2023 RLLR 249

Citation: 2023 RLLR 249
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 18, 2023
Panel: Chukwuka Okwuosa
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Zuleika Gonzalez Perez
Country: Cuba
RPD Number: TC3-26683
Associated RPD Number(s): TC3-26685, TC3-26686
ATIP Number: A-2024-01360
ATIP Pages: N/A

 

DECISION 

 

[1] MEMBER: These are the reasons for decision in the refugee claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX, the Principal Claimants; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the Associate Claimant and XXXX XXXX XXXX, the Minor Claimant who alleges to be citizens of Cuba and is seeking protection pursuant to Section 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

 

 

[2] The Principal Claimant is the husband of the Associate Claimant, while the Minor Claimant is their child. The Principal Claimant is the Designated Representative for the Minor Claimant.

 

 

[3] The details of the claimants’ allegations are set out in the Basis of Claim form. In summary the claimants fear persecution at the hands of Cuban authorities owing to their political opinion and political activities against the Cuban government.

 

 

[4] The Principal Claimant is a 40 year old man from Cuba who states that he is against the Cuban Communist system, because of the Cuban government restrictions on citizens of freedom of expression. The Principal Claimant alleges that he has been deprived of rights to work in Cuba and the family has been harassed by the police, due to the political beliefs and not supporting the Communist Party system in Cuba and the injustice the government carry out against innocent citizens especially those that speak up against the government.

 

 

[5] On XXXX XXXX, 2021, the people of Cuba protested against the Cuban government with the demonstrations in Havana (ph) province in Cuba with chants of liberty and freedom. The Principal Claimant states that he was part of the protest and walked in a crowd of people who were tired of the Cuban government dictatorship. The Claimant alleges that he participated in the anti-government marches, protesting for the government handled the lack of supplies. The Claimant alleges that he was arrested by the police, tortured and put in detention for XXXX to XXXX XXXX and accused the Claimant of being part of the (inaudible 00:01:49) the Claimant.

 

 

[6] On XXXX XXXX, 2021, the Principal Claimant was arrested again by the police and deprived of freedom for XXXX XXXX. On XXXX XXXX, 2022 the Principal Claimant was called to attend an investigation by the XXXX and PNR because there was going to be a voting of a new code in Cuba which was to take place on XXXX XXXX, 2022. The XXXX which is the XXXX XXXX XXXX and the PNR, the Revolutionary National Police accused the Principal Claimant of being part of the group that was against the government in relation to the voting that would take place on XXXX XXXX, 2022 and warned the Principal Claimant to keep quiet and not to generate negative word, with his opinions against the government on the ongoing referendum.

 

 

[7] On XXXX XXXX, 2023, the Principal Claimant was held hostage for XXXX XXXX by the XXXX XXXX and without right to call assistant lawyer in an attempt to get information for the Claimant, in relation to a possible demonstration that is going to take place on XXXX XXXX, 2023.

 

[8] Thereafter the Principal Claimant was issued summons to appear in court on XXXX XXXX, 2023 for criminal prosecution for contempt of authority and promote of public disorder which endangered the security of revolution. The Claimant state that they want their right to think and express themselves, access to medicine, freedom of speech, necessary equipments at work, ample opportunities and basic things of life, and if they return to Cuba, the Principal Claimant will be imprisoned due to his participation in the XXXX XXXX, 2021 protest.

 

 

[9] The Claimant left Cuba on XXXX XXXX, 2022 and arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2023 and subsequently made a claim for refugee protection.

 

 

[10] The Panel finds that the claimants are convention refugee pursuant to Section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act as there are serious possibility of persecution, should the claimants return to Cuba on account of their political opinion on particular social group family.

 

 

[11] The Panel finds that the claimants personal identity and national identity as citizens of Cuba are established on a balance of probability by copies of their Cuban passport provided in Exhibit 1. The Panel finds that there is a link between what the claimants fear on one of the five conventional grounds namely political opinion and imputed political opinion. Therefore the claimants claim are assessed under Section 96 of the Act.

