2023 RLLR 138
Citation: 2023 RLLR 138
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 6, 2023
Panel: R. Jackson
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Kingsley I Jesuorobo
Country: Angola
RPD Number: TC3-12392
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2024-00768
ATIP Pages: N/A
DECISION
[1] MEMBER: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX claims to be a citizen of Angola and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
[2] The claimant alleges a fear of physical harm and or death as the daughter of a woman whose sexual orientation was not accepted by society resulting in her murder. The claimant testified that her mother told her that she liked women. The claimant was insulted, called cursed, physically and sexually assaulted by her relatives over several years as a result of her deceased mother’s sexual orientation. She also fears further negative family reactions due to her refusal to participate in gender related — pardon me, gender-related traditional practices of Cabinda.
[3] The Panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee, pursuant to section 96 of the Act, as her fear of persecution is linked to at least one (1) of the five (5) Convention grounds, namely her membership in a particular social group as the female child of a woman whose sexual orientation was not accepted by society.
[4] In reaching this decision, the Panel considered the guidelines on women refugee claimants fearing gender related persecution. The Panel considered that various factors may affect the claimant’s ability to provide evidence, such as the sensitive nature of the allegations, cross-cultural misunderstandings, social and religious factors. The Panel took care not to ask unnecessary questions that may bring up traumatic memories. These guidelines also state that gender is an innate characteristic and may form a particular social group and the Panel considered whether this applies to the circumstances of the claimant.
[5] The Panel is satisfied with the claimant’s personal identity and status as a citizen of Angola on a balance of probabilities. Her identity was established based on her oral testimony and the documents she provided her passport.
[6] The claimant testified in a straightforward manner and there were no relevant inconsistencies between her testimony and the evidence provided that were not reasonably explained, taking into consideration the Gender Guidelines and the difficulty in discussing traumatic memories. The claimant provided sufficiently detailed testimony and was able to answer questions that were not reflected in her Basis of Claim form. The documents she provided in support of her claim, such as the death certificate of her mother and letters of support, were adequate to help establish the veracity of her claim in the context of her personal circumstances. In summary, there was sufficient reason to accept the claimant’s allegations as credible.
[7] The claimant’s past experiences of gender related sexual violence as well as domestic abuse were mainly perpetrated by members of her extended family who were likely motivated by the claimant’s mother’s sexual orientation. She also alleged that in 2016, on her last return to Angola, she was apprehended on her way home by men speaking her mother’s dialect and they insulted her and took her to a remote part of town to sexually assault her.
[8] The objective documentary evidence in the National Documentation Package, NDP, at Item 2.6 establishes that despite recent legislative changes, LGBTI+ individuals face significant problems in Angola, such as discrimination, intimidation and harassment by both non-state actors and state actors. The report says that the authorities have failed to protect LGBTI people against homophobic violence and to hold the perpetrators accountable. The justice system has poor infrastructure and lacks adequately trained and qualified personnel, which results in cases taking a long time to finalize. For LGBTI people, very few cases reach the courts and very few lawyers are willing to take on LGBTI cases.
[9] Item 6.4 of the NDP reports that despite several positive legal advances in recent years, violence and killings targeting LGBTQ+ individuals have been reported in the country since December 2020. Item 2.11 of the NDP reports that the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women and Human Rights — and the Human Rights Committee expressed concern about the failure to prohibit all forms of gender-based violence against women and girls in both the public and private spheres, and the inadequate assistance and remedies available to women seeking escape from domestic violence.
[10] Item 2.12 of the NDP noted the high number of reported cases of domestic violence and that consultations had revealed a failure to implement measures to protect victims of sexual and gender-based violence. Item 5.1 indicates that gender-based violence in Angola is a common occurrence and a portion of society still views it as a matter for the family, not suited for the justice system. There is a common belief that there will be stigma attached to women reporting gender-based domestic violence.
[11] The claimant’s profile as the daughter of a woman killed for her sexual orientation places her at risk of becoming a victim of sexual or gender-based violence in Angola. The claimant’s testimony concerning her living conditions in Angola was credible and spontaneous. She cannot return to live with any relatives in Angola, as they are her main abusers, and living with her father is not an option due to his lifetime of unsupportiveness and the fact that he does not want anyone to discuss her mother’s sexual orientation and shame him. The claimant has a high level of education, but no working experience in Angola.
[12] The Panel considers that being in Angola women and alleging a potential risk of being raped or persecuted without any other evidence to establish the well-foundedness of this fear would not justify the granting of refugee protection. The Federal Court expressed its opinion in this regard in Dezameau. However, in this case, the claimant testified concerning multiple particular risks, such as the fact that she cannot be sure who knows about what happened to her mother since she was assaulted by strangers in Luanda. In order to try to avoid family or community members who know of her problems, she would become a displaced person in Angola with no family support and who has been a victim of rape and domestic violence.
[13] The Panel considers that she has demonstrated, on a balance of probabilities, that there is more than a mere possibility that she would be a victim of gender-based violence if she were to return to Angola.
[14] Considering the claimant’s circumstances and the country conditions, as noted previously, the Panel finds there is clear and convincing evidence before it that adequate state protection would not be forthcoming if the claimant returns to Angola. According to NDP report 5.1, the true extent of gender-based violence is unknown because many attacks on girls and women are never reported. Reasons include fear of the attacker, fear of negative response by others, and the belief that the authorities will not take the case seriously.
[15] Item 5.2 of the NDP on Angola notes that there is underreporting of gender-based violence against women and girls owing to the social legitimization of violence, a culture of silence and impunity, the stigmatization of victims by health professionals and law enforcement officers, legal illiteracy and a lack of trust in law enforcement authorities.
[16] Consequently, I conclude that there is not adequate state protection for the claimant in this case. The claimant was born in Cabinda, but raised in Luanda after her mother’s murder when she was a young child. In order to avoid the stigma associated with her mother, the claimant would not only have to keep silent about what happened to her, but also about all the XXXX events which the claimant experienced in her own life. She testified that this silence has caused her emotional distress.
[17] With respect to an internal flight alternative, I conclude that the claimant has a serious possibility of gender related persecution everywhere in Angola. The objective documentation indicates that violence against women is systemic and generalized, and that the lack of adequate state protection extends across the country.
[18] The claimant testified at the hearing that she has recently married a permanent resident of Canada but was unsure if he would go to Angola with her should her claim be successful.
[19] Regarding the intersectional factor of the stigma associated with the claimant’s mother, Item 2.6 of the NDP notes that an LGBT shelter in Angola was invaded by three (3) armed men, but police did not pursue the case because they deemed the shelter to be a prostitution house since single women lived there. This indicates that the claimant would be more vulnerable in trying to establish a home for herself away from her family in Angola if she were alone.
[20] Furthermore, it was difficult for the Panel to identify a suitable IFA as there were varying levels of intersectional problems, such as sex trafficking and widespread famine which affect different parts of the country, limiting the safety and reasonableness of potential IFAs for a single female of the profile of the claimant. For that, you can see NDP Items 1.8 and, sorry, 5.6 as well.
[21] The Panel concludes the claimant’s subjective fear of being raped or subjected to other forms of sexual violence, if she returns to live in her country, is objectively well-founded and that it extends everywhere in Angola. Consequently, there is no IFA for her there, and therefore, the Panel concludes she has demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution in Angola.
[22] For those reasons, the Panel concludes the claimant is a Convention refugee, and accordingly, accepts her claim.
[23] And so the hearing is now concluded.
——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———