2023 RLLR 230

Citation: 2023 RLLR 230
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 22, 2023
Panel: Lauren Lalach
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Million Abawana
Country: Ethiopia
RPD Number: VC3-08445
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2024-01133
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION 

INTRODUCTION

[1]           This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX as a citizen of Ethiopia who is claiming refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “IPRA”).^[1]

[2]           I have reviewed and applied Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Gender Considerations in Proceedings Before the Immigration and Refugee Board^[2] which offers guidance with respect to the gender specific issues present in this claim.

DETERMINATION

[3]           I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA.

ALLEGATIONS

[4]           The claimant’s allegations are set out in her Basis of Claim form.^[3] In summary, the claimant alleges that she is a citizen of Ethiopia and belongs to the Amhara Ethnic group on her father’s side, and the Oromo Ethnic group on her mother’s side. She and her family members have faced mistreatment and violence at the hands of the state, local government and the Oromo youth on the basis of their ethnicity and imputed political opinion. The claimant fears further mistreatment, harm, detention or death upon a return to Ethiopia. 

[5]           The claimant is a 67-year-old widow from the town of XXXX, in Oromia, which is in the southern region of Ethiopia. The claimant’s family owned a large piece of land in XXXX and have been residing on this land for centuries. The claimant has 9 children, 6 of whom continue to reside in Ethiopia. Two of the claimant’s children reside in Djibouti with their families in UNHCR run refugee camps^[4], and one of the claimant’s daughters resides in Canada.  

[6]           The claimant recalls that the mistreatment that she and her family faced on the basis of their Ahmara ethnicity grew significantly worse following the election of Dr. Abiy Ahmed in 2018. Following his election, the claimant and her children began to face increased mistreatment and harassment from others who lived in the area, who were primarily of Oromo descent. Local authorities and youth leaders began accusing the claimant, and others of Amhara descent in the area of land grabbing. The claimant had several interactions with the police and local authorities during this time. 

[7]           The local authorities collaborated with the Oromo youth movement “Queroo” and vandalized the claimant’s property. They then threatened to kill the claimant and her children if they did not abandon their home and move elsewhere. However, the claimant and her children refused to abandon their home and land. In XXXX 2021, the Queroo youth came to the claimant’s home at night and physically attacked the claimant’s two sons. The claimant reported the incident to the police, but the police failed to give the claimant protection. 

[8]           In XXXX 2022, the claimant’s land was forcefully taken from her. The claimant saw her land be appropriated by the mayor of XXXX and the land administration. The mayor built an office, among other buildings, on the claimant’s land. During this time, many families in the area had their lives uprooted and destroyed when their land was similarly taken from them, illegally. 

[9]           The claimant made attempts to get back the land which was taken from her, however was unsuccessful. The claimant went to different government levels, including engaging the court system, but did not receive justice. The claimant felt that Oromia politicians and the federal court judges at zone level and middle courts did not want to touch her file because they were scared of being fired, relocated or demoted. 

[10]        In XXXX 2023, in separate instances, the claimant’s son and the claimant’s grandson were detained after they resisted the illegal appropriation of their land in XXXX. The claimant’s daughter was picked up by the police from her home on XXXX XXXX, 2023, and to this date, the claimant does not know her whereabouts. 

[11]        The claimant departed Ethiopia on XXXX XXXX, 2023 and entered Canada the next day using a valid Canadian visitor visa. The claimant was advised by her children in XXXX 2023, shortly after her arrival in Canada, that the police had issued a summons for the claimant. The claimant believes that the ongoing interest that the government of Ethiopia has in her and her children makes evident that they are being targeted as they are perceived as being against the government and the local Oromia regional government and fears arrest or detention upon a return to Ethiopia.

ANALYSIS

Identity 

[12]        I find that the claimant has established her identity as a national of Ethiopia, on a balance of probabilities, by a certified copy of her passport.^[5]

[13]        I also find that the claimant has established that she is from the Amhara ethnic group on a balance of probabilities. The claimant testified that her father was Amharic, and her mother Oromo. The claimant spoke Amharic in the hearing. She also testified that she was a member of the Christian Orthodox religion. The objective evidence confirms that ethnicity and religion are strongly linked in Ethiopia and that individuals of the Amhara ethnicity are largely Christian. ^[6] Further, I have before me letters of support from the claimant’s children, attesting to their Ahmara ethnicity. Given the foregoing, I am satisfied of the claimant’s ethnicity on a balance of probabilities.

Credibility

[14]        The claimant benefits from a presumption of truth. In this case, I find no reason to doubt the claimant’s truthfulness. The principal claimant had some difficulty in understanding questions and had to be reminded of the importance of listening to the questions asked and providing a direct response to that question.  However, once re-directed or the question re-phrased, the claimant was able to provide testimony in a straightforward manner that was consistent with the documents on file, including her written narrative, and she was able to answer my questions, and the questions posed to her by her counsel in full.  In considering the claimant’s age and lack of any formal education, no negative inferences have been drawn.  

[15]         In addition, the claimant provided supporting documentary evidence to support her claim. Before me are 3 letters of support, accompanied by personal ID, authored by the claimant’s children in Ethiopia. These letters attest to the events which took place in Ethiopia and speak to the general insecurity of the area. These letters consistent, in content and chronology, with the claimant’s allegations and are in keeping with the objective country condition evidence as outlined below. I find on a balance of probabilities, that the documents referenced above are genuine and trustworthy and that the claimant’s allegations are credible.

