2023 RLLR 132

Citation: 2023 RLLR 132
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 11, 2023
Panel: R. Jackson
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Diane B. Coulthard
Country: Angola
RPD Number: TC2-28915
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2024-00768
ATIP Pages: N/A

 

DECISION

[1]             XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX claims to be a citizen of Angola and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to ss. 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).

Allegations

[2]             The claimant alleges he is a whistleblower regarding large-scale money laundering occurring at the XXXX where he was a XXXX. He fears he will be killed by the owner of the XXXX (“ST”).

Determination

[3]             The panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA as his fear of persecution is linked to at least one of the five Convention grounds; namely imputed political opinion.

Analysis

Identity

[4]             The claimant’s identity was established based on his passport.

Credibility

[5]             Overall, the claimant’s testimony matched his Basis of Claim (BOC, written story) well, however he appeared to have forgotten his second arrest and beating in testimony. The panel gave him another chance to recall if any other violent incidents had taken place, and finally he did recount the incident with details matching what he reported in the BOC.

[6]             The panel had concerns over whether the claimant’s story happened at all, or whether he was taking some facts, such as the corruption in the XXXX where he worked and using it to fashion himself as a target of the perpetrators. The panel did not sense the ring of truth in the claimant’s testimony. Notwithstanding these concerns, apart from the above-noted apparent omission, which he corrected, there weren’t any material elements upon which a negative credibility finding could be made.

[7]             The claimant was able to explain how the alleged money-laundering was happening at the XXXX, who he told about it, and what happened thereafter. He was also able to provide relevant details about his claim which were not contained in the BOC. Essentially, he was able to testify in a forthcoming and detailed manner and in the absence of contradictory evidence, the panel accepts his allegations as generally credible. He was able to provide some relevant evidence, such as a medical report for his injuries and his work contract, among a few other documents. As such, the panel accepts that the XXXX is owned by ST, that the claimant held an important XXXX position, that the claimant was asked to allow money-laundering and the associated illegal XXXX activities to take place. After his reporting the illegal practices, he was threatened by his employers and targeted by people who had the use of the police.

Well-Founded Fear of Persecution

[8]             The claimant fears the owner of the XXXX, ST, who has political influence and is a prominent businessman in Angola.

[9]             The objective documentary evidence in the National Documentation Package (NDP) at item 7.3 establishes that cases of abuse of office or corruption are rarely prosecuted in Angola. There is no legal protection for whistleblowers reporting on corruption. In a widely publicized case, 2015 investigative journalist and activist was handed a six-month suspended jail sentence for defamation, after he published a book alleging human rights abuses and high-level corruption in Angola. The conviction, which was meant to silence whistleblowing, gave international attention to the journalist and received wide criticism.

[10]        NDP item 2.5 notes the various anti-corruption measures taken by Angola, including the introduction of specific provisions in the 2019 Penal Code to criminalize acts of corruption and embezzlement and the numerous investigations initiated by the Attorney General’s office. However, reports that corruption remains widespread were of concern, particularly in the public sector, that there are flows of illicit funds in Angola for money laundering purposes, that preventive measures and protection of whistle-blowers are insufficient and that the number of prosecutions and convictions for acts of corruption is still low.

[11]        The above-noted situation with regard to corruption is also reflected in NDP reports 2.1 and 1.6.

[12]        Item 2.1 also reports that significant human rights issues in Angola included credible reports of: unlawful or arbitrary killings, including extrajudicial killings; cases of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by government security forces; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary detention; political prisoners or detainees; serious restrictions on free expression and the press, including violence, threats of violence or unjustified arrests against journalists, censorship, and enforcement or threat to enforce criminal libel laws; interference with the freedom of peaceful assembly; serious government corruption, among others of less relevance to the claimant’s situation.

[13]        The panel finds that the claimant has established, on a balance of probabilities, that he faces physical harm as a whistleblower if he returns to Angola. Considering this objective evidence, and the particular circumstances of the claimant, the panel determines that the treatment he faces amounts to persecution and concludes that his subjective fear has an objective basis.

[14]        The agent of persecution, ST, may not be a government officer, but he allows such persons to launder money through his XXXX. Moreover, he has access to security forces such as the police to harm the claimant. Thus, there is a connection to the State as one of the claimant’s persecutors.

State Protection

[15]        Considering the claimant’s circumstances and the country conditions, the panel finds that there is clear and convincing evidence before it that adequate state protection wouldn’t be forthcoming if the claimant returns to Angola. 

[16]        The claimant testified that his wife was beaten by police who had come looking for him about two weeks after the claimant left the country. A medical document was provided for his wife’s later medical treatment, though it was follow-up treatment and did not provide direct evidence of a beating or police involvement.

[17]        The above-noted documentary evidence indicates that the State continues to be involved in money-laundering and/or failing to methodically prosecute those responsible.

Internal Flight Alternative

[18]        As the claimant fears state agents who are present everywhere in Angola, the panel finds that there is no viable internal flight alternative for him in Angola. Therefore, the panel concludes that he has demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution in Angola.

CONCLUSION

[19]        For the foregoing reasons the panel concludes the claimant is a Convention refugee. 

[20]        Accordingly, the panel accepts the claim.

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———