2023 RLLR 121
Citation: 2023 RLLR 121
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 14, 2023
Panel: Roslyn Ahara
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Peter J Wuebbolt
Country: Bangladesh
RPD Number: TC2-26228
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2024-00768
ATIP Pages: 000001-000006
DECISION
[1] XXXXX (the claimant), who is a citizen of Bangladesh, is seeking refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).
ALLEGATIONS
[2] The claimant’s allegations are described in detail in his Basis of Claim Form (BOC)1, however they can be summarized as follows.
[3] He fears members of the Awami League, whom he has criticized with respect to corruption and woman’s rights. As a consequence, they have threatened to kill him.
DETERMINATION
[4] The panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee, pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA.
ANALYSIS
Identity
[5] The claimant’s identity has been established as per the certified true copy of his passport2 and documents submitted in support of his claim.3
Credibility
[6] The panel found the claimant to be a credible witness. There were no contradictions or omissions between his oral testimony and his narrative. Moreover, he submitted corroborative evidence to support his allegations, which included affidavits, police reports, letters from community groups, proof of business, photographs and internet news articles. In light of the foregoing, the panel finds that the claimant has established his subjective fear.
Claimant’s Oral Testimony
[7] The claimant testified that his family are concerned as the agents of persecution remain in pursuit on a frequent basis.
[8] The claimant testified that through the Rotary Club, Charity organizations and other businessmen, he was actively criticizing the government with respect to its corruption, and latterly about women’s rights.
[9] According to the claimant, initially, when he would XXXXX, the Awami League would block him.
[10] Thereafter, they would make threats against him, demanding that he stop his social activism, but he did not comply with their demands. He went to the police, without success, on two occasions; XX, 2018 and XX, 2022.
[11] According to the claimant, the incident that gave rise to his departure from Bangladesh was one in which he was assaulted, sustaining injuries to his back and leg, and requiring hospitalization.4 By this time, the agents of persecution were threatening to kill the claimant.
[12] The panel also notes the XXXXX report which was conducted in Canada, and the claimant testified that he is not on a waiting list for XXXXX as the XXXXX has affected his well-being.
Well-Founded Fear of Persecution
[13] The panel notes from the objective evidence that adequate state protection is not available when the agent of persecution is the ruling Awami League party. While the state authorities are able to provide effective protection when the risk comes from a non-state agent, the willingness of the authorities to protect will depend on the profile of the person seeking. Corruption is endemic and state institutions are highly politicized and their willingness to deliver justice depends on the perpetrators’ links with the ruling party, the Awami League. In the 2017 World Report by Freedom House, it is stated that anti-corruption efforts have been weakened by politicized enforcement and subversion of the judicial process under the Awami League government.
[14] Further documentary evidence confirms that the state power has typically been used by whichever party is in government at the time and there have been allegations of politically motivated torture and forced disappearances and extrajudicial killings by state agents. Criminal activities of the leaders and activists of the ruling party affiliated organizations are reported and such groups commonly operate above the law and extort local business owners and land. The objective documentary evidence demonstrates that state protection at an operational level remains inadequate in Bangladesh.5
[15] According to the National Documentation Package, Bangladesh is ranked as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. Corruption is pervasive at all levels of society and is endemic in the judicial system, police and public services. As a result, political interference and corruption can strain the rule of law in Bangladesh and the military, police and lower courts can be heavily politicized, under resourced and subject to corruption.6
[16] The Asian Human Rights Commission states that Bangladesh’s policing system operates as a course of lethal force. Extreme political control and nepotism are inseparable. Chains of corruption and all forms of abuse of police power have made the police a monstrous entity. Torture is institutionalized in the law enforcement system for extortion and silencing of political dissidents. Those violation of human rights including enforced disappearances, and exerted judicial executions have become the regular business of the police. 7
[17] Illegal arrest and arbitrary detention of innocent people and fabricating criminal charges is an unavoidable phenomenon. Credibility, accountability and transparency are alienated from the police. The Bangladesh police manifest the State to the people in the country. The police are seen to behave like rabid monsters in uniform paid by taxpayers’ money. They treat citizens like detestable animals. The report further states that police actions are bound to be politically motivated and biased in favour of the ruling elite in Bangladesh’s reality in 2017. The country’s incumbent regime policy appears to be worse than its predecessors in regard to the practice of arbitrary deprivation of right to life.8
[18] Given the objective evidence as discussed and the acts of persecution suffered by the claimant at the hands of the Awami League, the panel finds that adequate state protection will not be forthcoming in this case and therefore, the presumption of state protection has been rebutted.
Internal Flight Alternative (IFA)
[19] The panel has considered whether the claimant has an IFA in Bangladesh. The claimant, who fears agents of the state, testified that it would be impossible for him to live safely in any area of the country, The claimant’s testimony in this regard is supported by the objective documentary evidence.
[20] Furthermore, the panel concurs with Counsel’ submission that the Federal court has re iterated that family members may be forced to divulge the whereabouts of the claimant. The claimant’s parents have already told the goons that the claimant is in Canada, yet they continue to pursue the claimant through his parents, as recently as a few weeks ago.
CONCLUSION
[21] After consideration of all of the evidence, the panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA. Accordingly, this claim is accepted.
——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———
1 Exhibit 2 of the record
2 Exhibit 1 of the record
3 Exhibit 5 of the record
4 Exhibit 5 of the record, page 24
5 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package Bangladesh dated August 31, 2023, item 7.1
6 Ibid, item 2.1
7 Ibid, item 10.4
8 Ibid