2023 RLLR 137

Citation: 2023 RLLR 137
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 20, 2023
Panel: C. Ruthven
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Omolola Fasina
Country: Colombia
RPD Number: TC3-09712
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2024-00768
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1]             MEMBER:  TC3-09712 and this is now the afternoon of Wednesday, December 20, 2023, but it is in relation to the morning of December 20, 2023.  XXXX XXXX XXXX, in regards to your claim for protection, I have considered your testimony as well as the other evidence on file, and I am ready to render my decision for your claim orally.  You were claiming protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.  Your claim is against Colombia.  You allege that the authorities in that country cannot provide you with adequate protection against the risks you face.

DETERMINATION

[2]             I find that you are a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act based on your imputed political opinion.

ALLEGATIONS

[3]             The details of your claim are documented in your Basis of Claim form responses, its related narrative found in Exhibit 2 as well as the narrative addendum found in Exhibit 6.  The details were elaborated upon this morning during your testimony.  In summary, you fear retribution from members of the National Liberation Army in Colombia, also commonly referred to by their Spanish language acronym ELN.  The genesis of your problems with this illegally armed group was your professional work as a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX XXXX.  The risk progressed when you refused to retract your signed work and your refusal to assist the illegally armed group.

Identity

[4]             I find that your identity as a national of Colombia has been established on a balance of probabilities based on the valid Colombian passport you presented when you made your claim for protection.  Copies of the passport are found in Exhibit 1, Exhibit 4, and Exhibit 5.  I find no reason to doubt the authenticity of your presented passport.  You testified that you are a citizen of no other country.

Credibility

[5]             With regards to your credibility, ma’am, I found you to be a credible witness.  You testified in a straightforward manner, and I find there were no relevant inconsistencies in your testimony or contradictions between your testimony and the other written evidence before me.  I also find that there were no embellishments made within your testimony this morning.  Therefore, I accept what you have alleged in support of your claim including the following.  You are a XXXX who has previously worked in XXXX XXXX in Colombia including XXXX XXXX from Bogotá and Cundinamarca Department and at a XXXX XXXX in XXXX XXXX Meta Department.  You began to personally face threats in Colombia on XXXX XXXX, 2021, when two (2) men identified as being members of the
National Liberation Army confronted you about your return to work in XXXX XXXX.  You were visited again and threatened by the same two (2) men on XXXX XXXX, 2021, after you refused to withdraw a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.

[6]             The following month, you relocated from Meta Department to Cundinamarca Department, where you worked as a XXXX on an XXXX.  On XXXX XXXX, 2022, the same men who threatened you in Meta Department subsequently visit you at a XXXX where you worked in XXXX, Cundinamarca.  You made denunciations to the Fiscalia in Meta Department and Cundinamarca Department within a day of the XXXX XXXX, 2021, threat and the XXXX XXXX, 2022, threat.  You departed Colombia on XXXX XXXX, 2022, and you entered Canada on the same date.  You entered Canada with authorisation to study.  During your studies, you testified virtually in regards to criminal proceedings related to a XXXX XXXX, 2019, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in Meta Department.  Your mother was subsequently threatened by a man on a motorcycle in XXXX, Cundinamarca Department.  On XXXX XXXX, 2022, the man demanded that you report to Meta Department to help members of the National Liberation Army.  You made your claim for refugee protection on December 30, 2022, and your claim was referred to the Refugee Protection Division on March 7, 2023.

