2023 RLLR 228
Citation: 2023 RLLR 228
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 11, 2023
Panel: Kenzie Wingert
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Tewolde Woldu Yohannes
Country: Eritrea
RPD Number: VC3-08343
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2024-01133
ATIP Pages: N/A
DECISION
[1] MEMBER: This is a decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada concerning XXXX XXXX XXXX, the claimant, a citizen of Eritrea. She seeks protection pursuant to section 96 and section 97, one of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
DETERMINATION
[2] I find the claimant as a refugee pursuant to Section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, as she faces a serious possibility of persecution due to her religious beliefs.
ALLEGATIONS
[3] The claimant’s allegations are fully set out in her Basis of Claim form. The following is just a summary. The claimant is a 63-year-old female from Asmara, Eritrea. She stated that she practice Orthodox Tewahedo which is the dominant Christian denomination in Eritrea from childhood until 2001, 2002. The claimant stated that her children converted to the Pentecostal faith in the mid 1990s, when they joined the XXXX XXXX XXXX, a XXXX XXXX. The claimant stated that she was influenced and taught by her children, and in 2001 she was invited to a spiritual conference by her son at the XXXX XXXX XXXX. The claimant stated that it was her participation at this conference, which was her moment of revelation, and made her decide to be baptized and attend prayer sessions regularly at the full XXXX southwestern branch. The claimant stated that in 2002, the Eritrean government severely restricted Pentecostal faiths and other evangelical denominations. The claimant stated that in 2006 her son was detained for eight (8) months after he was caught in a bible prayer group. The claimant and her daughter continued to participate in clandestine prayer group sessions, avoiding detection. However, in 2002, they were discovered at the leader of their underground practice was arrested by authorities. A few weeks later, the claimant’s daughter was arrested and released after signing a warning letter. In XXXX 2020, of the claimants applied for a super visa, which was issued in XXXX 2022. The claimant then traveled to Canada in February 2023 and made a claim for protection. The claimant stated that since arriving in Canada, she has found the freedom to belong and practice her faith freely as she has joined the XXXX XXXX in XXXX, Alberta.
ANALYSIS
Nexus
[4] The claimant’s allegations that she is a born again Christian and practices the Pentecostal faith establishes a nexus to the Convention ground of religion.
Identity
[5] The claimant’s personal identity and her status as a national of Eritrea and no other country is established on a balance of probabilities by the statements in her Basis of Claim form and in her testimony and the copy of her — and in the copy of her Eritrean national identity card and her passport that is on file.
Credibility
[6] When a claimant swears to the truth of certain allegations, this gives rise to a presumption that those allegations are true unless there is a valid reason to doubt their truthfulness. I find no valid reason to doubt the truthfulness of the claimant’s allegations in this present case. Based on the documents in the file, I find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant’s allegations regarding her conversion to Pentecostal Christianity are true. The allegations contained within her Basis of Claim form were clear and intentionally consistent and provided a detailed explanation regarding her conversion and how she practices her faith. In this case, I have found no reason to doubt the truthfulness of the claimant. The claimant testified in a spontaneous, straightforward and convincing manner. There were no contradictions between her narrative testimony and the other evidence before me. The claimant provided additional information at the hearing regarding the details of her faith. She testified that she was baptized in 2001 after learning and accepting the Pentecostal faith. She stated the main thing that she liked about the Pentecostal faith was that it was served in her own language. She explained that in the Orthodox religion, the language used was (inaudible) and she did not have a clear understanding because of that. She testified that the most important part of her faith is being clearly taught that Jesus Christ is her saviour. She stated that she believes that Jesus Christ is her one (1) and only saviour. The claimant also provided additional details about the prayer group she attended, and she stated that she is afraid of returning to Eritrea not only because of her religious beliefs, but because she has made an asylum claim. The claimant provided relative documentary disclosure in support of her application, including a letter from the XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX that states that the claimant has been attending church regularly since XXXX XXXX, 2023. Having examined this document in the overall context of the evidence before me, I find no reason to doubt its authenticity and find it corroborates the claimant’s allegation that she is a born again Christian and practitioner of Pentecostal Christianity. Accordingly, I give this document full weight. I find no relevant contradictions, inconsistencies or omissions between her allegations, testimony, the referral documents or the country condition evidence or any other part of the documentary evidence before me. I find that the claimant has established her allegations as outlined on a balance of probabilities.
