2023 RLLR 190
Citation: 2023 RLLR 190
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: October 20, 2023
Panel: Richard Long
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Ameena Sultan
Country: Venezuela
RPD Number: TC2-28452
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2024-01010
ATIP Pages: N/A
DECISION
[1] MEMBER: These are the reasons for the decision in the claim for refugee protection made by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, file number is TC2-28452. Sir, you are claiming to be a citizen of Venezuela and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I have considered your testimony and the other evidence in your case, and I am ready to render my decision orally today.
[2] My determination is I find you do face a serious possibility of persecution in Venezuela, and I thus find you are a Convention refugee.
[3] Your allegations, in brief, are found in your Basis of Claim form at Exhibit 2 and were expanded upon through your testimony today. In short, you allege that you face a serious possibility of persecution in Venezuela due to, in part, your own political opinion as an opponent of the current regime in Venezuela, but that this risk is significantly heightened due to your family members who were more active, serious political activists in Venezuela, and who continue to be targeted in Venezuela and sought out through you. You allege that, again, while you were not a member of the party as your family members were, you were publicly opposed to the Maduro regime and participated in street protests. You faced threats in relation to attending those protests from local colectivos and so you stopped attending these protests out of fear in 2014, and began focusing more on social media activism, through, you testified, were multiple daily social media posts exposing the Maduro regime’s practices, as well as making personal complaints about the Maduro regime. You ceased this activity as well after your mother, again, who was a more active member of the opposition, Avanzada Progresista Party, or AP. She was assaulted by colectivos in 2017.
[4] I note that your mother, brother and stepfather, who are more prominent political activists, were prompted to flee Venezuela themselves and made refugee claims in Canada in 2017, which were successful. You tried to come with them but were denied a visa and then later were compelled to remain in Venezuela to care for your ailing grandmother. So, you remained in Venezuela but relocated to Maracaibo, a different location where you did take care of your grandmother for a number of years. You testified that while there you kept your political opinions hidden out of fear. You did not participate in any political activity and were essentially able to live without trouble due to keeping your political opinions and activity silent. However, you went back to your hometown of Barquisimeto in XXXX 2022 and were almost immediately located by the colectivos who had previously threatened and attacked your family, and they threatened you with death if you did not turn over your mother and brother. This prompted you to flee your home and make your way to Canada where you initiated your refugee claim upon your arrival here.
[5] Now, regarding identity, I note that you do not hold a current passport as you testified it was seized by US authorities when you arrived at the US border and were detained. You supplied a document at Exhibit 6 indicating that you were in the US in immigration deportation proceedings, which corresponds with the dates you declared. So, I do accept your testimony that your passport was seized by them. You did provide a copy of the bio page of that passport, the information which corresponds with your declared biographic identity information. You also provided originals of your Venezuela ID card and driver’s licence, which were seized by Canadian immigration authorities. The information in these documents corresponds, again, with your declarations and testimony. And I find through your testimony as well as the documentation you provided, you have established your identity on a balance of probabilities.
[6] Now, regarding nexus, I find that your fear of persecution involves somewhat intersecting nexuses. One, your own political opinion as an opponent of the Venezuelan regime. Even though you testified that you kept your opinions mostly to yourself out of fear, you were still targeted and threatened due to your expression of these opinions publicly through rallies and protests. You testified that the main danger you feel that you fear is from the colectivos‘ interest in your family members. So, I find you also have a nexus as part of a particular social group, that being a family member of a well-known and public regime opponent. Both political opinion and membership in a particular social group are Convention grounds. Therefore, I find that you do have a nexus to the Refugee Convention and assessed your claim pursuant to section 96.
[7] Regarding credibility, I note that there is a presumption of truthfulness in refugee proceedings and I find there is nothing to rebut that presumption today. I found you to be a very credible witness overall. You were able to speak spontaneously and in great detail on issues that were recounted in your Basis of Claim as well as other issues. You were able to give spontaneous and detailed testimony and there were no contradictions between what you said and your documentary evidence. So, I found you to be a credible witness overall. I find you have established on a balance of probabilities that you do hold strong anti-regime political opinions and were compelled to silence those opinions out of fear. Again, you testified in great detail about not only your activity as a political activist some years ago but your reasons for holding those political opinions, why you still hold them today, why you personally feel it is important to be a regime opponent and why you stopped these activities because you were afraid. A large reason why you stopped your activities, you testified, was due to the assault on your family members or assaults on your family members, I should say.
[8] At Exhibit 4 you included letters from your mother and brother who were both assaulted in relation to their political activities. I have no reason to doubt these documents and I assign them significant weight in establishing that they were assaulted in relation to their political activity, which I find corroborates your testimony on why you ceased your activity out of fear. The letters also corroborate the allegations that your family were deeply involved in politics and members of the opposition, AP Party. You also included letters from the AP Party at Exhibit 6 relating to your family members, which attests to their activities with the party and I afford, again, these documents significant weight in establishing that your family was heavily politically involved.
