2023 RLLR 109
Citation: 2023 RLLR 109
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: May 29, 2023
Panel: Christine Price
Counsel for the Claimant(s): David P Yerzy
Country: Russia
RPD Number: VC2-09534
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2024-00593
ATIP Pages: N/A
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
[1] These are the reasons for the decision in the refugee claim of XXXX XXXX, who alleges to be a citizen of Russia and is seeking protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).[1]
ALLEGATIONS
[2] The claimant’s allegations are fully contained in his Basis of Claim (BOC), narrative, and testimony from his hearing.[2] In summary, the claimant is seeking protection based on his political opinion as someone who is against Putin and the current Russian government. Further, he is Kalmyk, an ethnic minority in Russia, who lived most of his life in the republic of Kalmykia, and has been subjected to discrimination, profiling, and physical assaults.
[3] When the claimant finished high school, he attended XXXX at the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. He completed his mandatory military service while in XXXX. He testified that not completing this would have limited his career options and that even if he did not complete it while in XXXX, he would have been sent to the army. Upon completing his education, he remained in Moscow for work. He describes experiencing discrimination based on his appearance there, including being stopped by police who checked his identification. He was also the victim of racist attacks in 2008 and 2009 where he was physically assaulted. He left Moscow in 2015 after having been falsely accused by police of having committed a crime and was only released after the victim stated he was not involved. He returned to Kalmykia.
[4] He testified that he has been against Putin since his ascendancy to power. He felt that a country like Russia with its geographic and population size should not have been as underdeveloped and backward as it was. He blamed the national government and its corruption for the country’s condition. He shared these views with friends and family but he did not get involved in any direct action against the government partly because work kept him busy. Also, as noted in his narrative, his experience of being a minority in Russia living far from the centre of power and away from the elite made him feel powerless.
[5] When the war in Ukraine was announced in February 2022, he became more outspoken about his opposition to the war. He was shocked by the news of the invasion, thought it was a mistake and that it would be over shortly. He said that as someone who speaks English, he was able to read foreign media and contrasted this information with the reports presented in Russian media, quickly realizing that the Russian stories were misrepresenting events and he came to believe that the Russian military was committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. As his friends could not read the same material because they could not understand English, he tried to persuade them to see the injustices of the war. He did not participate in protests against the war because he knew it was dangerous to do so as he could have been jailed and, as he said, he would not have been able to help people. At the time, he was caring for his parents since he was their only child left in Russia as his sister lived in Canada. He said that some friends were reluctant to discuss politics as they were afraid of being reported to the Federal Security Bureau (FSB). Others disagreed with his views and threatened to report him to the FSB themselves.
[6] He had been thinking of leaving Russia prior to the invasion of Ukraine but his family responsibilities dissuaded him from departing earlier. His mother’s health was not good. However, when the partial mobilization was declared in September 2022, he knew he had to leave as soon as possible. He wanted nothing to do with Putin’s war efforts, which he already saw as erroneous and horrible. He knew he would be called up as his army book declared him fit for military service. Within a day of the announcement, friends and extended family members received their call up notices. He left for XXXX, crossing there on XXXX XXXX, 2022. He said that Kalmyks like him had their passports photographed, phone numbers taken, and were interrogated for a long time unlike other Russians who were crossing. He learned that the military had come to his home on XXXX XXXX, 2022 to serve his summons.
[7] He traveled from XXXX to XXXX before arriving in XXXX on XXXX XXXX, 2022. From there, he crossed into the United States on foot. Authorities there took a copy of his passport, gave him some forms, and informed him that if he wanted to make a claim, he would have to attend court. He did not wish to stay there as his sister was in Canada and he needed her support. He left the US arriving in Canada on XXXX XXXX.
[8] Since his arrival in Canada, the claimant has participated in a demonstration in support of Ukraine in Calgary and has made donations to help children there. He continues to share his negative views of the invasion of Ukraine with people. He says that his mother suffered a XXXX XXXX after he left. While he does speak occasionally to some friends in Russia, these communications are less and less frequent and with fewer and fewer people as the government has imposed further restrictions on communications and increased penalties for those who violate them. The claimant fears being arrested and jailed if he is returned to Russia where, as he said, he will likely be sent to fight in Ukraine anyway. He said that he would be viewed as a traitor.
DETERMINATION
[9] I find the claimant to be a Convention refugee as he has established a serious possibility of persecution.
ANALYSIS
Identity
[10] I find that the claimant’s personal identity and nationality as citizen of Russia is established, on a balance of probabilities, by the copy of his passport, birth certificate, and internal Russian passport that is in evidence.[3]
Nexus
[11] For a claimant to be considered a Convention refugee, they must have a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.[4] I find the claimant has a nexus to the Convention ground of political opinion.
Credibility
[12] When a claimant swears to the truth of certain allegations, this creates a presumption that those allegations are true unless there be reason to doubt their truthfulness.[5] However this presumption does not apply to inferences (conclusions drawn from facts) or speculation (for which there is no evidentiary basis).
[13] The claimant testified in a straightforward manner and I found him to be credible overall concerning the central allegations of his claim and of his political opinion. The claimant’s testimony demonstrated that his negative opinions about Putin and the Russian government, which he described as corrupt, existed before the invasion of Ukraine and his desire to leave the country existed before both the invasion and the partial mobilization were declared. I find that the fact that he held these views before he was served a summons from the Russian military strengthened the credibility of this asserted political opinion.
