2023 RLLR 113
Citation: 2023 RLLR 113
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 22, 2023
Panel: Sandeep Chauhan
Counsel for the Claimant(s): N/A
Country: Turkey
RPD Number: VC3-00957
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2024-00593
ATIP Pages: N/A
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
[1] This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claim of XXXX XXXX (the “claimant”), as a citizen of Türkiye, who is claiming refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).[1]
ALLEGATIONS
[2] This is a brief synopsis of the allegations put forth by the claimant, the details of which can be found in his Basis of Claim (BOC) form.[2] He fears persecution in Türkiye at the hands of Turkish authorities because he is a Kurd, practices Alevi faith, and because his conscientious objection to conscription. The claimant also fears persecution at the hands of his ex-girlfriend’s family due to their relationship.
[3] The claimant is a 21-year-old Kurdish man who practices Alevi faith. He commenced a romantic relationship with XXXX, a girl from his area, whose family practices Sunni Islam. When XXXX’s family found out of their relationship through her pregnancy, they attacked his house on XXXX XXXX, 2023 and threatened to kill the claimant, who was not at home at that time. The claimant managed to hide in another city and left Türkiye on XXXX XXXX, 2023. He reached the United States (US) on XXXX XXXX, 2023, transiting through Mexico. After being detained in a camp in the US and furnishing a bind for his release, the claimant got out of detention on XXXX XXXX, 2023. He entered Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2023, and filed for refugee protection. The claimant fears for his life as there are warrants out for his arrest for evading conscription and on charges filed by XXXX’s family for impregnating her out of wedlock.
DETERMINATION
[4] I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee as he has established a serious possibility of persecution for the following reasons.
ANALYSIS
Identity
[5] The claimant’s identity as a national of Türkiye is established, on a balance of probabilities, based on a certified copy of his Turkish passport on file.[3]
Nexus
[6] For a claimant to be considered a Convention refugee, the well-founded fear of persecution must be by reason of one or more of the five grounds: race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion. The persecution that the claimant fears in this case is due to his faith as an Alevi, because he is a Kurd, and due to his conscientious objection to conscription. I find that he has established nexuses to three Convention grounds – ethnicity, religion, and political opinion. As such, his claim is being assessed under section 96 of IRPA and not under section 97.
Credibility
[7] The claimant testified in a straightforward manner and there were no inconsistencies in his testimony or contradictions between his testimony and the other evidence before me. He did not attempt to embellish his testimony at any time during the hearing.
[8] The claimant has provided corroborative documentary evidence[4] in support of his claim, including evidence of his Alevi faith and Kurdish ethnicity, photographs of his father being assaulted by XXXX’s family, two warrants of arrest against the claimant, and his photographs with XXXX, which are consistent with his allegations. I have no reason to doubt the genuineness of these documents and accept them as genuine.
[9] Therefore, on a balance of probabilities, I find the claimant to be a credible witness and accept his allegations to be true, including his subjective fear of returning to Türkiye.
Well-Founded Fear of Persecution and Risk of Harm
[10] In order for me to find that the claimant is a Convention refugee, I must find that the objective evidence supports his subjective fears, and that there was a serious possibility that he would be persecuted if removed to Türkiye. I find that the objective evidence supports his subjective fears and establishes a serious possibility of persecution for the claimant if he is forced to return to his country. My reasons are as follows.
