2023 RLLR 143
Citation: 2023 RLLR 143
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 10, 2023
Panel: Osehise L. Odigie
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Ruth Williams
Country: Angola
RPD Number: VC1-06595
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2024-00768
ATIP Pages: N/A
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
[1] This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX (the ‘claimant’) as a citizen of Angola who is claiming refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “Act”)[1].
ALLEGATIONS
[2] The claimant’s allegations are set out in his Basis of Claim (BOC) form, narrative[2] as well as his testimony. In summary, the claimant was a XXXX with the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX an XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, from 2015 as well as a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The claimant in collaboration with others and the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX a report on prostitution and child labour perpetuated by a human trafficking network which implicated three XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX who are high ranking police offices.
[3] After the publication of the report XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in 2020, the claimant started receiving threats through anonymous phone calls, the XXXX XXXX terminated his employment, and he was physically attacked by unknown persons in XXXX 2021. He was dismissed from his role on XXXX XXXX, 2021 as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX which is under the XXXX XXXX XXXX. The claimant reported the attacks to the police, XXXX and the law firm used in the XXXX wrote to the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights without any response. The claimant was abducted and held hostage by from XXXX XXXX, 2021 and was rescued by some members of the Special Armed Forces on XXXX XXXX, 2021, he went to a Jesuit Father’s home who helped facilitate his exit from Angola through the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
[4] The claimant entered Canada and made a claim, he fears for his life if he were to return to Angola.
DETERMINATION
[5] The panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the Act.
ANALYSIS
Identity
[6] With respect to the issue of identity, the claimant’s identity as a national of Angola has been established by the sworn statement in his BOC form,[3] his testimony and certified copy of his Angolan passport.[4]
Nexus
[7] For a claimant to be a Convention refugee the fear of persecution must be by reason of one of the five grounds enumerated in the Convention refugee definition. The claimant must have a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
[8] The claimant is a XXXX and an XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX who XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX human trafficking and corruption that implicated top ranking police officers. The agents of persecution have threatened the claimant and abducted him in response to the XXXX and his stand against human trafficking and corruption which implicated them. The courts have held that an individual knowledge of or opposition to corruption may constitute political opinion.[5] The courts have further held that political opinion expressed in the form of denunciation of state officials’ corruption may form the basis of a political opinion[6]. The panel finds that this falls under imputed political opinion and therefore the claim will be assessed under Sec 96.
Credibility
[9] When a claimant swears to the truth about his or her allegations, it creates a presumption that those allegations are true unless there is reason to doubt their truthfulness.[7] In the present case, the claimant testified in a genuine and straightforward manner, and provided documentary evidence which corroborated key aspects of his claim.
[10] The claimant testified about his work and his XXXX XXXX in collaboration with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX with regards to the human trafficking network in Angola particularly Benguela, Bie and Huambo and in the city of Luanda, his fears about the three senior officers of the National Police who are also XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX namely XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. He further testified about his abduction, release and exit from Angola. The panel found the claimant to be credible.
[11] The claimant submitted documentary evidence to corroborate aspects of his claim including:[8]
i. Claimant’s employment identity card showing employment with the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX,
ii. Claimant’s pay stubs from the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
iii. Claimant’s employment contract with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX stating claimant’s duties and responsibilities signed by XXXX XXXX,
iv. Picture of claimant with XXXX from the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX,
v. Proof of claimant’s membership in XXXX
vi. Report on human trafficking published in XXXX 2020 which implicated senior officials of the National Police XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX,
vii. Letter by XXXX to Minister of Internal Affairs about the claimant dated XXXX XXXX, 2021, on the report XXXX XXXX XXXX and complaint against senior police officials,
viii. Letter to Minister of Justice and Human Rights dated XXXX XXXX, 2021, on the report XXXX XXXX XXXX and complaint against senior police officials,
ix. Copy of Dismissal letter from the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX dated XXXX XXXX, 2021,
x. Police report made by claimant on XXXX XXXX, 2021 about the attack on him by two individuals and his suspicion that the attack was caused by XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX,
xi. Medical report for claimant dated XXXX XXXX, 2021 showing injuries and treatment received,
xii. Letter of support from XXXX dated XXXX XXXX, 2022 corroborating the XXXX XXXX XXXX which led to threats and attacks on the claimant, his abduction and his escape,
xiii. Letter of support from XXXX XXXX XXXX, a XXXX XXXX of the claimant corroborating the XXXX and dismissal of the claimant,
xiv. Letter of support from claimant’s friend and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, who has collaborated with the claimant and XXXX in the past corroborating the investigation and report,
xv. Copies of the identity cards of XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, with a letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX, a XXXX XXXX at the National Police stating that she provided the copies of the identity cards,
xvi. Email communication from the claimant to XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX requesting further documentation with regards to his exit from Angola
xvii. Email from XXXX XXXX XXXX informing the claimant that XXXX XXXX XXXX was dead and possibility of providing a statement to the claimant,
xviii. Email from XXXX XXXX XXXX dated XXXX XXXX, 2023, detailing the closure of XXXX XXXX XXXX and one staff dead and another missing,
xix. Email of support from XXXX XXXX, who was part of the claimant’s rescue team dated XXXX XXXX, 2023 confirming the abduction and rescue of claimant by some members of the Special Armed Forces and the death of Mr XXXX XXXX who had continued the advocacy against human trafficking
[12] Upon review of the documents, the panel has no reason to doubt the authenticity of any of the documents and accepts them as corroborative of the core allegations advanced by the claimant and places full weight on them.