 

 

[12] The Panel finds the claimants to be a credible witness and therefore accepts what the claimants alleged in support of their claim. The claimants testified in a straightforward manner and there were no relevant inconsistencies in his testimony. For example the Principal Claimant testified as a dissident who participated in the protest against the Cuban government on XXXX XXXX, 2021, good knowledge of political protest in Cuba and provided good accounts of the event reasons for the protest against economic hardship, abuse of power, human rights violation, arrest of all citizens who participated in the protest by the government, victims of police brutality at the protest, denial of medical access and health facilities and necessary equipment for workers, denial of freedom of expression, constant threats and harassment, after the protest by the police and state security.

 

 

[13] The Principal Claimant explained in detail it was a protest by the citizens of Cuba, and why he participated in the protest as well as the reasons for the protest. And the fact that no protest has been that huge like that in the history of Cuba, as of XXXX XXXX, 2021 protest.

 

 

[14] The Claimant explained that they were not a member of any political party, but (inaudible 00:04:59) of Cuba and continue to speak against the current government of Cuba, even if he returns to Cuba. The Claimant testified on how several people were detained as a result of the protest including himself and how some people are facing their terms due to participation in the protest and a constant harassment by the police and how the police has constantly harassed the Principal Claimant on XXXX XXXX, 2021, XXXX XXXX, 2022 and XXXX XXXX, 2023 and threatening by the government.

 

[15] The Associate Claimant also testified about the harassment and threats she received at workplace because of demanding for the basic rights of workers and how she has been participated in rally and called for questioning for such opinions in workplace. The Panel finds that the Principal Claimant and Associate Claimants is a dissident against the Communist Party and face police harassment as a result.

 

 

[16] The claimants also submitted documents in support of their claim, I find the following documents in Exhibit 6 and 7 to be of probative value in establishing on the balance of probabilities, the credibility of claimants’ allegations that they have a subjective fear of persecution in Cuba.

 

 

[17] The documents are police summons against the Principal Claimant to appear in police station on XXXX XXXX, 2023. Police summons to Principal Claimant to appear police station on XXXX XXXX, 2023. Support letter for Associate Claimant’s father stating that the Principal Claimant was arrested and denied right of freedom as per the participating in the XXXX XXXX, 2021 protest. Support letter from the claimants’ neighbour in Cuba stating she has witnessed countless times, how the claimant has been harassed by the police due to their political beliefs. Support letter from the Principal Claimant’s mother, stating that Principal Claimant was mistreated on XXXX XXXX, 2021 because of participation in the protest. Support letter from the claimants’ neighbour in Cuba stating claimants has verbal accused as being opponents to the government as such I attached high weight to them as they further corroborates the claimants’ testimony that they are facing persecution from the Cuban government due to the Principal Claimant’s political opinion.

 

 

[18] The Claimants left Cuba on XXXX XXXX, 2023 in testimony the Principal Claimant say that he did not have the financial means or resources to leave earlier and needed to raise capital in order to be able to leave with family and exit from the country is very difficult. The Panel find that the late leaving does not undermine the claimants’ credibility and subjective fear because the claimants needs to raise money to be able to leave Cuba and only left when they had the financial means to do so.

 

 

[19] Based on the overall credibility of the claimants’ testimony the presumption of truthfulness and the corroborative evidence the Panel finds that the Principal Claimant and Associate Claimant are in opposition to the government of Cuba, and its policies as they find them oppressive and were threatened not to speak against government in power and constantly harassed by the police as they opposed the activities of the Cuban government.

 

 

[20] The Panel finds on a balance of probabilities that the claimants are a credible witness and have a subjective fear of persecution in Cuba based on their political opinion and as a family unit.

 

 

[21] The evidence of the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Cuba in Exhibit 3 demonstrates that there is objective basis to the claimants’ subjective fear of persecution at the hands of Cuban government given their expression and dissent against the government.