[9] You also credibly testified to having been threatened by colectivos in search of your mother and brother in XXXX 2022 when you returned to your hometown. While you have no statements from direct witnesses to this attack, as there was no one there but you, you did provide a letter from your aunt in Exhibit 4 who was compelled to take over the care of your grandmother from you on extremely short notice as you had to flee immediately to escape the danger. Again, she is not a witness but I can assign her letter some weight in establishing that you were forced to flee unexpectedly, which supports your credible testimony on being threatened in XXXX 2022.
[10] So, I find on a balance of probabilities you have established the central elements of your claim. You were politically active and remain a political opponent of the Maduro regime but ceased expressing that opinion out of fear of violence, that your family members were victims of violence for their anti-regime political activity, and that you were threatened in search of your family members by colectivos in XXXX 2022.
[11] I note that you fled your home almost immediately after your encounter in XXXX 2022 and then left Venezuela to make your way to Canada and initiated a refugee claim upon your arrival. You transited through the United States, so I did ask you if you made a refugee claim there. You testified that you believed US authorities understood that you intended to make a refugee claim but you never provided your reasons for seeking refugee status to them. You never saw any immigration judge or went through any formal procedure of any official kind in order to advance the claim. You testified that you were expected to appear before a judge, you believe, in XXXX 2022 but left the US before that appearance. I note at Exhibit 6 you did include a document from the US Homeland Security Office indicating that you were expected to appear for a deportation proceeding in XXXX 2022. No indication in this document of any refugee claim being made or any intention for them to hear a refugee claim. So, I accept your testimony and find that you did not make a refugee claim in the United States. I therefore do not believe that you may be ineligible to claim refugee protection here and it is not necessary to provide any notice to the Minister in that regard.
[12] Now, regarding not making any refugee claim in the US, I note that your family members were already in Canada. Your intention was to come to Canada. You were in the US for just a few weeks. It was a transit point. I do not draw a negative inference regarding your credibility or subjective fear from your failure to claim in the US.
[13] I also identified an issue of you not leaving Venezuela in 2017 when the rest of your family did and whether that raises any issues of subjective fear or credibility. You testified that you did intend to leave. You took steps to leave, first to Canada, but your visa was denied and then began gathering money and making plans to go to Chile with another few family members. However, these plans were scuttled due to the condition of your grandmother, who needed someone in the family to care for her, and it was decided that that would be you. I find that this is a compelling reason to remain in one’s country and I note that you essentially kept your political opinions secret and moved to a different town or a different city, I should say, to stay safe while caring for your grandmother. As I find it is a reasonable explanation for remaining in Venezuela, I do not draw a negative inference regarding your subjective fear or credibility and I find your subjective fear has been established on a balance of probabilities.
[14] Now, regarding objective support for your allegations, I turn primarily to the National Documentation Package for Venezuela in Exhibit 3, as well as disclosures submitted by you and your Counsel at Exhibit 5. Item 2.1 of the National Documentation Package indicates that the illegitimate Maduro regime continues to violate human rights in its attempt to solidify its authority in Venezuela, including unlawful and arbitrary killings, forced disappearances and torture by security forces. Item 2.17 indicates how protests, in which you participated, in response to the Maduro regime’s practices were met by widespread violence, which again matches your experience and that of your family. Item 2.3 indicates that security forces and armed pro-government groups, those colectivos that I referenced before, are known to attack protesters and thousands of protesters are illegally detained in relation to protests. Item 2.14 indicates the deepening political crisis in Venezuela, which continues and is only worsening, has resulted in serious restrictions to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association, and that there are again repeated attacks by pro-government armed civilian groups, those colectivos, on political opponents, demonstrators such as yourself.
[15] Regarding colectivos in particular, Item 4.16 indicates that they work alongside government forces in attacking protesters and participating in violent raids on protesters’ homes, which appears to have happened to your family, your mother in particular, and that they intimidate anti-regime protesters through various means. Item 4.19 indicates that the government shares intelligence with colectivos in order to enhance their ability to control and discipline government opponents and that colectivos hold serious power and connections to police and military as many colectivo members are police and military themselves who act in civilian clothing, to quote the item from the NDP, “to do the dirty work of the government”. Your evidence at Exhibit 5 also includes numerous articles about colectivos, again establishing that they work hand in hand with the government against government opponents.
[16] You, again, testified that you believe your primary risk comes from your being the son of your mother, who was a prominent activist, as well as the brother of a prominent activist as well. Items 1.6 and 1.7 detail how authorities do monitor and target family members of opposition party members and political activists, and that family members themselves are vulnerable to intimidation, harassment, arrest and unlawful detention. So, based on all this evidence, I find that your fear of harm as an opponent of the regime and also as a family member of more prominent opponents does have an objective basis along with your established subjective fear. You do have a well-founded fear of persecution in Venezuela.