[14] The claimant provided several items in support of his allegations including copies of his educational and employment documents, a copy of his birth certificate that mentions his ethnicity, his military identification and certificate showing that he was a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX deemed fit for service, and his internal Russian passport. As well, he provided medical documents concerning his mother’s medical condition and treatment along with a letter from her confirming his allegations that military officials appeared at her home to give the claimant his summons and that they did not leave the document with her as she informed them that he had left the country. There are translated text messages from his phone from someone who explained what was going on with Kalmyck people crossing into XXXX and what actions to take. A copy of his US immigration files shows that he did not make an asylum claim in the US. He has provided copies of his receipts showing he has made donations to XXXX specifically to help children in Ukraine and photos of him attending a demonstration in support of Ukraine where he is holding a sign that states “Stand with Ukraine.”[6]
[15] I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of the documents nor the veracity of the photographs and find them relevant and probative. I find they credibly support the claimant’s allegations and give them high weight.
[16] I note that the claimant traveled to both XXXX and the United States and did not claim asylum in either of those countries before coming to Canada. He testified that he was emotionally unwell and really needed the support of his sister who lived in Canada and so was fixated on reaching her. I find his explanation to be reasonable and do not find his failure to claim in either of the two countries negatively affects his overall credibility nor does it lesson his subjective fears.
[17] I find that the claimant has credibly established his subjective fears based on his political opinion as he holds very negative views of Vladimir Putin and the Russian government and of their actions in Ukraine.
Well-Founded Fear of Persecution
[18] Given that there are no serious credibility issues with respect to the claimant’s allegations, coupled with the documentary evidence set out below, I find that the claimant has established a prospective risk of being subjected to the following harms: the risk of arrest, detention, and state violence. This risk is corroborated by the following documents in the National Documentation Packages (NDP).
[19] Within Russia there are credible reports of enforced disappearances on behalf of government authorities, torture by law enforcement officers that sometimes resulted in death, repression against Russians living outside of the country, severe repression of free expression including the use of what is described as “anti-extremism” against peaceful dissenters, severe repression on the freedom of assembly and severe restrictions on internet usage and arbitrary interference in privacy. New amendments to existing laws banning the criticism of the armed forces were adopted on March 23, 2022, and were expanded to include criticism of all government actions. Police were reported to use electrical shocks, suffocation, sleep deprivation, and stretching. Prison conditions are described as harsh and life threatening as inmates faced overcrowding, food shortages, and abuse at the hands of guards. Officials accused of committing abuses were not investigated. Reports state individuals attending demonstrations were arrested days later as security forces are using facial recognition software. As well, people were reported as having been arrested for holding signs that say “Peace”, blank signs, and even wearing the colours blue and yellow together. People arrested for politically motivated reasons were charged with “terrorism,” “separatism,” “extremism,” or “espionage.” Those accused of antiwar speech faced charges of “discrediting the military” and spreading false information, which could lead to sentences of up to 15 years in jail. People who published information about demonstrations online faced charges of “inciting minors to participate in dangerous activities.” Punishment for social media posts increased. Government media labeled those who expressed views different from the government as being “traitors” and “foreign agents.” Authorities were reported as monitoring private communication as a means of intimidating the population. They are also known for punishing family members for offenses committed by individuals. This report further notes that non-Russian ethnic groups have been disproportionately mobilized to fight in Ukraine.[7]
[20] Regarding the issue of freedom of expression in Russia and the treatment of those who disagree with Putin and his government, Human Rights Watch says that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is being used by Russia to eliminate all dissent in that country and not just against those who specifically criticize the war. For example, it states that bloggers have been issued warnings about attracting users on Facebook or Instagram as this could be considered as “extremist activity.”[8] Country information submitted by the claimant and his counsel include an article confirming this as it reports on an 18-year-old Instagram user who said police showed up at her family home and threatened her with jail time for using Instagram. Her posts are on fashion. The article confirmed with the legal head of Roskomsvoboda, a digital rights group in Russia fighting online censorship, that asking someone to follow them on Instagram could result in the person receiving a fourteen-year prison sentence. Other articles of interest in this disclosure includes a report from the Independent that says a Russian pensioner who called Ukraine’s president “handsome” was charged with discrediting the Russian military and was fined. A teacher in Siberia was also charged with discrediting the Russian military and fined because he reacted by placing an emoji as a positive response to a video made by the actor Arnold Schwarzenegger calling on Putin to end the war in Ukraine. Additionally, they included an article from Al-Jazeera and dated March 17, 2022, that quoted a speech made by Putin on Russian TV describing people who do not support his efforts in Ukraine as being “scum” and “traitors” and that Russians would “simply spit such people out like a gnat that accidentally flew into their mouths.”[9]
[21] Based on all the evidence before me, I find that the claimant would face a serious possibility of persecution if he were to return to Russia.
State Protection
[22] In all refugee claims, the state is presumed to be capable of protecting their citizens unless there is clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Given that the state is the agent of persecution, it appears objectively unreasonable for the claimant to seek the protection of the state. Consequently, the presumption of state protection has been rebutted.
Internal Flight Alternative
[23] With respect to an internal flight alternative, I do not find that the claimant could live safely in any other part of Russia as the state has effective control of all the territory. I find that the claimant would face a serious possibility of persecution throughout the country. Accordingly, I find that there is no viable IFA for him.
CONCLUSION
[24] Having considered all of the evidence, I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee as set out in section 96 of the Act. His claim is therefore accepted.
——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———
[1] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.
[2] Exhibit 2
[3] Exhibits 1 & 5
[4] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27.
[5] Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1980] 2 F.C. 302 (C.A.), at 305
[6] Exhibits 4, 5, 6, 9.
[7] Exhibit 3.1. National Documentation Package, Russia, March 31, 2023. Tab. 2.1: Russia. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2022. United States. Department of State. 19 March 2023.
[8] Exhibit 3.1. National Documentation Package, Russia, March 31, 2023. Tab 2.3: Russia. World Report 2023. Events of 2022. Human Rights Watch. December 2022
[9] Exhibit 5