[16]        After examining the claimant’s testimony and the evidence adduced, I find on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant is ethnically Amhara, that she has had her land appropriated from her, and that she has been targeted by the state due to being Amhara. In the circumstances of this claim, I find that the past experiences of the claimant and her family are a compelling indicator of the treatment she is at serious risk of facing in the future and supports that her subjective fear is well-founded. As discussed below, the National Documentation Package for Ethiopia includes evidence establishing that the claimants’ personal experiences are consistent with those of others ethnic minorities in Ethiopia.  

Well Founded Fear of Persecution 

[17]        In order to be considered a Convention Refugee the claimant must demonstrate that they have a well-founded fear of persecution which includes both a subjective fear and an objective basis for that fear.

[18]        The objective evidence before me is consistent with the claimants’ account of fearing persecution at the hands of the Ethiopian authorities because of her Amhara ethnicity, should she return to Ethiopia. Generally, the objective evidence reports significant human rights issues in Ethiopia, including unlawful or arbitrary killings, including extrajudicial killings by the government; torture; arbitrary arrest and detention by authorities; serious abuses in a conflict, including widespread civilian harm; enforced disappearances; substantial interference with the freedom of peaceful assembly; serious government corruption; and harsh and life-threatening prison conditions^[7]

[19]        According to the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs 2020 report, the security situation in Ethiopia has been deteriorating since 2018 as a result of increasing polarization along ethnic lines. ^[8] Particularly significant deterioration has been noted in the West Guji Zone of Oromia State and along the Oromia-Somali, Oromia-Benishangul-Gumuz, and Amhara-Tigray state borders, where the claimant resides.^[9] The report further states that “Inter-ethnic clashes have caused death, the destruction of property and large-scale internal displacement — Ethiopia recorded the most conflict-related internal displacement in the world in 2018. Ethnic militias have proliferated in the states, and weapons are readily available.”^[10]

[20]        The objective evidence indicates that Amharas face ethnic violence in Ethiopia. Amharas have been subject to a series of targeted massacres, mass displacements, and property destruction since ethnic federalism was introduced in Ethiopia in the early 1990s^[11]. The frequency and atrocity against ethnic Amhara have “skyrocketed” since Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed Ali’s Prosperity Party rose to power in 2018, consistent with the testimony of the claimant and Amnesty International has cited that there has been a “surge of deadly ethnic violence targeting Amhara’s in various parts of the country.”^[12]

[21]        The Amhara Association of America in its April 2021 report^[13], reports that on February 16th, 2021, in Addis Ababa, the government forcibly and violently evicted more than 370 Amhara households from the area known as ‘Bole Homes,’ leaving an estimated 1,517 ethnic Amhara displaced from their homes. In violation of Ethiopian and international human rights laws, the government razed the houses of ethnic Amhara without any consultation, adequate notice, compensation, or offering of alternative housing. That same report states that three years after Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed took office and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) dominated government was replaced with Oromo dominated Prosperity Party, the targeted attacks against Amharas have intensified. Over the last two years, civilian Amharas particularly in the Oromia and Benishangul-Gumuz Regions have been victims of ethnically motivated massacres by the Oromo Liberation Army (OLA) and ethnic Gumuz militias with the support of regional administration and regional security forces…. In addition, in cities like Addis Ababa, targeted forced evictions and arrests of Amharas have increased.

[22]        Based on the preceding country conditions evidence, I find that most ethnic groups, including Amhara, in Ethiopia are currently experiencing ethnic targeting and violence by state authorities as well as vigilante groups. Accordingly, I find that the objective evidence supports the claimant’s allegations that she faces a serious possibility of persecution in Ethiopia due to her Amhara ethnicity. 

STATE PROTECTION

[23]        There is a presumption that states are capable of protecting their own citizens. However, a claimant can rebut the presumption of state protection and demonstrate that they would not receive such protection by providing clear and convincing evidence of the unwillingness or inability of the state to protect them. 

[24]        Where agents of the state themselves are sources of persecution, the presumption of state protection may be rebutted without exhausting all avenues of recourse in the country.^[14] In the present case, the claimant has personally experienced ethnic targeting and violence by state authorities as well as vigilante groups. Given that the state is one of the agents of persecution in the present case, it appears objectively unreasonable for the claimant to seek the protection of the state. Consequently, the presumption of state protection has been rebutted.

[25]        Therefore, based on the objective evidence before me and the claimant’s particular circumstances, I find that the claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection and that adequate state protection would not be available to her in Ethiopia.

Internal Flight Alternative (IFA)

[26]        I have also considered whether the claimant has a viable IFA in Ethiopia and find that there is none. The government of Ethiopia is in control of the entire territory of the country and given the Ethiopian state’s capacity and ongoing interest in arbitrarily detaining and abusing members of ethnic minority groups and political oppositions across Ethiopia, I find that the claimant would face a serious risk or persecution throughout the country.

CONCLUSION

[27]        Based on the totality of the evidence, I find that the claimant has established that she is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA. Accordingly, this claim is accepted.  

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———

^[1] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27. 

^[2] Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Gender Considerations in Proceedings Before the Immigration and Refugee Board, July 18, 2022.

^[3] Exhibit 2

^[4] Exhibit 4

^[5] Exhibits 1 and 5

^[6] Exhibit 3, NDP Item 12.1

^[7] Exhibit 3, NDP Item 2.1

^[8] Exhibit 3, NDP Item 2.2

^[9] Exhibit 3, NDP Item 1.2 

^[10] Exhibit 3, NDP Item 1.2

^[11] Exhibit 3, NDP Item 13.11

^[12] Exhibit 3, NDP Item 13.12

^[13] Exhibit 3, NDP Item 13.11

^[14] Chaves v Canada (MCI), 2005 FC 193