[13] Based on the overall credibility of the claimant’s testimony, the presumption of truthfulness, and the corroborative evidence, the panel finds, on a balance of probabilities that the claimant worked in various capacities including as XXXX XXXX for XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX a report implicating several people including XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX who are senior police officers, in a human trafficking ring which led to the termination of his employment, threats and abductionI. The panel further finds that the claimant fled Angola with help received from the Jesuit community and some people involved in the XXXX are now missing and one dead in Angola.
[14] Given the claimant’s credible testimony and evidence, the panel finds that the claimant has established a subjective fear of persecution.
Well-Founded Fear of Persecution
[15] In Ward[9], the Supreme Court of Canada held that the test for establishing a fear of persecution is bi-partite in nature. Refugee claimants must establish both that they have a subjective fear of persecution if they return to their home country and that their fear is well-founded in an objective sense. The subjective component relates to the existence of fear of persecution in the mind of the refugee and the objective component requires that the refugee’s fear be evaluated objectively to determine if there is a valid basis for that fear.[10] The law is very clear that the definition of Convention refugee is forward-looking. As articulated by the Federal Court of Appeal in Mileva, “[t]he question raised by a claim to refugee status is not whether the claimant had reason to fear persecution in the past, but rather whether he now, at the time his claim is being decided, has good grounds to fear persecution in the future.”[11]
[16] A report on the findings on the worst forms of child labour states that children in Angola are subjected to the worst forms of child labour including commercial sex exploitation as a result of human trafficking with girls as young as age 12 subjected to human trafficking and commercial sex exploitation. The report further states that although the government of Angola has established laws, there are however gaps in the framework and the scope insufficient to fully address the extent of the problem.[12] Department of State reports that Human trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation of children is illegal. The report states that although exploitation is illegal, the police do not actively enforce laws against commercial sexual exploitation, and local NGOs expressed concern regarding the sexual exploitation of children and reports that limited investigative resources and an inadequate judicial system prevented prosecution of most cases. The National police is part of the enforcement bodies for these crimes however the report states that the national police have internal court system that generally remains closed to outside scrutiny.[13]
[17] The claimant XXXX a human trafficking ring which was involved in prostitution and implicated senior officials of the National Police who are also XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The Department of State report further states that although the government has taken significant steps to identify and punish officials who commit abuses, accountability for human right abuses was limited due to lack of checks and balances as well as lack of institutional capacity and government corruption.[14]
[18] Freedom House reports that Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) working on human rights and governance are closely monitored in Angola while academics must maintain a facade of agreement to the ruling party and the government’s narrative or risk losing their positions. The report further states that those who voice their dissent are often monitored.[15] This is consistent with the claimant’s allegations, he was an XXXX who was also involved in an XXXX and XXXX a document that implicated senior officials who are also XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and this led to him losing his job and attempts made on his life.
[19] Angola has a problem with human trafficking and commercial sex exploitation, the claimant XXXX on this issue and the report implicated several senior officials of the police and government. The claimant has been threatened, targeted and lost his jobs due to this report. The panel finds that the claimant has established a subjective fear of persecution in Angola. The panel also find that the objective evidence establishes that the claimant’s fear of persecution is objectively well-founded. The panel finds that there is a serious possibility of persecution if the claimant were to return to Angola.
State Protection
[20] Except in situations where the state is in complete breakdown, states must be presumed capable of protecting their citizens. To rebut this presumption, the onus is on the claimant to establish, on a balance of probabilities and through clear and convincing evidence, that their state’s protection is inadequate.[16] The panel notes that the more democratic a state, the harder it is to displace this presumption[17] The panel finds that this presumption has been rebutted in this case.
