2023 RLLR 133
Citation: 2023 RLLR 133
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 7, 2023
Panel: Nicholas Leblanc
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Jacob R Watters
Country: Bangladesh
RPD Number: TC2-34460
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2024-00768
ATIP Pages: N/A
DECISION
[1] MEMBER: This is the decision in the claim for refugee protection made by XXXX XXXX, file number is TC2-34460. You are claiming to be a citizen of Bangladesh and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I have considered the evidence in this case and I am ready to render my decision orally.
[2] I note the claimant was appointed a designated representative, that being her son. There are medical documents on file diagnosing or supporting the claimant’s XXXX XXXX. (inaudible) a conference on October 24th, 2023 to assess the claimant’s ability to understand the nature of the proceedings, and found that she was unable to.
[3] The claimant’s son XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, whom she lives with, agreed to act as her designated representative. The son stated that he understood the responsibilities of the designated representative and acted during the hearing today as a primary source of information for his mother.
[4] I found the information presented to be reliable as it can be — as it can be, for information coming from a secondary source. And as I will explain shortly, I found the information provided by Mr. XXXX to support the claimant’s allegations on a balance of probabilities.
[5] I note that in my assessing of this claim, I have considered and applied the IRB Chairperson’s Guideline 4, gender considerations and proceedings before the Immigration and Refugee Board. I find the claimant is a Convention refugee on the grounds of her religion and membership in a particular social group for the following reasons.
[6] The claimant’s allegations are fully noted in her Basis of Claim form, found in Exhibit 2. In summary, she alleges a fear of persecution at the hands of Jamaat-e-Islami and their associates, or JEI, as they have threatened, harassed, and attacked her due to her religion and the perception of her playing music past 6:00 p.m. and therefore offending Islam. She alleges that if she returns, she would be threatened, harassed, or even killed at the hands of the Jamaat-e-Islami. She alleges there was no state protection for her or an internal flight alternative available.
[7] I note the Minister has intervened in this case on the basis of identity and credibility. The Minister has provided evidence of a US visa application for — the claimant was included in from 2007, when her husband applied through his brother to sponsor his family to go to the United States. There are concerns with the ages of the minor visa applicants, they have — the claimant’s children and eventually, the true ages were provided. However, the application was revoked after the principal applicant, the claimant’s husband, passed away on XXXX XXXX, 2008.
[8] The Minister has provided evidence of a double identity for the claimant, which is XXXX XXXX, with the date of birth of XXXX XXXX, 1958. The Minister also explained the claimant is lacking credibility due to her listing her religion as Sunni Islam in question, 1-F of the BOC, and that she did not mention it using any other names at Exhibit 1 for her TRV to Canada.
[9] I asked the claimant’s son to explain these issues. He stated that the application was done entirely by his father and paternal uncle, and his mother had no involvement in this. He also explained that, as it states in the evidence from the Minister, there were issues with all the children’s date of birth as well. He explained it was a bad thing what his father and uncle did, and their families suffer the consequences due to it. He also explained that as a woman, his mother would have no say in this, given the patriarchal nature of Bangladesh.
[10] Now, I have considered the claimant’s son’s evidence as well as the evidence provided by the Minister. I appreciate the information presented by the Minister. However, I do not find this to be the case of a double identity as argued in their intervention. Rather as a release, her name — I accept her son’s testimony and also note that the last name is the name of her husband’s as well as her children’s. So, I do not find this to be the case of someone creating a whole new identity.
[11] With respect to the issue of her date of birth, I do agree there is some concern there. However, I find the documents presented by the claimant with respect to her date of birth of XXXX XXXX, 1951 outweighs the evidence presented by the Minister, of XXXX XXXX, 1958.
[12] The Minister’s evidence does not include primary documents of the claimant using this date of birth. I recognise that the information is being taken from a 2007 US visa application. However, the actual evidence comes from an e-mail with none of the identity documents that they obtained this information from being presented.
[13] In addition, as Mr. XXXX explained, the very issue of why the application was initially facing problems was because of concerns around the children’s date of birth. As it states in Exhibit 5, Item M-6, the initial interview on XXXX XXXX, 2007, revealed serious doubts regarding the ages of the three (3) children. So, when I consider that there were issues with the children’s date of birth, I also find it reasonable that the same thing is possible for the claimant’s date of birth.