[17] Regarding state protection, there is a presumption that states are capable of protecting their citizens unless there is clear and convincing evidence to rebut that presumption. You are a political opponent of the current regime. As I just discussed, the evidence indicates that the state is an agent of persecution in these cases, along with non-state agencies, colectivos, who are deeply intertwined with authorities, including the police. Therefore, the evidence before me indicates it would be unreasonable for you to seek the protection of the state when those very same agents are the persecutors in your situation. Therefore, I find the presumption of state protection has been rebutted in your case.
[18] I must also consider whether there is any viable internal flight alternative for you in Venezuela and this is something we discussed at length in your testimony today. I identified — and whether it would be reasonable and safe for you to relocate to any location in Venezuela. I identified Caracas and Maracaibo as potential locations. I note Maracaibo is a location where you did live for roughly three (3) years. Now, overall, the evidence indicates that the state’s capacity and ongoing interest in arbitrarily detaining and abusing citizens who oppose the regime exist throughout the country and the government of Venezuela or the regime of Venezuela, I should say, remains in control of the entirety of the state. Therefore, opponents of the Maduro regime are at risk throughout the country.
[19] I note that you were located and threatened with harm by colectivos almost immediately upon your return to Barquisimeto in 2021, which indicates that on a balance of probabilities they had maintained an interest in locating you and your family even four (4) to five (5) years after your other family members fled the city. I also note that the objective evidence indicates that colectivos work in concert with Venezuelan intelligence and police authorities throughout the country, which I find on a balance of probabilities would give them the means to find you. However, I note that you did live in Maracaibo for roughly three (3) years and were not tracked or harmed there, which I find indicates on a balance of probabilities that the colectivo members who sought you and your family out for harm in Barquisimeto do not hold the motivation to seek you out for harm in different locales outside your home area of Barquisimeto. However, you testified that in order to live safely, you had to keep your political opinions secret and refrain from any activism, any protests, any expression of your political opinions even in private conversation with neighbours. Your opinions of the Maduro regime had not changed or softened but you simply kept them to yourself out of fear.
[20] I note that the Federal Court has repeatedly found that the law does not require victims of politically-motivated persecution to abandon their political activism or their beliefs in order to live safely in a country. I find that you and your family were actively engaged in protests and political activism prior to being forced to cease that through violent threats and intimidation and I note that your political activism extends beyond attending rallies. It also was years of social media activism which you ceased out of fear. Expression of political opinion is a fundamental right. I find it would be unreasonable to expect you to spend the rest of your life keeping your political opinion or your family’s political history a secret as this is tantamount to expecting you to live in a sort of hiding, as you did in Maracaibo for three (3) years.
[21] You testified to a very specific concern in this regard, that being the neighbourhood committees that control the disbursement of propane, food and other basic essentials of life. You testified that these committees are highly politicized and that you yourself were compelled to, at least on one (1) occasion, lie about your own voting record and were consistently compelled to never express your true political opinion for fear of being discovered as an anti-Maduro supporter and having benefits cut off or, worse, to come to the attention of colectivos in Maracaibo as being an anti-Maduro supporter or to authorities themselves as an anti-Maduro supporter. This is supported in the objective evidence as well. Items 4.6 and 1.7 of the National Documentation Package indicate that there are severe consequences for people who refuse to cooperate with the government and support their activities and policies, and these punishments can include losing access to subsidized food and other necessities of life which are controlled by these neighbourhood committees. Documents also indicate that these neighbourhood committees are influenced by other government authorities as well as the colectivos. Sources argue that these programs of food delivery, propane delivery, et cetera, discriminate against critics of the Maduro government and support for Maduro can determine who receives these packages. So, in this way, they are able to exercise political and social control.
[22] So, I find on a balance of probabilities that you would continue to be forced to lie about your political opinion to receive the basic necessities of life and also to lie about your political opinion in order to avoid again being targeted by colectivos, whether (inaudible) from Barquisimeto or other colectivos which operate throughout Venezuela, in relation to your anti-Maduro political opinion. So, while I find your returning to a different locale in Venezuela would likely not result in your being pursued by the particular colectivo members who harmed your family and threatened you in Barquisimeto, I find you would need to keep your political opinion and political history of your family a secret in order to be safe in Venezuela in any location and that is an unreasonable expectation. Therefore, I find in your personal circumstances you would face a serious possibility of persecution throughout Venezuela due to your political opinion and it would be unreasonable for you in your personal circumstances to relocate and therefore, I find the test for a viable internal flight alternative fails and you do not have a viable internal flight alternative in Venezuela.
[23] For these reasons, I conclude you would face a serious possibility of persecution in Venezuela by reason of your political opinion and by reason of your membership in a particular social group, that being a family member of those with prominent political opinions. Therefore, I find you are a Convention refugee and your claim is accepted.
——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———