 

 

[22] Item 2.6 of the National Documentation Package (NDP) which is a Freedom House report notes that Cuba is a one-party communist state which outlaws political pluralism, bans independent media, suppresses dissent, and severely restricts basic civil liberties. Freedom House further states that the political dissent is a punishable offense. And dissidents are systematically harassed, detained, physically assaulted and imprisoned for minor infractions. Supposedly spontaneous mob attacks, known as acts of retribution are often used to silence political dissidents.

 

 

[23] There is also report from United States Department at Item 2.1 that says that significant human rights abuses in Cuba included credible reports of unlawful or arbitrary killings, including extrajudicial killings by the government, forced disappearances by the government, torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatments of political dissidents.

 

 

[24] Amnesty International at Item 2.13 notes that since 2021, Cuban authorities under the leadership of President Díaz-Canel have scaled up a decades-long policy of repression that criminalizes peaceful protest and imprisons and ill-treats Cubans from all walks of life simply for expressing their views.

 

 

[25] There is evidence in National Documentation Package on Cuba to the affect that further asylum claimants may face persecution at the hands of the Cuban authorities upon their return to Cuba. In response to information request report at Item 14.2 states what’s happens to failed asylum seekers in Cuba after their return depends upon what they did before they left, if they were a good citizens before they left, very little if anything is done to them.

 

 

[26] Also, according to Al Jazeera News of July 13th, 2022, peaceful protesters and other critics have been systematically detained, held incommunicado and abused in horrendous conditions and subjected to sham trials following patterns that indicate these human rights violations are not the actions of rogue agents. In light of the forgoing the Panel finds that objective evidence supports the claimants’ allegations that they will face a serious possibility of persecution at the hands of the Cuban government, both for the Principal Claimant, Associate Claimants acts of dissidents and also for the simple act of being outside of Cuba.

 

 

[27] The Panel finds that there is a credible established evidence that the Principal Claimant will face a risk of criminal sanction and (inaudible 00:10:18) sexual harassment. As such the Panel finds that the claimants have a well-founded fear of persecution. In light of the forgoing the Panel finds the subjective evidence supports the claimants’ allegation that they will face a serious possibility of persecution at the hands of the Cuban government.

 

 

[28] Except in situations where the state is in complete breakdown state must be presumed to be capable of protecting their citizens. To rebut this presumption, the onus is on the claimant to establish on a balance of probabilities and through clear and convincing evidence that their state protection is inadequate. In this case, the agent of persecution is the state and persecution the claimant would face if returned to Cuba is at hands of the authorities and their agents as noted in the above mentioned objective evidence.

 

[29] Accordingly the Panel finds that there is no state protection available to the claimants. The Panel finds that it would be objectively unreasonable for the claimants to seek protection of the state in light of their particular circumstances. The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that the claimants have rebutted the protection of state protection with clear and convincing evidence.

 

 

[30] The Panel has examined whether a viable Internal Flight Alternative exist for the claimants. Based on the evidence on file, the Panel finds that the claimants face a serious possibility of persecution throughout Cuba because of their political opinion given that the authorities operate similarly throughout the country.

 

 

[31] The Panel finds that there are no other parts of the country where the claimants would not face a serious possibility of persecution. The Panel finds therefore that there is no viable Internal Flight Alternative available to the Claimant.

 

 

[32] For the reasons above, the Panel finds that the claimants face a serious possibility of persecution in Cuba due to their political opinion. The claimants are conventional refugees pursuant to Section 96 of the Act, and the Panel therefore accepted their claim.

 

 

[33]                   Thank you, Interpreter for your time and for coming on for your detailed interpretation. To consultant, thank you for your time. Thank you for coming as well. And to the claimants, thank you for your time as well. Thank you for your testimony today as well. Do have a wonderful afternoon.

 

 

[34] COUNSEL: Thank you Mr. Member. Thank you.

 

 

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———