[14] When I consider this, along with the fact that the claimant has provided supporting documents of her identity as XXXX XXXX, born on XXXX XXXX, 1951, this includes her 2016 issued passport from Bangladesh, for 2008, issued birth certificate and declaration of her marriage. She also provided affidavits from her four (4) siblings who all live in Canada, as well as her brother-in-law in the United States, who details the US application in 2007.
[15] Now, they were mistaken about the claimant’s date of birth and surname. The affidavits from her siblings also explain the errors, and I note all of them use the surname XXXX, which I find supports the claimant’s alleged identity as XXXX XXXX. These documents can be found in Exhibits 7, 8, and 12.
[16] For these reasons, I find the documents provided by the Minister — sorry, the documents provided by the claimant support her alleged identity and overcome the issues presented by the Minister. I therefore find on a balance of probabilities that her identity and country of reference have been established.
[17] I find there is a link between what the claimant fears and a Convention ground, namely religion, due to her profile as a Hindu minority in Bangladesh. I have also taken an intersectional approach to my analysis, and find that while she was targeted due to her religion, I find it is furthered given her gender as a woman in Bangladesh, along with her age, her now health challenges, and the fact that she is a widow. I have therefore considered her claim under section 96.
[18] In terms of the claimant’s credibility, I note her son provided alternate testimony on her behalf today. Sir, I generally found you to be as credible — I found you to provide as credible evidence as I could expect. I note you were not present in Bangladesh at the time of the incidents occurring. However, I do accept, as you stated, that prior to your mother’s health deteriorating, she explained all of the events that occurred to her in Bangladesh.
[19] I found your answers to my questions to be genuine and sincere, and I did not find you to embellish answers or attempt to provide answers that you cannot be expected to. You simply shared with me all the details you were able to provide with, which were shared with you — with your — when your mother arrived in Canada and prior to her health issues escalating.
[20] You told me about how your mother was holding a prayer session at her home when they were playing music, which happened to go over into the time of Muslim prayers at 6:00 p.m. You explained how your mother was approached then, and then threatened on XXXX XXXX, 2018, when she went to the temple to pray, and was surrounded by extremists while leaving, that were angry due to the comments she made to them at her house, six (6) days prior. You explained that the men took a container of p-r-a-s-a-d-o-m, P-R-A-S-A-D-O-M, from her hand, and threw it on the road.
[21] When I consider the information you presented to me, along with the supporting documentation, and the claimant’s profile as a widowed, Hindu woman, I find her allegations to be supported on a balance of probabilities.
[22] In addition to the identity documents cited earlier, the claimant has provided further evidence that when I consider, along with the testimony of her son, I find, are sufficient to establish the claimant’s allegations on a balance of probabilities.
[23] The client provided identity documents; articles regarding the treatment of Hindus in Bangladesh; a letter from their family friend in Bangladesh who was present after the second incident on XXXX XXXX; identity documents for her family; her marriage certificate and photo of her with her late husband; his death certificate; civil documents for her son, XXXX; medical documentation and affidavits from her siblings. These documents can all be found in Exhibits 6 to 12. Sorry. Apologies. 6 to 13.
[24] Overall, there were no significant admissions or inconsistencies in the claimant’s evidence. I do note there was an issue with respect to her religion listed in Q-1-F of the BOC, which they — Sunni Islam. However, the rest of the information before me establishes that she is Hindu. So, the claimant’s son explained that was just an error that was done when the claim was referred. I do accept that explanation.
[25] Given the evidence before me, I find the claimant’s allegations that she was targeted by the Jamaat-e-Islami in Bangladesh due to her Hindu minority religion, the comments she made to the Jamaat-e-Islami members, and her profile as a widowed Hindu woman in Bangladesh have been established on a balance of probabilities. Therefore, I find the claimant’s subjective fears established, and I believe what she has alleged on a balance of probabilities.
[26] I also find that there is an objective basis for what the claimant fears in Bangladesh. The risk is corroborated by Tabs 1.6, 2.1, 4.9, 12.1, and 12.2 of the National Documentation Package for Bangladesh, at Exhibit 3. According to the evidence, extremist groups such as Jamaat-e-Islami, among others, have been responsible for multiple attacks against and murders of members of ethnic minorities, but also secular activists, bloggers, and individuals who are deemed anti-Islam.
