2023 RLLR 130

Citation: 2023 RLLR 130
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: July 12, 2023
Panel: John Kivlichan
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Kingsley I Jesuorobo
Country: Angola
RPD Number: TC2-07046
Associated RPD Number(s): TC2-07048, TC2-07051, TC2-07053
ATIP Number: A-2024-00768
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

MEMBER: I am ready to give my oral reasons. I apologize in advance because I know I am going to mispronounce your names, but the claimants are XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, his spouse XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and their two (2) minor children XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. All four (4) are citizens of Angola who claim refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. At the start of the hearing, I appointed the principal claimant, Mr. XXXX, as the designated resident for the minor children in accordance with subsection 167(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and I advised the claimants that their claims were being heard together per rule 35 of the Refugee Protection Division Rules.

The allegations contained in the Basis of Claim form narrative are shared by all claimants. These relate primarily to the principal claimant, who was a long term dissident in Angola against the government policies. He was involved in demonstrations against the government on about five (5) occasions over the last 10 years or so in Angola, at various times demonstrating against the corruption and repression of the government. He has attended demonstrations despite being warned by his co-workers that any voiced dissidence against the government was dangerous. Most recently, he has observed two (2) demonstrations in XXXX 2020. He was fortunate not to be arrested by the authorities, even though the police subdued the demonstrators by beating them up, chasing them with dogs, and even using live fire against them. Some demonstrators were killed in that demonstration. Most recently, he had attended an XXXX 2021 demonstration against the authorities in Luanda, L-U-A-N-D-A, at XXXX XXXX, but the police arrested many of the demonstrators using dogs, and the police were heavily armed also. The principal claimant was detained with other demonstrators in poor conditions in a jail or prison, and they were questioned as to who the ringleaders of the demonstrations were. The principal claimant was detained for about XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and was only released because a co-worker who had attended the demonstration with him was able to advise the principal claimant’s spouse, the co-claimant, who then notified the family, and eventually the release of the principal claimant was obtained through bribery of a police officer.

When he was released, he was warned that an arrest warrant would be issued for him because he had escaped custody. He then went into hiding in order to leave Angola as soon as possible, which he and his family did with pre-existing US visitor visas. When he arrived in the USA, it was always his intention to come to Canada. They only sojourned in the USA because, at that time, the border crossings were closed due to the pandemic, but they entered Canada as soon as they could reasonably do so. The principal claimant fears that if he returned to Angola, he would be tortured and killed, and his family fears harm because the Angolan authorities could also target them if they would not be able to find him. That ends the allegations.

I find and determine that the claimants are Convention refugees for the following reasons. I accept the claimants’ identity as citizens of Angola by reference to the certified true copies of passports as found in Exhibits 1 and 4. I find that the testimony given today by the principal claimant primarily was entirely credible and trustworthy. He gave detailed testimony about his problems in Angola which was consistent with the objective country documentation and his personal documentation also. He testified in particular about the (inaudible) conditions of detention he suffered whilst being held by the authorities for about XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX 2021, detailing how he and the other prisoners were deprived of even the most basic sanitary conditions. They were held naked in an overcrowded cell in foul conditions. The food stank. They had no shower facilities. The water conditions were poor, yet they were forced to drink what little they could. And he was only released through the intervention of his family.

Moreover, the other aspects of testimony are also detailed sufficiently so to convince me, on a balance of probabilities, that these events as described by him actually happened. I therefore find and determine that the principal claimant was a dissident known to the authorities in Angola who was detained by them again in poor conditions, and only released through payment of a bribe. I therefore further find that given the extralegal matter in which he was released, again, payment of bribe, it is more likely than not that the authorities perceive him as having somehow escaped or absconded from the jurisdiction of the authorities. He is therefore a wanted person in Angola.

