2023 RLLR 255
Citation: 2023 RLLR 255
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: July 27, 2023
Panel: Jora Sandhu
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Devinder Singh Bath
Country: Bahamas
RPD Number: VC3-03471
Associated RPD Number(s): VC3-03472, VC3-03473, VC3-03474
ATIP Number: A-2024-01360
ATIP Pages: N/A
DECISION
[1] This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division for the claimants XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX citizens of the Bahamas. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is the principal claimant. She is the mother of the minor claimants XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX The claimants are claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
[2] I have considered the Chairperson’s Guideline 4 gender considerations and proceedings before the Immigration and Refugee Board[1] to ensure that appropriate accommodations were made in questioning the principal claimant in the overall hearing process and in the substantively assessing the claims.
ALLEGATIONS
[3] The allegations in full are contained in the Basis of Claim forms found in Exhibit 2.1 -2.4[2]. Herein is a summary of the allegations. The Claimants fear repercussions from the ‘One Order Gang’, a member of the ‘One Order Gang’ has threatened their lives and attempted on two occasions to harm the primary claimants husband and minor children due to the primary claimants employment in the XXXX XXXX XXXX and an incident that occurred in XXXX 2022 where the claimant XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.
DETERMINATION
[4] The panel finds that the claimants have established that they are persons in need of protection pursuant to subsection 97(1) of the Act.
ANALYSIS
Identity
[5] The claimants’ identities as nationals of the Bahamas are established by the principal claimant’s testimony and the supporting documentation filed namely their passports found in Exhibit 1[3].
Credibility
[6] When a claimant swears to the truth of certain allegations, this creates a presumption that those allegations are true unless there is reason to doubt their truthfulness. In this case, principal claimant testified in a consistent and straightforward manner and the evidence elicited from her testimony was consistent with her narrative and supporting documents. There were no inconsistencies in her testimony or contradictions between the principal claimant’s testimony and the other evidence that caused me to doubt the principal claimant’s truthfulness, I thus found the principal claimant to be a credible witness.
[7] In addition, claimant’s provided corroborative documentation in support of the claims. For example, the claimants provided in Exhibit 6[4], messages, and police reports of where the claimant sought assistance form police due to attacks from a One Order Gang member. The claimant also submitted in Exhibit 6 an affidavit from the claimants sister who was shot at by the Oner Order gang member as she was returning from picking up the claimants minor children at school. The evidence also includes a police report of an attack by the gang member on the claimants husband with a knife. The evidence submitted supports the claimants allegations and information in her claim as outlined in the BOC.
[8] The claimant was threatened by a member of the One Order Gang as she was at preschool with her minor child. The gang member was he same person who threatened the claimant for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX 2022 while a XXXX XXXX with the XXXX XXXX XXXX.
[9] The claimant has also provided an affidavit from her sister-in-law outlining an incident on XXXX XXXX, 2022, where she was picking up the claimants child from preschool and while driving home they were shot at by a person in the same colour, make and model of car associated with previous incidents against the claimant and her family.
[10] On XXXX XXXX, of 2022, the principal claimants husband was cut off while driving by the same vehicle that was involved in the previous incidents. The claimants husband recalled the individual from the incident in XXXX 2022 as the same person who threatened his wife for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The gang member stated that he was going to harm the primary claimant and their children and proceeded to attack the claimants husband. A police report was filed.
[11] The panel does not see anything on the face of the documents submitted that causes me to doubt their genuineness. I also do not see any contradictions or inconsistencies between these documents and the claimants’ other evidence. The panel therefore places significant weight on them. Consequently, given the principal claimant’s sworn evidence and the supporting documents, the panel accepts the claimant’s allegations, and the panel finds that the principal claimant and her family were attacked on several occasions by a member of the ‘One Order Gang’ and the gang member has targeted the claimant and her family due to her XXXX as a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The claimant made reports to police after each incident and included evidence of these report in her claim.
