2023 RLLR 123
Citation: 2023 RLLR 123
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 29, 2023
Panel: Robert Cox
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Washim Ahmed
Country: Bangladesh
RPD Number: TC3-12858
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2024-00768
ATIP Pages: 000015-000020
DECISION
OVERVIEW
[1] XXXXX (the claimant) claims to be a citizen of Bangladesh. He seeks refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).1
ALLEGATIONS
[2] The allegations are set out in the claimant’s Basis of Claim Form (BOC)2, which may be summarized as follows. The claimant is from Sylhet, Bangladesh where he was a student. The claimant alleges fears of harm and even death from the leader of a local political group, not because of any political activism, association, or membership, but because he protected the honour of one of his sisters against the advancement the said leader. According to the claimant’s allegations, the local leader of the Chattra League XXXXX attempted to touch his sister while the claimant and she were walking from school. The claimant alleges that after coming to his sister’ s defence, XXXXX (the agent of harm) became angry, and that the agent of harm and his accomplices attacked him and beat him to the point of requiring hospitalization. He alleges that following his discharge from the hospital, he reported the incident to his local police after which the agent of harm again contacted him and warned him that he could have killed him without consequence. Fearing for his personal safety and even his life the claimant decided he must leave Bangladesh.
[3] According to the claimant’s narrative and immigration documents, the claimant flew from Bangladesh to the United States of America (U.S.A.) between XX and XX, 2021. He alleges he was accepted XXXXXXXXXX in the U.S.A., but because the university was off or closed for XXXXX upon his arrival XX 2021, he decided to go visit friends in Michigan. While in Michigan he alleged that he discovered there was a Bangladeshi community in Michigan and that many Bangladeshi students attended XXXXX, to which he decided to transfer. According to his narrative, the claimant, within less than a three-week period from his arrival in the U.S.A., he applied and was accepted to the latter XXXXX on XX, 2022.
[4] The claimant’s narrative provides that, in XX, 2022, he was informed by his family back in Bangladesh that he and his father had received a court order for them to appear for, as the claimant alleges, falsified charges of spreading propaganda against the ruling government that were filed upon them by the agent of harm. The claimant alleges that despite his father having sought legal advice and having attempted to delay the court proceedings three times, his family has been unsuccessful in having the charges against him and his father dismissed.
[5] Despite being in the U.S.A., the claimant decided that he would move to Canada and seek refugee protection. The claimant’s immigration documents provide that he travelled by land within the U.S.A. and arrived at the Canadian Border crossing in Lacolle, Quebec, where he claimed a need for refugee protection from Canada. The claimant submitted his record of submission of refugee claim on September 15, 2022, but his unsigned BOC was not received by the IRB until March 28, 2023.
DETERMINATION
[6] Having considered the totality of the evidence, the panel finds that the claimant is a person in need of protection pursuant to section 97(1) of the IRPA.
ANALYSIS
Identity
[7] The claimant’s personal and national identity as a citizen of Bangladesh has been established by certified true copies of his Bangladeshi passport.3
Credibility
[8] When a claimant affirms to tell the truth, this creates a presumption of truthfulness unless there is evidence to the contrary. The panel did note some credibility concerns and the claimant did provide some inconsistent and contradictory testimony with regard to the allegations he put forth in his claim. For example, the panel notes that the delay of three weeks for the claimant transfer from XXXXX to XXXXX at a period in the Western calendar when most higher learning institutions are closed for XXXXX unrealistic. Moreover, the claimant’s explanation for failing to claim asylum in the U.S.A seems inconsistent with the policies of the policies of the governing administration within the U.S.A. at the time the claimant decided he required to seek protection from the Bangladeshi authorities. That is, the claimant only decided he needed protection from the Bangladeshi authorities near the end of 2022; at that time the Trump administration had been out power for more than two years and the then governing administration had amended its immigration policies for asylum seekers. However, and despite these incongruities, the panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the remaining documentary evidence submitted in support of the claimant’s application, when considered in conjunction with his testimony, was credible. The incongruities noted by the panel were not so relevant as to detract from the heart of the claimant’s application for surrogate protection. As such, and on a balance of probabilities, the panel finds the claimant to be credible.
[9] In support of his claim, the claimant provided 45 pages of detailed documents. These documents included a copy of the complaint filed by the agent of harm, a copy of the first information report (F.I.R.) issued by the Bangladeshi authorities against the claimant and his father and an affidavit from the claimant’ s mother attesting to the recent visit to her residence by the Bangladeshi policing authorities in search of the claimant and his father. Based on the evidence, the panel accepts the claimant’s allegations as set out in his original and amended narratives and as was substantiated by his oral testimony, the whole of which the panel found to be consistent with the submitted documentary evidence. The panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the evidence demonstrates that the claimant is being targeted and pursued by the Bangladeshi authorities because of a complaint filed by the agent of harm. Given the foregoing, the panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant has established his allegations and his subjective fear.
Objective Basis
[10] The objective evidence the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Bangladesh4 corroborates the fact that Police officers work in collusion with and are influenced by corruption from and with the ruling governing party and other illegitimate organizations within Bangladesh. The objective evidence reports that corruption amongst police officers and policing authorities within Bangladesh remains endemic and that police officers have been recruited and employed by the governing party to file false claims.5 The same source provides that Bangladeshi FIRs can contain false statements and information but that they never heard of any fraudulent FIPRs.6 Indeed, according to a country report on Bangladesh by the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), “[c]orruption is widespread in the courts and the police” which makes it “possible” to obtain fraudulent documents and the court and police systems “are heavily bureaucratic and often paper based, which can limit the ability to detect fake documents”. 7
[11] Based on the objective evidence and the above-described documentary evidence, which was submitted by the claimant, the panel finds that the claimant has demonstrated that, on the balance of probabilities, he faces a forward-facing personalized risk of harm if he returns to Bangladesh because he was targeted by the agent of harm and faces the possibility of arrest from the corrupt Bangladeshi authorities.
State Protection
[12] Given that the evidence shows that the policing authorities and the ruling government work in collusion and that corruption is endemic within the Bangladeshi governing structure, the panel finds that the presumption of state protection has been rebutted and it, therefore, finds that there is no adequate state protection available to the claimant.
Internal Flight Alternative (IFA)
[13] At the outset of the hearing the panel considered the regions around Rangpur and Chittagong, Bangladesh as potential IFAs for the claimant, both areas to which the claimant testified as never having lived or visited. However, given that the state is in control of the entire country, and that the evidence demonstrates that the state colludes with illegitimate organizations and has control over corrupt policing authorities, the panel finds that the claimant will, on a balance of probabilities, have a forward-facing risk of personal harm in Bangladesh. Accordingly, the panel finds that there is no viable IFA for the claimant.
CONCLUSION
[14] Based on the evidence, the panel finds that XXXXX, has established that he would face a risk of personal harm in Bangladesh.
[15] The panel finds that, pursuant to section 97 (1) of the IRPA, the claimant is a person in need of protection.
[16] The claim for refugee protection is accepted.
——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———
1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (S.C. 2001, c. 27)
2 Exhibit 2, Basis of Claim (BOC) Form TC3-12858, submitted on March 28, 2023, and signed on an unknown date.
3 Claims referral information from CBSA/1 RCC.
4 National Documentation Package (NOP) for Bangladesh, August 31, 2023.
5 NDP, item 10.7, page 9 of 19, January 4, 2022
6 Ibid., page 7
7 Ibid.