Well Founded Fear of Persecution
[7] Eritrea is ruled by a government that functions without a constitution or parliament, and there is no independent civil society, human rights organizations, freedom of speech or dissenting opinions permitted inside the country. The rights of Eritrean citizens are not respected by the centralized authoritarian regime. There is no rule of law and the state routinely engages in human rights abuses with impunity, including arbitrary killings. Prison conditions are life threatening and torture is common, and the reference for that is at 2.1 of the National Documentation Package. When it comes to religious freedom, the government officially recognizes the Orthodox Church of Eritrea, Sunni Islam, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church. All other religious groups are regarded as dangerous, unpatriotic and foreign. Religious activities of unrecognized groups are banned. The treatment of people belonging to unregistered religions is particularly dire for Jehovah’s Witnesses and members of other small, disfavoured religious groups such as evangelical and Pentecostal Christians. Since 2002, thousands of adherents of religions not recognized by the state, including Pentecostal and evangelical Christian denominations, have been arrested for practicing their religion and arrests continue to be reported regularly. Several sources indicate that Christian prisoners have been tortured and pressured to recount their faith in order to be released. The detention time for Christians ranges from short term to long term lasting weeks, months or extended periods, and adds that some people have been arbitrarily arrested for upwards of 20 years. Sources state that some prisoners are held in metal shipping containers or underground cells in circumstances that amount to torture and that reference is at 12.2 of the National Documentation Package. Given the foregoing objective evidence, I have no doubt that on return to Eritrea, the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution on religious grounds. Further, the mere act of claiming asylum abroad may form the basis of a refugee claim against Eritrea. According to a research report found at tab 14.2 of the National Documentation Package, the 2016 written submissions by the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Eritrea indicates that in that country people are arrested and detained without any formal charges, as a matter of course. Therefore, most people can only speculate about the reasons for their arrest and detention, but failed asylum seekers and refugees who are returned to Eritrea commonly cite these circumstances as reasons for their arrest and detention upon arrival. It is reported that individuals forcefully repatriated are considered as having left the country unlawfully and are consequently often regarded as traitors. Returnees are often systematically ill treated to the point of torture during the interrogation faced upon return, and are detained for indeterminate periods. As the claimant has made a claim for asylum in Canada, a fact that could come to light if the claimant were interrogated upon return, she would face a serious possibility of persecution by reason of imputed political opinion.
State Protection
[8] There is a presumption that a state, if it is in control of its territories, will make serious efforts to protect its citizens. Failure to seek protection from authorities can be fatal to a claim unless it can be established that the protection would not be forthcoming. It is up to the claimant to rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence that the state cannot or will not protect them. The claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection in this case. She has established the state itself as the agent of persecution and necessarily follow — and it necessarily follows that the state — that state protection would be unavailable.
[9] Internal Flight Alternative
[10] For an internal flight alternative to be viable with respect to a section 96 claim, there must be no serious possibility of the claimant being persecuted in the internal flight alternative location. Further conditions of the internal flight alternative must be such that it would be — it would not be unreasonable in all circumstances, including those particular to the claimant in question for the claimant to seek refuge there. I have considered whether an internal applied alternative exists for the claimant. However, as Eritrea is in effective control of its territories, and as the state is the agent of persecution and the conditions for religious minorities and imputed political opponents are uniform throughout the country. I find that there is no place within the country that the claimant could go where she would not face a serious possibility of persecution. Therefore, there is no internal alternative available.
CONCLUSION
[11] The claimant is a Convention refugee and I accept her claim under section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. So, the hearing is now concluded.
——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———