2023 RLLR 129

Citation: 2023 RLLR 129
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: June 22, 2023
Panel: Louis Gentile
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Roger Rowe
Country: Angola
RPD Number: TC2-04344
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2024-00768
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

  • On June 6, 2023 the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) heard the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, who claims refugee protection under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). This is the written version of the decision and reasons that have been edited for clarity, spelling, grammar and syntax with added references to the documentary evidence and relevant case law where appropriate.
  • MEMBER: This is the decision for the following claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, file number TC2-04344. I have considered your testimony and the other evidence in the case, and I am ready to render my decision orally. You are claiming to be a citizen of Angola and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

DETERMINATION

  • I find that you are a Convention refugee because you face a serious possibility of persecution for the following reasons.

ALLEGATIONS

  • You are a citizen of Angola. You allege that you had a comfortable and happy life in Angola as a XXXX XXXX XXXX. You became disillusioned with the autocratic and corrupt MPLA government and began to express your opinions on social media. You also participated in a public demonstration critical of the MPLA in XXXX 2020. Thereafter, you were detained briefly, you were threatened, and finally, armed men shot at your home. Fearing for your life, you decided to flee the country and came to Canada via the USA using a visa you had acquired earlier for a work-related training. Since leaving the country, a warrant was issued for your arrest. If you returned to Angola, you could be subjected to arbitrary arrest, torture, or murder by the security services or MPLA thugs. You also fear being killed by your partner’s family who blame you for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. You allege that there is no state protection for you, nor any internal flight alternative.

Identity

  • Your personal identity as a citizen of Angola has been established by your testimony and the supporting documents filed in the exhibits, including a certified true copy of your Angolan passport with USA visa and a copy of your Angolan national ID. I therefore find on a balance of probabilities that identity and country of nationality have been established.

Nexus to Section 96 or Section 97

  • I find that there is a link between what you fear and one (1) of the five (5) Convention grounds. Specifically, your political opinion. Therefore, this claim has been assessed under section 96.

Credibility

  • In terms of your general credibility, I have found you to be a credible witness, and I therefore accept on a balance of probabilities what you have alleged in your oral testimony and in your Basis of Claim form. Your testimony is presumed to be true. You testified in detail and consistently with your Basis of Claim about your comfortable and happy life in Angola before you became critical of the MPLA. You also testified in detail and seemingly without exaggeration, about threats and a physical attack against you by MPLA thugs. The Panel finds this testimony to be credible on a balance of probabilities.
  • Your testimony about your motivation for resisting MPLA pressure was also straightforward, seemingly unrehearsed and unexaggerated, responsive to questioning and was in keeping with your Basis of Claim form and there were no significant inconsistencies or omissions. The Panel also finds this testimony and evidence to be credible on a balance of probabilities. You also provided evidence in Exhibit number 6, including affidavits from those familiar with the threats against you in Angola, a copy of an arrest warrant, and social media posts critical of the government, which the Panel finds credible and convincing and thus assigns significant weight.
  • The Panel further finds that your explanation for your transit through the USA and your failure to seek asylum there was reasonable and does not, therefore, impute your overall credibility or undermine your subjective fear of persecution.
  • I therefore believe what you have alleged in support of your claim, and I find the following to be credible: that on a balance of probabilities, you are an XXXX XXXX professional from Angola who was openly critical of the MPLA and consequently faced threats to your life. You have credibly established your subjective fear of persecution, including fear of being disappeared, tortured or killed by the security services or MPLA thugs.

Persecution Risk

  • The objective documentation supports your allegations that individuals in your circumstance face persecution. One (1), the documentary evidence indicates that although the government has made some inroads in accountability for human rights abuses and corruption, such accountability was limited due to a culture of impunity, a lack of checks and balances and institutional capacity and widespread government corruption. NDP 2.1.22, page 2. Two (2), the documentary evidence indicate that the government or its agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings and that although torture is legally prohibited, it is still practised by security forces. NDP 2.1.22, page 2. Three (3), the documentary evidence indicates that the security forces have killed civilians participating in peaceful protests, requesting better services and living conditions, and have also committed serious violations of human rights, including extrajudicial killings while enforcing COVID restrictions. NDP 2.1.22, page 2. Four (4), the documentary evidence indicates that Angola is hobbled by corruption that pervades the police and judiciary. Favouritism is often shown to well-connected families and individuals, and when cronies of government leaders receive contracts through bribery or nepotism, they do so with a high degree of impunity. NDP 7.3.21, pages 3 and 4.
  • Consequently, I find there is a serious possibility that you could face arbitrary arrest, detention, torture or murder should you return to Angola. I find that you have established an objective basis for your subjective fear and therefore you have a well-founded fear of persecution.

State Protection

  • I find that adequate state protection would not be available to you (inaudible). The objective documentary evidence indicates that senior MPLA officials and their associates have reach throughout Angola and use abduction threats and violence to achieve their goals. The evidence also indicates that corruption of state officials, including the police and judiciary, remains a serious problem. Thus, it is not reasonable to expect persons under threat to rely on the authorities for protection in these conditions. States are presumed to be capable of protecting their citizens, except in situations where the state is in a complete breakdown. However, based on the claimant’s personal circumstances as well as the country documentation referred to above, the Panel finds on a balance of probabilities that the claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence. Adequate state protection is not available to him as he fears persecution from state agents themselves.

Internal Flight Alternative

 

  • I have also considered whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for you, specifically in Lubango. The country documentation indicates that the situation for individuals in circumstances such as yours is the same throughout the country and that you would face a serious risk to life anywhere in Angola. The Panel finds on a balance of probabilities that there is a serious risk to life throughout Angola, where the corruption of state officials remains a serious problem and where repression of critics of the government is nationwide. This would make starting a new life safely and undiscovered in Lubango or elsewhere in Angola nearly impossible, particularly as a professional already wanted by the authorities. As such, I find that the IFA test fails on the first prong and there is no viable internal flight alternative for you in Angola.

 

CONCLUSION

 

  • Based on the totality of the evidence, I find the claimant to be a Convention refugee as he faces a serious possibility of persecution because of his political opinion. Your claim is therefore accepted.

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———