2023 RLLR 120

Citation: 2023 RLLR 120
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 20, 2023
Panel: Kate Bilkevitch
Counsel for the Claimant(s): N/A
Country: Cameroon
RPD Number: VC3-09637
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2024-00593
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1]         MEMBER:  This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division, the RPD, in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX as a citizen of Cameroon, who is claiming refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

ALLEGATIONS

[2]         The claimant’s allegations are contained in his Basis of Claim form.  To summarise only briefly, the claimant has a fear of persecution at the hands of the Cameroonian authorities because of his background as an anglophone and his perceived support of the separatist movement due to his employment as an XXXX in the conflict zone.

DETERMINATION

[3]         I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the Act.  He has established a serious possibility of persecution should he return to Cameroon.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[4]         With respect to the issue of identity, the claimant’s identity as a national of Cameroon has been established by the sworn statement in his Basis of Claim form, his testimony, a copy of his national identity card, birth certificate, and a copy of his Cameroonian passport.  There is a presumption that sworn testimony is true unless there is sufficient reason to doubt its truthfulness.  A finding that the claimant lacks credibility may be based on the failure of the claimant’s account to stand up to scrutiny or unexplained inconsistencies, omissions, or contradictions.  Further, the presumption of truthfulness does not apply to inferences or speculation for which there is no evidentiary basis.  The claimant testified in a detailed manner.  His testimony was straightforward, spontaneous, and consistent with his Basis of Claim narrative.  The claimant elaborated in-depth on different aspects of the claim, such as his study and subsequent employment as an XXXX, his detention by the security forces in Cameroon, his escape and internal relocation in Cameroon, and his subsequent journey to Canada.  I found the claimant overall credible in relation to his experiences in Cameroon in 2022.

[5]         Additionally, the claimant provided ample documentary evidence to substantiate his allegations of risk.  For instance, the claimant adduced records demonstrating his education and employment, four (4) witness statements, medical certificates, and an arrest warrant.  I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of these documents.  Consequently, I give these documents full weight as I find them to be authentic, and they are probative of the issue at hand as they confirm the claimant’s allegations.  Overall, I accept the following allegations on the balance of probabilities.  The claimant worked as an XXXX in war-torn northwest Cameroon.  He was arrested and detained twice in 2022, the first time in XXXX and the second time in XXXX of that year.  The first time the claimant was arrested on suspicion of collaborating with a separatist on XXXX XXXX, 2022.  The claimant worked on XXXX XXXX to the village that was used by separatists to launch their assaults from.  XXXX XXXX XXXX by the military, but the claimant made attempts to XXXX XXXX as his extended family and friends lived in that village and struggled without XXXX for several weeks.  The claimant was detained and tortured for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.  The claimant was released upon fee payment produced by his brother.  The claimant was forced to sign an undertaking prior to his release.

[6]         The claimant had no problem with the authorities after his release and continued his work as an XXXX.  However, on XXXX XXXX, 2022, he was stopped at a checkpoint and questioned about some XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX in his possession.  The claimant explained to the military that these items were for a contract he had.  However, he was perceived to be collaborating with a separatist who needed XXXX XXXX for their hideouts in the bush.  The claimant was detained for XXXX XXXX and was set to be executed, like several of his cellmates.  However, his former classmate was a guard in the detention centre, and out of compassion, the man assisted the claimant to escape.  The claimant hid in another village for about XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX communicating with his wife by phone only.  However, in late XXXX, his wife was informed that a warrant for the claimant’s arrest was issued.  This led the claimant to decide to leave Cameroon for Nigeria.  The claimant could not stay in Nigeria as the country frequently deported Cameroonian refugees back to Cameroon.  As a result, he made the decision to travel to Canada, where he had family members.

[7]         Since his departure from Cameroon, the authorities visited the claimant’s brother and wife.  Both were interrogated and asked about the claimant’s whereabouts.  Based on the totality of the evidence before me, on a balance of probabilities, I accept that the claimant has been targeted by the Cameroonian authorities between XXXX and XXXX 2022.