[21] The claimant testified that he went to the police to make a report however there was no investigation or conclusion on the matter. Listed above in the corroborating documents are letters written to different Ministries on the report and its implication of senior officers without any result. There is no independent judiciary in Angola and constitution guarantees of due process are poorly upheld. Report states that security forces enjoy impunity for violent acts including torture and extrajudicial killings committed against detainees and activists with the frequency increased in the recent years.[18]
[22] The panel accepts the claimant’s evidence that he is a victim of a targeted campaign of violence from a group of senior police force members who are involved in human trafficking and actively threatened and detained him with impunity due to the report the claimant XXXX. These senior officers are part of the government with government resources at their disposal. Reports have been made to various Ministries without any outcome. The claimant testified and the panel accepts, that the lack of investigation and resolution on the report filed was as a combination of fear of the senior police officers who are higher in rank as well as fear of death by the police officers. The panel notes that the claimant was rescued by some members of the Special Armed Forces, however, the team who conducted the rescue operation have all fled Angola as this was not an official operation.[19]
[23] Considering the objective country condition evidence, the panel finds that one cannot reasonably expect the claimant to receive adequate state protection from the very agents of harm that they fear. The panel therefore finds that the presumption of state protection has been rebutted with clear and convincing evidence that the state would be unwilling or unable to provide them with adequate protection.
Internal Flight Alternative
[24] The Federal Court of Appeal in Rasaratnam,[20] developed a two-prong test when assessing IFA, which entails a consideration of two matters: the RPD must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that (1) there is no serious possibility the claimant would be persecuted or subjected personally to a risk of s. 97(1) harm in the proposed IFA, and (2) conditions in the proposed IFA are such that it would not be unreasonable, in all of the circumstances, including those particular to the claimant for him or her to seek refuge there.
[25] The panel identified Lubango as an internal flight alternative and finds that the claimant cannot relocate there or any other part of Angola.
Will the claimant be safe in Lubango?
[26] The claimant testified that this human trafficking ring is wide with several people working for them including police officers and citizens. The panel finds there is means and motivation to find the claimant. The claimant XXXX a report that named senior officers as complicit in a human trafficking ring, this is enough motivation to search to the claimant. Collaborators of the XXXX have been killed and some disappeared with the law firm closed. Objective report above show that the police act with impunity, the people the claimant fear are senior police officers with resources of the National police at their disposal. Report shows that the Angolan police in general use unnecessary force including unlawful killings to crack down on dissent. [21]
[27] Considering that the police officers have the motivation and means to find the claimant, the panel finds that the claimant is not safe in Lubango and in all of Angola as the agents of persecution have the resources of the government at their disposal in searching for the claimant. Therefore, IFA fails on the first prong.
CONCLUSION
[28] For the reasons above, the panel finds that the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution in Angola. The claimant is a Convention Refugee pursuant to section 96 and the panel accepts his claim.
——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———
[1] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.
[2] Exhibit 2, Basis of Claim Forms
[3] Exhibit 2
[4] Exhibit 1, Claim referral information from CBSA/IRCC
[5] Marino Gonzalez, Francisco v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-3094-10), Russell, March 30, 2011; 2011 FC 389 at paras 58-60
[6] Klinko v. Can. (M.C.I.) (2000), 251 N.R. 388 (FCA)
[7] Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1980] 2 F.C. 302, 31 N.R. 34 (C.A.)
[8] Exhibit 5, Claimant’s disclosure (supporting documents such as proof of employment, membership of organization, reports made, medical notes, letters of support) January 13, 2023, Exhibit 7, Claimant’s disclosure ( email from law office ) January 26, 2023 and exhibit 8, Claimant’s disclosure ( letter from XXXX) January 26, 2023
[9] Ward: Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, 103 D.L.R. (4th) 1, 20 Imm. L.R. (2d) 85.
[10] Rajudeen, Zahirdeen v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-1779-83), Heald, Hugessen, Stone (concurring), July 4, 1984. Reported: Rajudeen v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1984), 55 N.R. 129 (F.C.A.), at 134.
[11] Mileva v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1991] 3 F.C. 398 (C.A.) at para 8.
[12] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Angola, 30 June 2022, tab 5.5: Angola. 2020 Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor. United States. Department of Labor. 29 September 2021.
[13] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Angola, 30 June 2022, tab 2.1: Angola. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2021. United States. Department of State. 12 April 2022.
[14] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Angola, 30 June 2022, tab 2.1: Angola. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2021. United States. Department of State. 12 April 2022.
[15] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Angola, 30 June 2022, tab 2.4: Angola. Freedom in the World 2022. Freedom House. 2022.
[16] Sokoli v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1072 (“Sokoli”), para. 15.
[17] Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Kadenko [1996] FCJ No. 1376.
[18] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Angola, 30 June 2022, tab 2.4: Angola. Freedom in the World 2022. Freedom House. 2022.
[19] Exhibit 8, Claimant’s disclosure ( letter from XXXX) January 26, 2023
[20] Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (C.A.).
[21] Exhibt 3, National Documentation Package, Angola, 30 June 2022, tab 10.3: Authorities escalate use of excessive force to crack down on dissent. Amnesty International. 8 December 2020.