2023 RLLR 227
Citation: 2023 RLLR 227
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 6, 2023
Panel: Tereza Kazieva
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Harsher Singh Sidhu
Country: Turkiye
RPD Number: VC3-08309
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2024-01133
ATIP Pages: N/A
DECISION
[1] MEMBER: These are the reasons for the decision in the claim of XXXX XXXX, a citizen of Türkiye, who is claiming refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
ALLEGATIONS
[2] The claimant’s Basis of Claim form as well as his — sorry. The claimant’s Basis of Claim contains his allegations. In short, the claimant fears persecution in Türkiye because he is an ethnic Kurd. The claimant is an ethnic Kurd from the city of Ağrı in Türkiye. The claimant experienced numerous instances of discrimination based on his ethnic background. He was bullied at school and called derogatory names because of him being a Kurd. When the claimant entered XXXX in 2020 in the city of XXXX, he continued experiencing discrimination. He was not able to speak in his native tongue because students in XXXX harassed and bullied him. The claimant sympathized with the Peoples’ Democratic Party, HDP, because HDP advocates for the rights of Kurds, but he was not able to express his political opinion out of fear of persecution.
[3] On XXXX XXXX, 2022, the claimant’s father came to visit (inaudible) in XXXX. They sat at the XXXX compound outside. His father received a phone call from — and the ringer was a Kurdish song. The call was from the claimant’s grandmother who did not speak Turkish. When the claimant’s father started speaking Kurdish on the phone, some students attacked the claimant and his father. The claimant and his father started defending themselves. The XXXX security guards came, but instead of helping the claimant and his father, they took the attackers aside. When the police came, they detained the claimant and his father but did not detain any of the attackers. The police kept them in the police station for about two (2) hours and let them go and discouraged them of complaining, telling that bad thing could happen to them if they do.
[4] The claimant was fearful to go back to XXXX. In XXXX 2022, he travelled to Mexico, and from Mexico he went to the United States. In the United States, he was detained by the immigration authorities. Once released, the claimant crossed the Canadian border and claimed refugee protection in July 2022. The claimant was given an interview with CBSA in August 2023. He signed his Basis of Claim form, BOC, in August 2023.
DETERMINATION
[5] I find the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA.
[6] I find the claimant has established a nexus to the Convention ground of ethnicity, leading me to assess his claim under section 96 of the IRPA.
ANALYSIS
Identity
[7] The claimant’s identity is established based on the copy of his passport from Türkiye. I accept that he is a national of Türkiye and no other country.
Credibility
[8] In line with the Federal Court’s decision in Maldonado v. Canada, a claimant’s sworn testimony creates a presumption that the individual’s allegations are true unless there is a serious reason to doubt their truthfulness. In this case, I find the claimant to be credible, consistent, and sincere and forthright in his testimony regarding the persecution he experienced as a Kurd in Türkiye.
[9] The claimant also submitted documents in support of his claim, including a letter from the Canadian Kurdish Community Centre in Toronto confirming his Kurdish identity. He also provided a copy of his student ID card. I have no reason to doubt their authenticity and will put full weight in assessing this claim.
[10] I accept the central allegations of the claimant’s application as outlined in the allegations section above. I accept that the claimant is a Kurd who has suffered persecution from the state and society throughout his life, including the most recent incident in XXXX 2022 when he was attacked by students, and the police, instead of protecting him, threatened the claimant. As such, given these findings, I find that the claimant has established on a balance of probability that he has a genuine subjective fear of persecution in Türkiye.
Well-Founded Fear of Persecution
[11] Based on the claimant’s testimony and the available documentary evidence, I find that he has a well-founded fear of persecution in Türkiye. The claimant is a Kurd from the city of Ağrı who experienced discrimination in school and at the XXXX. His family made a conscious decision to not teach their children Kurdish because they were afraid of discrimination that their children would face in future. The claimant learned Kurdish as a second language. The claimant was bullied and called names in school because of his Kurdish background. School did not do anything to stop bullying that was based on his ethnic origins. In XXXX, he was not able to speak Kurdish with his Kurdish friends because other students would harass and tell him that in Türkiye people should speak Turkish only. When the claimant entered XXXX in XXXX in 2020, his father told him to not get involved with Peoples’ Democratic Party because he was afraid that his son would be persecuted. The claimant wanted to participate in the HDP’s activities but was too afraid of persecution and did not attend the party’s events. The claimant was not even able to attend celebrations for new year called Newroz, which is celebrated by Kurds, because of the threat from students. He was afraid that someone would (inaudible) him attending Kurdish celebrations and that would cause him problems in life.