Nexus

[8]         In order to satisfy the definition of a Convention refugee found in section 96 of the Act, the claimant must establish that he or she has a well-founded fear of persecution by reason of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.  In this case, I find the claimant’s allegations established a nexus to the Convention ground of political opinion or imputed political opinion.  When considering the claimant’s past treatment by the authorities due to the fact that he had been perceived to collaborate with the separatists on two (2) separate occasions combined with his status as a failed anglophone asylum seeker from the northwest part of Cameroon, I find that the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution based on his imputed political opinion.  As such, I have assessed his claim under section 96 of the Act.

Well-Founded Fear of Persecution

[9]         I find the claimant would face a forward-looking risk of persecution if returned to Cameroon.  This persecution would take the form of physical violence, arbitrary arrest or detention, and psychological and physical abuse from the police authorities in Cameroon.  I have accepted the claimant’s testimony that the Cameroonian authorities have already detained and abused him because of his perceived association with a separatist movement.  The claimant was also accused by the authorities of helping anglophone separatists.  In addition, the claimant is a young man who has now spent a significant amount of time abroad.  If returned to Cameroon as a failed refugee claimant, this would also contribute to his profile as a person Cameroonian authorities would likely suspect of having an anti-government political opinion.  I have based my findings on the following country condition information, which corroborate the claimant’s allegations and indicate that he would face a forward-looking risk.

[10]      At Tab 2.1 of the National Documentation Package for Cameroon, there is the U.S. Department of State report indicating that Cameroonian authorities have in the previous year been known to conduct arbitrary arrests or detentions, unlawful or arbitrary killings including extrajudicial killings by security forces, forced disappearance, torture, and cases of cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment.  And this report also indicates there has been abuse and retaliation against family members for offences allegedly committed by an individual.  Much of these abuses have been associated with the armed conflict between anglophone militant groups and the majority francophone government.  Many unarmed civilians have been affected by this violence and the government is known to use excessive force on civilians.  They are known to raid anglophone neighbourhoods in Cameroon while searching for suspected militants.

[11]      A report at tab 2.3 of the NDP confirms the conflict between government security forces and anglophone separatists has resulted in widespread civilian deaths and displacement.  The same report indicates that anglophone activists have faced harassment, violence, and arrests for their activities.  I find that the claimant, who worked as an electrician in the anglophone region of Cameroon and who is perceived to have ties to separatists would on a balance of probabilities be perceived as a person who holds anti-government views.  A report at Tab 2.5 of the NDP confirms that government forces have committed widespread human rights abuses including extrajudicial and summary execution across Cameroon since the year of at least 2020.  A report at Tab 13.2 indicates Cameroonian authorities have imposed restrictions on anglophone regions including curfews, bans on public meetings, and other restrictive measures.  The same report indicates that anglophone Cameroonians who have been living abroad for some time have been arrested upon their return to the Yaoundé or Douala airports in Cameroon.  Those arrested include failed asylum seekers.  Failed asylum seekers who are anglophone have been imprisoned, harmed, and fined.

[12]      The claimant himself has already been detained and accused of supporting anglophone militants, and his refugee claim is based on these circumstances.  I find these circumstances contribute to the risk he would face if he returned to Cameroon, as he would likely be targeted by police for questioning or abuse at the airport, not only due to his previous detention, but also as a failed asylum seeker.  Ultimately, I find the claimant has established that he has been arrested, detained, and targeted by the Cameroon state on the basis of his perceived political opinion.  I find the claimant, as someone who has already been identified by the state as a person who holds anti-government views and sympathising with the separatist cause faces a serious possibility of persecution if he returns to Cameroon.  Given that there are no credibility issues with respect to the allegations of the claimant combined with the documentary evidence set out above, I find that the claimant’s subjective fear has an objective basis.

State Protection and Internal Flight Alternative

[13]      As the state is the agent of persecution in this case, I find the state would not be able to provide meaningful or reasonable protection to the claimant.  I find the presumption of state protection in this case has been clearly rebutted as the state is the agent that the claimant fears.  Further, as the state is the agent of harm in this case, and given that the state has access to the entirety of its territory, I find that the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution throughout Cameroon.  As a result, there is no viable Internal Flight Alternative in all of Cameroon.

CONCLUSION

[14]      For all of the foregoing reasons, I conclude that the claimant is a Convention refugee and I, therefore, accept his claim.  This is the end of the decision.

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———