2023 RLLR 212

Citation: 2023 RLLR 212
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: October 12, 2023
Panel: M. Saleem Akhtar
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Steven Beiles
Country: Tajikistan
RPD Number: TC3-20750
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2024-01133
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION 

[1]                   MEMBER: This is the decision for XXXX XXXX, whose file is TC3-20750. 

[2]                   Madam, you allege to be a citizen of Tajikistan and claim refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “Act”). 

[3]                   Allegation of your claim are found in your Basis of Claim form, and Basis of Claim narrative, which you further elaborated at the hearing. In summary, you allege that you fear persecution from the state agents such as police, on account of your ethnicity as a member of the Pamiris ethnicity and your imputed political opinion by virtue of being a whistleblower to government officials’ corruption, which the senior government officials and state agencies deemed to be anti-government and anti-state, if you did not toe their line.

[4]                   In reaching my decision, I considered your sworn oral testimony as well as documentary evidence. 

[5]                   In terms of identity, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that you have established your personal identity, including ethnicity, as well as your country of reference, which is Tajikistan. For this determination, I relied on a certified copy of your Tajikistan passport and your sworn oral testimony. 

[6]                   As regards credibility, there were several challenges in your testimony in terms of lack of details and context, which I pointed out during the course of the hearing. However, on a balance of probabilities, I find your testimony to be credible, as it relates to the core of your claim, which is about your ethnicity as a Pamiri and your fear of harm and persecution in Tajikistan, on account of your ethnicity as well as political and imputed political opinion. 

[7]                   You credibly testified about your role as a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX who was against corruption. You did not want to give out government contracts, to be paid from the public exchequer, to undeserving vendors. Your approach and action was not appreciated by your senior management because it was going against their personal vested interests. Hence, first, they tried to allure you by offering some cash to go along with them, but when you resisted and refused to go against public and national interests, they turned against you. First, they truncated your official powers, harassed you at work and finally fired you from job. Their vindictive conduct did not end there. They used their influence over the law enforcement agencies, which, not only harassed you, but physically assaulted as well, causing you physical and emotional injuries, requiring medical treatment, which you received at a medical clinic. 

[8]                   Your testimony relating to your allegations and risk in Tajikistan was direct, spontaneous, and mostly materially consistent. I find you were able to provide ample description about what you did for the protection of national interests and what you suffered at the hands of people in authority who had their personal vested interests in this matter. You also credibly testified that, due to your raising voice against corruption within the department, and then, formally filing a complaint in this context, with the anti-corruption agency, demanding from the agency to launch an inquiry to find the truth, you were assaulted by two (2) unknown people who caused you physical and emotional injuries and threatened you to withdraw the complaint, otherwise face serious consequences. The matter did not end there. When you did not withdraw that complaint, rather started following it more vigorously, you were again assaulted with serious injuries, including nose bleeding, dislocated nose, and concussion. 

[9]                   In fear for your life, you decided to leave Tajikistan. In the meantime, you managed to secure a student visa for Canada and arrived in Canada in XXXX 2023 and filed refugee protection claim. 

[10]                   Madam, I find you to be a credible witness, on a balance of probabilities, relating to your allegations, as contained in your Basis of Claim narrative, and which you further elaborated in your testimony relating to fear of persecution and serious risk to your life in Tajikistan. 

[11]                   In addition, you have submitted documentary evidence to corroborate your allegations, which include identity documents, medical report, a copy of the complaint made to the anti-corruption agency, your work history, letters of support from family and friends, a letter from Shia Ismaili Community in Toronto, and country condition documentation in relation to the treatment of Pamiris at the hands of the state agents and those who fought against corruption in the government. I find no reason to doubt the authenticity of these documents, on a balance of probabilities. Therefore, I assign these documents weight, as they corroborate your central allegations. 

[12]                   Having assessed the evidence before me, which I find to be credible, on a balance of probabilities, I believe what you have testified in your oral testimony and alleged in your Basis of Claim form and narrative, namely that you belong to Pamiris ethnicity, and hold views, which are against the policies and mal-practices of the current government and its high officials in Tajikistan. 

[13]                   You fear that you would be arrested and subjected to persecution and harm, should you return to Tajikistan. Therefore, I find you have established your subjective fear. 

[14]                   With regard to an objective basis, I find that country condition documentation demonstrates the repressive and secretive nature of the Tajikistan government. For example, Item 2.1 of the National Documentation Package, also known as NDP, indicates that Tajikistan is an authoritarian state. The same NDP, Item 2.1 goes on to list several significant human rights issues, which include unlawful or arbitrary detention and killings by law enforcement authorities, torture and abuse of detainees by security forces, arbitrary and unlawful interference with privacy, severe restrictions on religious freedom and freedom of movement, restrictions on political participation, including through the prevention of genuine, free and fair elections, censorship, significant problems with the independence of the judiciary, and many more. 

[15]                   Item 2.4 of the NDP refers to Human Rights Watch reports, which note that Tajikistan’s abysmal human rights record is deteriorating. It further notes that Tajikistan is a country where the laws do not explicitly prohibit arbitrary arrests. Item 2.1 of the NDP notes that while defendants are afforded a presumption of innocence, in law, the fact is that the presumption does not exist in practice. The International Commission of Jurists noted that acquittal are extremely rare, and the defence bar had been severely undermined, resulting in no effective representation. 

[16]                   Item 4.5 of the NDP notes that the Judiciary, in Tajikistan, is de jure independent and institutionally differentiated but, in practice, it remains largely subordinated to the executive. Once charged, individuals are invariably convicted in all but the most exceptional circumstances. The Judiciary’s operation is severely constrained by functional deficits, such as rampant corruption, limited resources, and poor training. Rampant levels of corruption and abuse of power have remained part of Tajikistan’s political system, despite repeated presidential announcements that anti-corruption efforts are being stepped up, but actually nothing has happened in practice. There were very few prosecutions of government officials for human rights abuses. Furthermore, consistent with the claimant’s testimony, officials in the security services and elsewhere in the government act with impunity. 

[17]                   Based on the objective documentary evidence cited above, I find that the government of Tajikistan is a highly repressive, totalitarian regime, with no respect for the rule of law. I find you will face a serious possibility of persecution in Tajikistan, on the basis of your ethnicity and political and imputed political opinion by raising your voice against corrupt policies and practices of government functionaries. Hence, I find that your fears are objectively well-founded. 

[18]                   States are presumed capable of protecting their citizens. In this case, given that the state itself is one of the agents of persecution through its agents such as police, I find the presumption of adequate state protection has been rebutted. I find, on a balance of probabilities, that, considering your circumstances, there is no adequate state protection available, should you return to Tajikistan. 

[19]                   Further, since the state is one of the agents of persecution, and given that it is in control of the entirety of its territory, I find you face a serious possibility of persecution throughout Tajikistan. Hence, I find, on a balance of probabilities, there is no viable internal flight alternative available to you in Tajikistan because the situation, throughout Tajikistan, is more or less the same. 

[20]                   Based on the totality of the evidence, I find you, Madam XXXX XXXX, to be a Convention refugee within the meaning of section 96 of the Act. Therefore, I accept your claim for refugee protection.  

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———