[12] I find that the National Documentation Package, NDP, provides objective evidence regarding the claimant’s subjective fears of persecution in Türkiye. The evidence indicates that Kurds are facing persecution, including a crackdown on Kurdish populations and restriction on Kurdish linguistic, social, cultural, and economic activities. This is Item 13.1. The situation was worsened for Kurds after executive orders that made it easy for Turkish authorities to arrest Kurds without due process, permissive intolerance against Kurds. This is Item 2.1. According to Item 13.12 of the NDP, discrimination is often based on the association of Kurdish identity with the PKK or terrorism.
[13] A part of the population carries many prejudices about the Kurds. Discrimination can go as far as a hate crime. Certain factors seem to encourage this violence against the Kurdish population, in particular hate speech, racism, impunity, and even political nationalists. The number of these acts of discrimination (inaudible) individual or collective can vary depending on different factors. Thus, they are more numerous, and some are due to the arrival to the rest of the country of Kurdish seasonal agricultural workers. For example, in 2018, a worker — a Kurdish seasonal agricultural worker was attacked and lynched for singing a song in the Kurdish language.
[14] The Kurds are also more easily targeted by the population when the intensity of the clashes between the PKK and the Turkish state is more significant. Thus, according to sources, since the last outbreak of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict in July 2015, the destruction of Kurdish grocery stores has increased. Anti-Kurdish sentiment also increased after the attempted coup of July 2016 or during the Turkish operations in the Kurdish region of northeast. Certain acts of violence against the Kurds are carried out by the organization called (inaudible) better known and formally as Grey Wolves. There is credible evidence that Kurds are systematically targeted on the basis of their Kurdish identity when they speak Kurdish in public, leading many Kurds not to speak Kurdish and contributing to a generation of young Kurds who speak little Kurdish despite it being their mother tongue. This is what precisely the claimant explained at the hearing, and this is Item 13.1 of the NDP.
[15] The objective evidence further indicates that the most serious human rights abuses committed by Turkish authorities include arbitrary arrest, torture, arbitrary killings, imprisonment of political opposition, and restrictions on freedom of expression and assembly, and impunity remains a problem. This is Item 2.1 Kurds face persistent structural and historical discrimination resulting in high levels of poverty. There is an unspoken and yet socially shared antagonism against Kurds by the rest of Turkish society. Endemic discrimination faced by Kurds impacts them in all aspects of life, from major events like finding employment to everyday events like speaking their language in public. Kurds are the worst affected on indicators of well-being, including literacy rates, income disparity, unemployment rates, and poverty levels.
[16] According to NDP 13.12, the southeast of the country, a region mainly inhabited by people of Kurdish origin, has a higher poverty rate, fewer (inaudible), fewer public investments and less access to public services. The Kurdish unemployment rate is 28.76 percent. Kurds have a high unemployment rate and longer periods of unemployment than Turkish people with the same level of diploma. A higher level of education is not correlated among Kurds with a probability of better employment unlike the Turks. Kurds are mainly employed as casual and self-employed workers, many of them working in the field of agriculture and construction. They continue to be under-represented in senior position level.
[17] Kurds are less educated than Turks. Several NGOs and researchers warn of the discrimination that Kurdish people face looking for a job and accessing a promotion or even when looking for a premises to rent to create your business. According to the same Tab 13.12, state agents would less easily grant social assistance to Kurdish people, particularly since the resumption of the conflict in 2015. According to the IRB’s Response to Information Request report on non-discrimination in Türkiye published in 2019 with a reporting period covering 2017, the European Commission noted among key issues that discriminatory and hate speech and conduct against minorities, particularly the Kurds, amongst other groups, is rampant in daily life, political discourse, and the media. This is Item 13.1.
[18] Considering all of the evidence before me and the claimant’s testimony about the treatment he has experienced as a Kurd, I find that the claimant would face a serious risk of discrimination amounting to persecution if he was to return to Türkiye. The evidence before me indicates that Kurds face persistent and entrenched systemic discrimination in Türkiye. Kurds also face a lack of access to employment and social services. Kurds are systematically denied access to jobs, education, housing, and state protection. I find that the claimant would not able to participate in Turkish society with a basic level of dignity based on his ethnicity as a Kurd. This discrimination would be persistent, pervasive, and serious, and amounts to persecution. I therefore find the claimant’s fear is objectively well-founded and forward-facing. As such, I find that there is more than a mere possibility of persecution should the claimant return to Türkiye.
State Protection and Internal Flight Alternative
[19] Given that the state is one (1) of the agents of harm, I find that there is no state protection available to the claimant. Further, given the Turkish state’s capacity and ongoing interest in arbitrarily detaining and abusing Kurds across Türkiye, I find that the claimant would face a serious risk of persecution throughout Türkiye. As such, I find that there is no viable internal flight alternative available to the claimant.
CONCLUSION
[20] For the foregoing reason, I find that the claimant is a Convention pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA. As such, the Board accepts his claim. This is the end of the decision.
——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———