2023 RLLR 136

Citation: 2023 RLLR 136
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 21, 2023
Panel: Jonathan Rasool
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Mary E Boyce
Country: Cameroon
RPD Number: TC3-06229
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2024-00768
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1]             MEMBER: This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division for XXXX XXXX XXXX. You are claiming to be a citizen of Cameroon and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

ALLEGATIONS

[2]             Your allegations are fully set out in your Basis of Claim form. In short, if your persecution and a risk to your life in Cameroon on the basis of your imputed political opinion due to your humanitarian work in the Anglophone regions. You allege that you were stopped and detained several times by the Cameroonian military who warned you that humanitarian aid had been banned in the northwest and southwest regions. You also fear harm from the separatist fighters who accused you of being a spy for the military.

DETERMINATION

[3]             I find that you would face a serious possibility of persecution in Cameroon, and you are a Convention refugee on the grounds of political opinion.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[4]             Your personal identity as a citizen of Cameroon has been established on a balance of probabilities by your testimony and the copy of your passport filed in Exhibit 1.

Credibility

[5]             In terms of your general credibility, I find you to be a credible witness. And therefore, I believe what you have alleged in your oral testimony and Basis of Claim form. Your evidence was detailed and consistent, both internally and with your documentation. Throughout the hearing, you articulate, responsive, and forthright. You were able to elaborate on your narrative and you gave explanations to the questions that I asked. There were no material inconsistencies, contradictions, or omissions that were not reasonably explained, such that the presumption of truthfulness could be rebutted.

[6]             You spoke in vivid detail about why you felt compelled to provide humanitarian aid to people hiding in the bush in Anglophone regions of Cameroon. You testified that it was part of who you were, and you enjoyed putting smiles on people’s faces. You stated that even though your life is at risk, if you were forced to return to Cameroon, you would continue to support others. You credibly described what it was like being arrested and detained by the military and the poor conditions you were subjected to. You emotionally explained how guilty you felt because your mother was killed by Cameroonian soldiers when they when they came looking for you.

[7]             I note that your claim is supported by personal evidence filed in Exhibits 5, 6, 7, and 8. This evidence includes two (2) medical reports, affidavits from your Cameroonian lawyer, your wife, your friend, and your father, and an arrest warrant. They corroborate that you were detained several times by the Cameroonian military and required medical detention when you were released, that they issued a warrant for your arrest after you had left for Canada, and that they continue to search for you. The documents do not have any apparent issues on their face and contain a level of detail one (1) would expect of said documents. There are no inconsistencies or contradictions between the support letters and your testimony. I therefore assignment significant weight in corroborating your allegations.

[8]             Accordingly, on the whole, in terms of your general credibility, I found you to be a credible witness. The evidence establishes on a balance of probabilities that you are wanted by the Cameroonian police and military for your suspected involvement with the separatist fighters. I find that your subjective fear is established by your credible and corroborated testimony.

Objective Basis

[9]             I also find that this claim is objectively well-founded. In making this finding, I am referring to the National Documentation Package or NDP for Cameroon, which is dated April 28th, 2023, and is filed at Exhibit 3. It is reported at Item 13.2 of NDP that Anglophones represent approximately 20 percent of the population in Cameroon and Anglophone regions are located in the northwest and southwest of Cameroon. Anglophones are marginalized and discriminated against by the majority Francophone government officials in the public service and military. Cameroonian authorities respond to protests with support force leading to arrest, injuries, and death.

[10]        Item 2.5 of the NDP notes that armed groups and government forces committed human rights abuses, including mass killings across Cameroon’s Anglophone regions. As a crisis in the Anglophone regions continued unabated for the sixth year, over 598,000 people were internally displaced as of August 2022, and at least 2 million people were in need of humanitarian aid in the northwest and southwest regions. Security forces responded to separatist attacks with a heavy hand, often targeting civilians across the Anglophone regions.

[11]        According to Item 4.4 of the NDP, International Crisis Group reports that kidnappings by separatist groups for ransoms are common. It indicates that the conflict in the Anglophone region is causing a major humanitarian crisis, with 530,000 internally displaced people and 35,000 refugees in Nigeria, mostly women and children. I find the documentary country evidence supports your allegations of persecution by the Cameroonian military if you were to return to Cameroon. I therefore find that your subjective fear of persecution is objectively well-founded.

State Protection

[12]        Except in situations where the state is in complete breakdown, states are presumed capable of protecting their citizens. To rebut this presumption, the onus is on the claimant to establish on a balance of probability through clear and convincing evidence that their state protection is inadequate. In this case, one (1) of the agents of persecution is the state and the persecution you would face if returned to Cameroon is at the hands of state authorities. I find that it would not be objectively — it would be objectively unreasonable for you to seek state protection in Cameroon. Accordingly, I find that you have rebutted the presumption of adequate state protection.

IFA

[13]        I have also examined whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for you. Based on the evidence on file, I find that you would face a serious possibility of persecution throughout Cameroon because the government is in control of all its territory and the government is an agent of persecution in this claim. Therefore, there is no viable IFA for you.

CONCLUSION

[14]        In conclusion, based on the totality of the evidence in my analysis above, I find that you have established a serious possibility of persecution under the Convention ground in Cameroon. I therefore find you to be a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA, and I accept your claim.

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———