[12] The claimant made attempts to be relocated through her employment however there was no progress in her request, given the small geography of the island country and the absence of operationally effective state protection available to the claimant throughout the country, the panel finds that it is neither safe nor objectively reasonable in the circumstances, for the claimants to relocate.
Analysis For Claims Under 97(1)(b)
Risk Faced by the Claimants
[13] The claimants face an escalating personal risk of serious harm by members of the One Order gang, the gang threatened the primary claimant initially and has escalated to threatening additional members of her family including her husband and minor children. The level of violence has escalated from verbal threats to physical violence using a firearms and knife. The panel finds that the risk of serious harm is likely to continue and escalated should the claimants return to the Bahamas.
[14] The claimant faces this risk of serious harm from the One Order gang due to her employment as a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, in the course of her duties the primary claimant XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX between a One Order gang member and another woman.
[15] The panel finds the degree of risk of serious harm to the claimant and her family is high. The numbers of incidents escalated from one to four within a short period of nine months as well as the level of severity from verbal threats against the claimant to the use of a knife and firearm against the claimant’s minor children and husband.
[16] The panel finds that the claimants are credible and that they have established their allegations of a risk of serious harm, on a balance of probabilities if they return to the Bahamas.
The claimants are subjected personally to a risk to their life.
[17] The claimants were directly threatened with death. The panel finds that the risk to her life is personal. The risk also increased in degree over time. It progressed from verbal threats against the claimant’s life to the use of weapons and using them against other family members including her minor children. In my view, there is a pattern of events over time that are explicitly connected by virtue of the agent of harm’s repeated threats, demands and targeting of the claimant and her family. The claimant and her family were personally and specifically targeted for death by the One Order gang, one of the most ruthless gangs in the Bahamas known for attacks on the police. The panel finds on a balance of probabilities, that the claimants are personally subjected to an ongoing risk to their life.
Personal risk to life is not faced generally by others.
[18] The claimants were personally targeted and threatened with death in a series of connected and escalating incidents associated to her duties as a XXXX XXXX in the Bahamas. Their risk is highly proximate. The claimants face a risk that they will be killed. Even if others in the Bahamas could eventually find themselves in the claimant’s positions in the future, this does not mean that they are generally in their position now.
[19] The panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimants face a personal risk to their life, and that this risk is not faced generally by others in the Bahamas.
Well-founded Fear of Harm
[20] NDP Tab 7.5[5] indicates the murder rate in the Bahamas has more than doubled in the last 10 years and the Bahamas is now one of the, has the highest murder rate in the Caribbean region. Firearms are the most popular weapon of choice for perpetrators of homicide, accounting for 76.5% of the deaths in the Bahamas by the gangs.
[21] A UN High Commissioner for Human Rights report, item 5.3[6] notes that the Bahamas is one of three Caribbean countries considered to be among the top 10 countries globally recognized as having high rates of rape and sexual violence. It noted that as many as 45% of all homicides over the last 20 years can be contributed to domestic violence in the country.
[22] NDP tab 7.4[7] indicates ‘According to a police superintendent and head of the Central Detective Unit, as quoted by the Bahamian newspaper Nassau Guardian, the Bahamas has several gangs, and the One Order gang is the “most organized” (Nassau Guardian 6 May 2013). The Bahamas’ Minister of State for National Security describes the One Order gang as a “criminal enterprise” (qtd. in Freeport News 28 Oct. 2015). According to the Bahamian news source The Tribune, One Order has “a very violent reputation” (26 May 2015). Without providing details or a timeframe, the Minister of State for National Security stated that One Order is the “most violent gang” in the Bahamas and was responsible for more than 200 murders (qtd. in Freeport News 28 Oct. 2015).’ The country evidence goes on the indicate, ‘The Bahamas Journal reports that in October 2013, Stubbs and two other men were sentenced to life imprisonment for the 1999 murder of police officer Jimmy Ambrose and to 10 years imprisonment for the attempted murder of another police officer, Marcian Scott (The Bahamas Journal 31 Oct. 2013). The second police officer, who was a key witness in the trial, was murdered in 2006 (ibid.). Freeport News quotes the Minister of State for National Security as stating that in 1999, One Order members executed Officer Jimmy Ambrose, and shot and permanently disabled another police officer (Freeport News 28 Oct. 2015). The Minister further indicated that a third police officer, who was a key witness in this case, was later executed by One Order in order to prevent him from testifying in the case (ibid.).