[7]             I note the various corroborating documents that you presented in Exhibit 5, Exhibit 6, and Exhibit 7.  I find these documents were generally consistent with both your testimony and the other written evidence before me.  I elicited testimony from you regarding the date that your colleague in XXXX, Cundinamarca, provided for the events of XXXX XXXX, 2022.  His XXXX XXXX, 2023, letter is found in Exhibit 5.  You explained that he must have made a mistake on the date that he provided for the events.  I accept your explanation for the date discrepancy and I did consider that you also presented a Fiscalia denunciation filed at the nearby XXXX office of the Fiscalia on XXXX XXXX, 2022.  That denunciation, along with the other Fiscalia denunciations, is found in Exhibit 5.  I preferred to rely on the evidence documented by the authorities in Colombia, as those authorities likely do not know that you have made a claim for protection in Canada, nor would they have an obvious interest in the outcome of your claim for protection.  I find that, in their totality, the personal documents that you presented provide support to the relevant portions of your claim for protection.  I also relied on your testimony this morning, which I found to provide details of events, what I would expect from a person of your educational background, your work experience, and your international travel experience.  As such, I find that you are credible in regards to the fears that you have of returning to Colombia.

The Objective Basis of Your Claim

[8]             The overall objective evidence supports your claim that you face more than a mere possibility of persecution in Colombia based on your imputed political opinion in regards to your alleged agents of harm.  I carefully reviewed the country condition evidence that you presented in support of your claim found in Exhibit 5.  I find that there are personal documents and objective evidence to support that there is a risk of harm for you at the hands of members of the National Liberation Army in Colombia, namely the totality of the direct threats made against yourself and the indirect threats made against your family including the in-person threat that your mother received on XXXX XXXX, 2022, six (6) months after you entered Canada according to the passport entry stamp in Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 4.  You presented country condition evidence in Exhibit 5.  In addition to that, I looked at the country condition evidence in the current National Documentation Package for Colombia in Exhibit 3.  The National Documentation Package was most recently updated by the Immigration and Refugee Board on August 31, 2023.

[9]             There is a variety of evidence that women in Colombia are particularly targeted by armed groups.  There is a summary in Item 2.1, for example.  In Exhibit 5, you presented your academic qualifications as a XXXX XXXX in Colombia along with two (2) of your employment contracts where your XXXX XXXX were also noted.  The August 2023 Protection Considerations published by the United Nations High Commissioner for refugees found in Item 1.7 of Exhibit 3 specifically mention XXXX as one (1) of eight (8) professions that are more susceptible to extortion demands from armed groups and common criminals in Colombia.  The Protection Considerations reference financial extortion in particular, but I accept that extortion involving nonfinancial demands as you have alleged is a reasonable extension to the documented problems faced by XXXX.  Item 1.2 provides a historical background of the National Liberation Army as the last standing Marxist guerrilla group in Colombia.  Item 7.47 adds that this illegally armed group has a history that stretches back to July 4, 1964, including the use of force since January 7, 1965.

[10]        Item 1.2 estimates the current membership of the National Liberation Army as being 3000 and several documents including Item 1.2, Item 7.4, Item 7.23, Item 7.35, and Item 7.38 summarise the geographic areas covered by the National Liberation Army in Colombia as being substantial.  Item 7.23 and item 7.47 report that, since the demobilisation of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia or FARC, the National Liberation Army has moved into some of FARC’s former territory.  Item 7.47 also confirms that there is motivation to control new territory based on the desire on the part of the National Liberation Army to control a higher area of cocaine production and trafficking.  So, based on those considerations, I find that you have established an objective basis for your claim and that your fears are well-founded.

State Protection

[11]        I must consider if there is protection for you from the government, the police, and other authorities in Colombia.  In other words, I have to take your personal circumstances into the context of the criminal acts and threats committed against you, as well as your ability to seek redress from the authorities in Colombia.  You testified that you approached the Fiscalia on two (2) occasions, namely on
XXXX XXXX, 2021, in Mata Department and then on XXXX XXXX, 2022, in Cundinamarca Department.  The documents that you presented in Exhibit 5 confirmed your interactions with the Fiscalia on those two (2) dates.  I will start by acknowledging that the Colombian government has made efforts to combat armed groups including the deployment of thousands of troops.  These government efforts have resulted in the decrease in the rates of homicide over the past 11 years, as well as the rates of forced disappearances and kidnappings over the past 21 years.  Despite these successes by the authorities in Colombia, crimes such as extortion and drug trafficking continue as per the information contained in Item 1.8 of Exhibit 3.