I also note that the claimant has provided an appropriate corroboration of the detention in Angola. Exhibit 5 contains the release order at page 15 and 16, as noted, which specifies that he was released. He said that his family forced the authorities to issue this because they wanted some record of his release. Despite that, the position taken by the principal claimant is that the authorities would not recognize that, but he is still a wanted person. By reference to the objective country documentation, I find there is little reason to disbelieve that. I will refer to that documentation momentarily. Furthermore, there is corroboration of the XXXX suffered by Mr. XXXX. When one (1) looks at the report from the XXXX also contained in Exhibit 5, she notes that he exhibits current symptoms consistent with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX. The XXXX asserts it is her belief these symptoms are consistent with his reported experiences of the harassment, threats, physical violence, fear, and XXXX he has experienced in Angola. The discussion he had with her is also consistent with what he has described otherwise, both in oral testimony and in the written allegations from the Basis of Claim form narrative. The principal claimant also explained the reasons for the failure to claim in the USA, given the perception of anti-black racism in that country. Further, a reasonable explanation for the delay in coming to Canada was that at the time of the pandemic, he was forced to stay in the USA because the border was effectively closed. I note that the principal claimant and his family stayed in Portland, Maine, with a close friend between XXXX XXXX, 2021, and XXXX XXXX that year for about seven (7) months. Therefore, I draw no adverse inference from the failure to claim in the USA. I find that the claimants have given a reasonable explanation for not claiming asylum in the US at that time.

Aside from the obvious subjective basis for the claim, then there is also an objective basis by reference to the country condition documentation, which, again, I say is consistent with the allegations. The objective evidence indicates that demonstrators like the principal claimant can be adversely affected by the current government’s repression of all such persons. For example, looking at the documentation at Tab 1.6 of the current National Documentation Package, it is referenced therein to the problems experienced during the COVID pandemic, closure of civil society in Angola. We see under the heading of “Executive Summary” in the Tab 1.6 document from BTI 2022 country report that in calendar year 2020, hours were concentrated back into the hands of the executive as many emergency measures were passed as presidential decrees. The principal claimant testified that during this time period, the conditions in society as a whole went downhill very quickly because of poverty, lack of employment, and lack of support from the authorities. The same BTI report goes on to note, “A hardening of the social climate and a more aggressive stance by the forces of public order against protesting citizens.” The economic contraction during COVID imposed restrictions upon everyday (inaudible) life, but demonstrations by citizens about these problems led to police violence deployed to enforce these measures. We see also in the same report under heading three (3), “Rule of Law”, that civil rights are codified by law, but rights violations remain frequent. Under the next paragraph, again in the same report from BTI, “Accordingly, arbitrary arrests, torture, and extralegal killings at the hands of state security forces continue despite legal protections existing.”

In a similar vein, the US Department of State report, which is found at Tab 2.1 of the National Documentation Package, notes that the significant human rights issues in Angola included credible reports of unlawful or arbitrary killings, including extrajudicial killings by government security forces, forced disappearance, cases of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by government security forces, harsh and life-threatening prison conditions, arbitrary detentions, political prisoners or detainees, and serious restrictions on free expression and the press, including violence, threats of violence, or unjustified arrests and so forth. All these matters cited are consistent with the testimony given by the principal claimant. It is noted also in terms of accountability that this is limited due to a lack of checks and balances in the country. The government or its agents have committed arbitrary or unlawful killings and so on, and we see in particular on the third page under 23, under heading, “Prison and Detention Centre Conditions”, a description of overcrowding and poor conditions. “There were reports of inmates getting sick due to the poor conditions of prisons, including with COVID. Prisons did not always provide adequate medical or sanitation, drinkable water, or food, and it was customary even for families to bring food to prisoners. Local NGOs stated prison services were insufficient.” And finally, I will only briefly refer to the report at 2.3 from Human Rights Watch, the events of 2021. Again, “State security forces were implicated in serious human rights abuses, including summary executions, excessive use of force against peaceful protesters, and arbitrary detentions.” So the noted country documentation then supports the claim in its entirety for all claimants.

Given the state is the agent of persecution, the Panel finds that the claimants have rebutted the presumption that the authorities will be able to or willing to protect them. As such, the Panel concludes that the presumption that states are capable and willing to protect citizens has been rebutted in these claims. Given the state, again, is the agent persecution, then the prospective test for internal flight alternative will clearly fail under the first prong of the test set out in the case law such as Rasaratnam. And given the country documentation further suggests that the authorities may punish members of the same family as perceived or actual dissidents, I find that the fear of persecution is well-founded and extends to all members of the same family. Clearly, there is a nexus to the definition in these cases as persons who are actual or perceived dissidents in the case of the principal claimant, and under particular social group members of the family of a dissident for the remaining claimants. Based upon the foregoing analysis, the Panel finds that the claimants are Convention refugees, and their claims are accepted.

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———