[23] Based on the objective country evidence above, the panel finds that the claimants face a serious possibility of being killed in the Bahamas by the One Order Gang.
[24] The panel finds the claimants have established they have a well-founded fear of serious harm by the One Order gang should they return to the Bahamas.
State Protection
[25] States are presumed to be capable of protecting their citizens unless to protect the citizens of their country. To rebut the presumption of State Protection, claimants must provide clear and convincing evidence of the state’s inability to protect its citizens. I find that claimants have rebutted the presumption of State Protection. NDP 7.4[8] indicates ‘According to a chief superintendent of the Royal Bahamas Police Force, there are “pockets of gangs in different communities,” and some people cannot go into certain areas, such as East Street, Nassau Village and Kemp Road, because gang clashes lead to deaths (qtd. in Nassau Guardian 24 Aug. 2015). The Minister of State for National Security is quoted by Freeport News as indicating that most of the violence in New Providence experienced by young men is related to activities of the One Order gang. The Programme manager for the US Homeland Security Investigations’ National Gang Unit reportedly stated that “‘organized gangs'” are a “growing problem in the Bahamas” (US 9 Oct. 2012). The US Department of Homeland Security also quotes the Bahamas’ National Security Minister as stating that “‘well organized and sophisticated'” gangs pose a “‘serious threat'” in the Bahamas.’
[26] There is also a backlog of cases within the court system. Consequently, the victim is left the risk of further abuse and the authorities are sending signals that these types of crimes will go unpunished. Additionally, in this case, a police officer told the principal claimant is aware that the One Order gang has connections to the police and that the police have been infiltrated by the One Order gang. For all these reasons, I find that claimants have rebutted the presumption of State Protection.
Internal Flight Alternative
[27] With respect to the Internal Flight Alternative, claimants need to demonstrate that they would not face a serious risk of persecution in the proposed Internal Flight Alternative. I find there is no Internal Flight Alternative available to the claimants. Bahamas is a small, interconnected nation with a population of roughly 350,000 people[9]. The claimants have a special needs child who requires support in the main areas of the Bahamas and available at limited schools, the claimants did not receive a reply to their request for relocation assistance. The claimants husband and children were easily located by the One Order Gang on the way to work and at their school. For these reasons, the panel finds there is no Internal Flight Alternative available to the claimants in the Bahamas.
CONCLUSION
[28] For the foregoing reasons, the panel finds that the claimants are persons in need of protection pursuant to subsection 97(1) of the Act and the panel therefore accepts their claims.
——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———
[1] Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Gender Considerations in Proceedings Before the Immigration and Refugee Board
[2] Exhibit 2.1 -2.4
[3] Exhibit 1
[4] Exhibit 6
[5] National Documentation Package, Bahamas, 31 May 2022, tab 7.5: Information on the Fire and Theft gang, including activities and state response (2014-November 2016). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 16 December 2016. BHS105676.E.
[6] National Documentation Package, Bahamas, 31 May 2022, tab 5.3: Overview of Violence Against Women: The Commonwealth of The Bahamas. UN Sabbatical Leave Report. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Gaynel Curry. June 2016.
[7] National Documentation Package, Bahamas, 31 May 2022, tab 7.4: Information on the One Order gang, including activities, key members, and state response, particularly in “Bozine Town” (2010-July 2016). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 15 July 2016. BHS105588.E.
[8] National Documentation Package, Bahamas, 31 May 2022, tab 7.4: Information on the One Order gang, including activities, key members, and state response, particularly in “Bozine Town” (2010-July 2016). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 15 July 2016. BHS105588.E.
[9] National Documentation Package, Bahamas, 31 May 2022, tab 1.2: The Bahamas. The World Factbook. United States. Central Intelligence Agency. 10 May 2022.