fears persecution in Haiti on the basis of his membership in an opposition pollical party and political activities opposing the government in place in Haiti and the ruling party. Since political opinion is one of the five grounds enumerated in the Convention, I find that a connection to a Convention ground has been established and have, accordingly, assessed the claim under s. 96 of the IRPA. 

The claimant’s allegations are credible

 

[6]         I found that the claimant has established on a balance of probability his key allegations regarding his political engagement and his subjective fear. His testimony at the hearing, which benefits from a presumption of truth,[3] was direct, spontaneous, and consistent with his Basis of Claim (BOC)[4] narrative. The claimant, who represented himself, was a sophisticated witness and delivered a testimony that demonstrated a level knowledge and understanding commensurate with his alleged political involvement and activity. He was able to explain in detail the reasons for which he became a member of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX party, its ideology and positioning on the political landscape in Haiti; he knew the names and roles of its executives and testified spontaneously and in detail on his relationship specifically with the current XXXX of the party, who was also his director at XXXX; he also named fellow members who had been subjected to repressions on the part of the authorities since the claimant’s departure from the country, and was convincing in his testimony on the events that unfolded which led him to decide to apply for protection in Canada. 

[7]         The claimant supported his allegations with documentary evidence[5] that I found to be probative and reliable, including letters from his employer, showing that, as alleged, he worked for the organization XXXX from 2014 to the moment he left Haiti; evidence that he came to Canada to attend a conference on behalf of this organization; a copy of the press release from the party XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, dated XXXX XXXX, 2019, in which the regime in place in Haiti and the ruling party PHTK are criticized; photographs of the claimant participating in anti-government manifestations. There was nothing on the face of the documents or the manner they were obtained to lead me to doubt their authenticity, and I have accorded to them significant evidentiary weight. The claimant also explained at the hearing that, when it comes to establishing his membership in the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX party, he did not have a membership card, as the party did not issue such cards; he also stated that he had tried to obtain documentary evidence to corroborate the attack on his home in XXXX 2019, but had been unable to do so, since his sister had left the country and his mother had passed away since he left the country, thus limiting his ability to have family members assist in collecting documentary evidence. I find that these explanations are reasonable, and that the documents he did provide, along with his testimony that I found to be credible on a balance of probabilities, are sufficient to establish his key allegations and his subjective fear of persecution in Haiti. 

 

Objective basis

 

[8]         The available objective evidence contained in the National Documentation Package (NDP)[6] for Haiti supports the claimant’s allegations and establishes that his subjective fear has an objective basis and is well-founded. 

[9]         According to documents found in the NDP, political parties in Haiti, particularly dominant ones such as the PHTK, the current party in power, are reportedly in collusion with armed criminal gangs. Reports at Items 1.41 and 10.8 indicate that politicians do not hesitate to use gangs against their political rivals. According to Items 10.7 and 2.1, politically motivated killings are widespread in the country. Political demonstrations against the government have been violently suppressed in recent years, according to Items 4.23, 4.32 and 4.33. Freedom House in its report found at Item 2.6 of the NDP classifies Haiti as “not free” and states that pervasive insecurity and criminal violence impair political activity in Haiti; political opposition leaders are subjected to threats and abductions, and protests organized by opposition parties are met with repressive force on the part of the government, according to this source. The same report further indicates that organized crime and corrupt patronage networks limit Haitians’ political choice, with politicians often relying on money from drug trafficking and other illicit activity to finance their campaigns. Political rivalries, according to Item 7.6, are a common motive for revenge, which may take various forms, including threats, kidnapping and murder. 

[10]      Based on the above-mentioned sources, I find that the objective evidence supports the claimant’s subjective fear of persecution in Haiti.  

State Protection

 

[11]      While states are presumed able to offer protection to their citizens, unless the state is in a complete breakdown, this presumption can be refuted with clear and convincing evidence. In the case of present-day Haiti, the objective evidence is unequivocal that the Haitian state has lost control to pervasive violence committed by criminal gangs, who have proven to be more powerful and better resourced by the police, according, for instance, to Items 7.1 and 10.2 of the NDP. The judiciary is practically non-functioning and is susceptible to corruption and political influences, according to the objective sources. 

[12]      For these reasons, I find that the presumption of state protection has been refuted with clear and convincing evidence and that the claimant cannot rely on such protection in Haiti. 

Internal Flight Alternative (IFA)

 

[13]      Considering that the agents of persecution in the present claim are state actors, that, according to the objective evidence, targets of revenge on the part of armed gangs based on political rivalries can be easily found through word-of-mouth as well other formal and informal networks, that Haiti is a small country and freedom of circulation is obstructed by the pervasiveness of armed gang violence, I find that, on balance of probabilities, the claimant does not have a viable IFA in Haiti. 

CONCLUSION

[14]      For the above-stated reasons, I find that the claimant meets the definition of Convention refugee under s. 96 of the IRPA.

[15]      The claim is accepted. 

 

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———

[1] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, sections 96 and 97(1).

[2] Exhibit 1.

[3] Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1979] F.C.J. No. 248 (FCA)(QL), [1980] 2 FC 302 (CA).

[4] Exhibit 2. 

[5] Exhibit 7.

[6] Exhibit 3.