[12]        Item 7.33 reports that a six (6)-month bilateral ceasefire between the government and five (5) illegally armed groups including the National Liberation Army expired at the end of June 2023.  Item 1.5 indicates that another six (6)-month ceasefire was reached between the government and the National Liberation Army in the same month that the previous agreement expired.  So, I find this short-term ceasefire renewal to be promising on the macro-scale, but I also note that these ceasefires solely relate to eliminating attacks against government personnel, government assets, and infrastructure.  In other words, these ceasefires do not directly relate to the covert targeting of individuals in Colombia.  Despite these government efforts to reduce the incidence of violence in Colombia, I note there is objective evidence that points to individuals, in particular profiles facing different sets of circumstances.  There continue to be reports of collusion of state actors including sectors of the security forces with paramount military successor and new criminal groups in Colombia according to item 7.2.

[13]        Item 1.8 confirms the Unidad Nacional de Protección or National Protection Unit is responsible for providing protection to individuals, groups, and communities who are at risk of direct consequences of their political, public, social, or humanitarian activities or roles.  The application of protection measures has been described as inconsistent.  According to item 7.23, the National Protection Unit uses its mandate to provide protection measures that depend on their risk evaluation.  Protection measures for victims of the armed conflict in Colombia are very limited according to Amnesty International.  Item 10.8 indicates that there is a lack of national protection unit resources, which makes protection ineffective, particularly in rural areas of Colombia.  Risk studies often take months and risk analyses rarely recommend urgent interim protection.  Security schemes vary enormously from mobile phones or self-protection courses, panic buttons, bulletproof jackets according to Item 7.29, Item 7.49, and Item 10.8.  Item 10.8 also confirms that the average time needed to implement protection measures upon completion of a risk analysis was 60 days for standard cases and five (5) days for emergency cases as of July 2022.  Figures released this year indicate the average time needed has increased to 62 days in regular cases according to Item 2.1.  Item 9.4 reports that protection strategies are often not tailored to the specific circumstances of those at risk.  I find that there is clear and convincing evidence that the authorities of Colombia would not be able to provide you with adequate protection and that you have rebutted the presumption of state protection.

Internal Flight Alternative

[14]        I have also considered whether an Internal Flight Alternative would be available for you in Colombia.  At the start of the hearing and based on the written evidence that was before me, I specifically put forth the cities of Cali, Medellin, and Barranquilla.  I carefully considered your testimony regarding your personal circumstances and I reviewed the objective country condition evidence, which is before me.  In particular, I examined the current influence and predominance of the National Liberation Army in Colombia as well as that group’s interest in inflicting harm to people in your particular position, particularly as a female XXXX who actively XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.  Although the objective country condition evidence supports that the National Liberation Army has been limited to certain geographic areas of Colombia over the past six (6) years according to Item 1.2, Item 7.4, Item 7.23, Item 7.35, and Item 7.38, I find that collectively members of the National Liberation Army maintain an elevated level of influence and predominance within Colombia.  Item 2.1 reports that illegally armed groups established checkpoints on rural roads and set their own curfews, which restricted movement and expanded the group’s territorial control.

[15]        International and Civil Society organisations also reported car bombs at egress routes and improvised explosive devices in areas where illicit crop cultivation and narcotics trafficking persisted.  The evidence published by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees or UNHCR found in Item 1.7 points to Internal Flight Alternatives not being available on areas where new armed groups operate and have a presence due to serious and widespread human rights abuses by those groups, which include
post-mobilisation groups and the National Liberation Army.  I find that the agents of harm who have targeted you in Colombia will have sufficient motivation and ability to find you wherever you might relocate in Colombia including the three (3) cities that I proposed at the start of the hearing.  As such, I find that this risk of harm is found throughout Colombia and that there are no viable Internal Flight Alternatives for you.

CONCLUSION

[16]        I find that there is more than a mere possibility that you face persecution in Colombia based on your imputed political opinion.  I conclude that you are a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and I, therefore, accept your claim.

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———