[11] On the issue of treatment of Alevis by state authorities, objective evidence states that:
A report by the International Association for Human Rights Advocacy in Geneva (IAHRAG), an organization that aims to “assist, support, guide and sustain victims of human rights violations,” including in Turkey, states that it is “quite common” for individuals in the executive branch to use hate speech toward minorities, including Alevis (IAHRAG May 2021, 3, 4). CSW notes that “[t]he promotion of ultra-nationalism has contributed to a rise in discrimination and in hate speech that encourages violence towards non-Sunni religious communities” which occurs in “education, the workplace and religious practice, to day-to-day administrative procedures” (CSW 1 May 2020).[5]
[12] The Response to Information Request (RIR) on the treatment of Kurds in Türkiye, including supporters of the HDP, states that:
A representative of a confederation of Turkish trade unions, cited in a UK Home Office report, stated that the situation in the areas of south-eastern and eastern Turkey, which are mainly populated by Kurds, can be “‘harder’,” with “‘problematic'” economic and social issues (UK Oct. 2019, 24). The same representative further stated that the Kurdish regions are less developed than western Turkey and that Kurds in this area suffered “serious forms of human rights violations” by the Turkish government, which has prompted westward Kurdish migration (UK Oct. 2019, 95).[6]
[13] On the issue of draft evasion, objective evidence states that:
The 2019 annual report of the European Bureau for Conscientious Objection (EBCO), “an umbrella organisation for national associations of conscientious objectors” (EBCO n.d.), states that “conscientious objectors fac[e] ongoing arrest warrants; a life-long cycle of prosecutions and imprisonment, and a situation of ‘civil death’ which excludes them from social, cultural and economic life” (EBCO 14 Feb. 2020, 20) The same source further reports that [o]bjectors are still criminalised as call-up/draft evaders. An unlimited arrest warrant is issued and due to this arrest warrant, they are detained on any occasion when they have to present their ID to the police or gendarmerie, a situation which frequently occurs. On the first detention, the objector is given an administrative fine. But every subsequent detention opens a new criminal case, which can lead to a prison sentence of anything from 2 months to 3 years. To avoid arrest and detention, objectors are forced to live an underground life. In the event that the government declares a military mobilization, conscientious objectors risk being charged with desertion, which is subject to the death penalty under Article 63 of the Military Criminal Code. (EBCO 14 Feb. 2020).[7]
[14] The objective evidence discussed above establishes that Alevite Kurds are targeted by the Turkish authorities. Such individuals, as the claimant in this case who evade military draft, are fined, and then persecuted to such an extent that they must live in hiding all their lives. This escalates to a death penalty if the government declares military mobilization. In this case, the claimant is already wanted by the Turkish authorities as there are warrants out for his arrest for draft evasion. Therefore, based on all the evidence before me, I find that he will face a serious possibility of persecution if forced to return to his country. His fears are indeed well-founded.
State Protection
[15] I find that the claimant will not be able to access adequate state protection if forced to return to Türkiye.
[16] Since the State of Türkiye is the agent of persecution, I find that it will be objectively unreasonable for him to seek protection in his country, and that the presumption of state protection has been rebutted.
Internal Flight Alternative (IFA)
[17] I have also considered whether the claimant has a viable IFA in his country and find that there is none. The government of Türkiye is in control of the entire territory of the country and the treatment of Alevi Kurds, including conscientious objectors to conscription, is uniform throughout the country.
[18] Given the persecution Alevi Kurds and draft evaders face everywhere in Türkiye, I find that it is neither safe nor objectively reasonable in all of the circumstances, including the claimant’s circumstances, for him to relocate anywhere within his country. Accordingly, I find that there is no viable IFA available to the claimant.
CONCLUSION
[19] For the foregoing reasons, I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 of IRPA. Therefore, I accept his claim.
——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———
[1] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.
[2] Exhibit 2.
[3] Exhibit 1.
[4] Exhibit 4.
[5] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Türkiye, 31 July 2023, tab 12.2: Situation of Alevis, including political and religious rights; treatment of Alevis by society and authorities; state protection (2019–November 2021). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 3 December 2021. TUR200819.E.
[6] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Türkiye, 31 July 2023, tab 13.1: Situation of Kurds, including in Istanbul, Ankara, and Izmir; situation of supporters or perceived supporters of the Peoples’ Democratic Party (Halkların Demokratik Partisi, HDP); situation of Alevi Kurds (July 2018-December 2019). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 7 January 2020. TUR106385.E.
[7] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Türkiye, 31 July 2023, tab 8.2: Military service, both compulsory and voluntary, including requirements, length, alternatives and exemptions; consequences of draft evasion and conscientious objection (2018–November 2020). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 30 November 2020. TUR200361.E.