[27] Item 1.17 of the NDP states, Jamaat-e-Islami is the largest Islamic party in Bangladesh, with historic strongholds in Rajshahi, northern Bangladesh, and Chittagong, the second — the country’s second largest city. Jamaat-e-Islami is committed to the creation of Islamic state with the Sharia legal system and the removal of un-Islamic laws and practices. Furthermore, the same source states that despite its reduced size, Jamaat-e-Islami is still well-organized and influential in Bangladesh. Many supporters of Jamaat-e-Islami strongly link their religious and political identities, resulting in a deep personal investment in the party.
[28] Further information at Item 5.5 states that while the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap report ranked Bangladesh relatively high in comparison to its neighboring countries in South Asia, women in Bangladesh face widespread social prejudice, and discriminatory laws and provisions remaining, including those relating to marriage, divorce, custody and inheritance. But denying equal rights with men that women are also discriminated against with regards to access to employment, education, health care, social services, land ownership, and inheritance.
[29] It further notes that women domestic workers, and government workers may be exposed to violence and abuse, and that following marriage, most women continue to depend on fathers and husbands for decision making regarding financial and social welfare. And as a result, widowed and divorced women experience increased vulnerability and poverty. Social acceptance of single women in Bangladesh is low, and the ability to live alone is likely to be limited to women from higher socioeconomic backgrounds who have family and — who have family and financial support, and that living without male support is very difficult due to social and financial constraints of exploitation and social isolation.
[30] I further note documentation provided by Counsel details numerous attacks against Hindus in Bangladesh. Provides specific incidents of Hindu widows being beaten up for the purpose of stealing land, or simply due to their religion. There are also reports of Hindu individuals being arrested for making comments critical of Islam. This can be found in Exhibit 5.
[31] So, considering the objective evidence regarding extremist groups in Bangladesh, the treatment of religious minorities in the country, the claimant’s personal profile as a Hindu minority, the treatment she faced before leaving Bangladesh, I find on a balance of probabilities that she has established her allegations, and therefore she has a well-founded fear of persecution.
[32] I find that state protection would not be available to her where she to seek it in Bangladesh. There is a rebuttable presumption that states are capable of providing protection to their citizens, absent a complete breakdown of the state apparatus. However, this presumption can be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence from the claimant, demonstrating on a balance of probabilities that adequate protection would not be forthcoming.
[33] I note the claimant did not approach the police. However, I find the objective evidence which I will cite shortly, explains why she did not do so. Item 1.6 of the NDP states that authorities have visibly failed to ensure the protection of those targeted by extremist groups. While there have been periods of mass arrests and at times, the government has used the Rapid Action Battalion to brutally suppress terror cells, at times, the government is seen as tolerating threats to avoid offending Islamic voters.
[34] Item 1.17 states that Bangladesh is a highly corrupt country. Corruption is pervasive at all levels of society and is endemic in the judicial system, police, and public services. The security situation in Bangladesh is volatile and can deteriorate quickly. Political interference and corruption operate to constrain the rule of law in Bangladesh. While some state institutions come to work to enforce the fundamental rights of citizens, insufficient funding and a lack of political support hamper their efforts.
[35] Item 1.6 Speaks to the oppression of Hindus in Bangladesh has been a consistent feature in its history. It goes on to say that activists have highlighted that violence towards Hindus is not perpetrated exclusively by extremist groups, but also local leaders and politicians have exploited tensions to consolidate their own positions. So, in light of the objective country documentation and the claimant’s particular circumstances, I find that on a balance of probabilities, the claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection and that adequate protection would not be available to her in Bangladesh.
[36] I have also considered whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for the objective. Evidence indicates that Bangladesh is a small country and states that Jamaat-e Islami is a national presence. I also note the evidence before me with respect to the claimant being an elderly Hindu woman who is a widow and recently diagnosed with XXXX.
[37] Based on the evidence before me, and the country condition documentation, and the claimant’s personal circumstances, I find that on a balance of probabilities there is not a safe or reasonable internal flight alternative available to the claimant.
[38] As such, I find a test for an IFA fails in the first prong — that the test for an IFA fails on either prong and therefore, there is no viable internal flight alternative for her in Bangladesh.
[39] In conclusion, based on the totality of the evidence, I find the claimant to be a Convention refugee. Therefore, I accept her claim.
——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———