2023 RLLR 82

Citation: 2023 RLLR 82
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 7, 2023
Panel: Gregory Israelstam
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Yasin A. Razak
Country: Poland
RPD Number: TC3-16375
Associated RPD Number(s): TC3-16376, TC3-16377
ATIP Number: A-2023-01721
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: These are the reasons for a decision concerning the claims for protection made by Mr. XXXX XXXX, his spouse, XXXX XXXX, and their son, XXXX XXXX. The claimants are all citizens of Poland. Their claims were heard jointly pursuant to Rule 55 of the Refugee Protection Division rules.

[2]       During the hearing, XXXX acted as the designated representative for XXXX, who was a minor at the time of the claim and at the time of the hearing. The allegations of this can be found in the claimants’ Basis of Claim forms and in the testimony of the two (2) adult claimants.

[3]       The claimants allege a fear of persecution in Poland in the form of pervasive discrimination at the hands of society in general, and an increased risk of violence at the hands of nationalist groups. The claimants allege that this ground of persecution is race, or more specifically, the claimants’ Roma ethnicity.

[4]       I find that the claimants have established that each of them faces a serious possibility of persecution in Poland on the ground of race because of the claimants’ Roma backgrounds. Each of the claimants is therefore described by section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act as a Convention refugee.

[5]       With respect to identity, passports for all three (3) claimants could be found at Exhibit 1 and 4. Through these documents and the claimants’ testimony, the claimants have established their personal identity and their Polish citizenship.

[6]       With respect to credibility, both adult claimants testified at the hearing. Claimants who testify under oath or affirmation are presumed to be telling the truth unless there are valid reasons to disbelieve the testimony. In this case, I have no valid reason to rebut the presumption of truthfulness. Both adult statements were generally straightforward, forthright, and detailed in their testimony. Both were able to provide specific detail about incidents that occurred to them and call it Their testimony was largely consistent with each other’s testimony and with their Basis of Claim narrative.

[7]       Both claimants’ testimony regarding their situation in Poland are consistent with conditions described from Roma living in Poland, at Exhibit 3, the National Documentation Package for Poland, as well as in country conditions submitted at Exhibit 5 on behalf of the claimants.

[8]       Both adult claimants testified to discrimination they faced in education, employment, and the provision of services. Both claimants testified to instances where they were denied employment once a prospective employer found out the claimants’ ethnic origins. Both claimants testified that they had been subject to harassment, ostracization, bullying and abuse from non-Roma classmates during their times at school, and that Roma students typically did not receive the same level of educational attention as non-Roma students.

[9]       Both adults testified that the teachers and school administration did little to address their concerns. XXXX testified that XXXX has also faced similar discrimination and harassment when he went to school.

[10]     XXXX also testified that she has faced discrimination in Poland in the provision of health services. She testified that she elected to leave Poland temporarily to have her second child because of negative experiences giving birth in Poland earlier. She testified that she had first been denied entry to a hospital and had to travel to find an alternate site to give birth. She testified that although she was able to do this, she faced discriminatory treatment there, and testified that Roma mothers were not provided the same level of treatment as non-Roma mothers, and that she was not given pain relief when requested. Finally, XXXX testified that she is subject to harassment, racist comments and derision when out in public. She testified about being subject to racist vitriol on the streets or public transit, and being denied entry to stores and restaurants because of her Roma ethnicity.

[11]     One (1) particularly poignant incident was described in the claimant’s Basis of Claim forms where they decided to treat their son to a movie but had to leave because of comments made by other moviegoers and cinema staff against Roma.

[12]     As noted above, I find the claimants to be credible. I find on a balance of probabilities that the claimants have suffered from pervasive discrimination in the provision of education, and the availability of employment, and in the denial of the opportunity to participate in everyday society free from harassment or abuse.

[13]     While individual instances of discrimination might not necessarily constitute persecution, a pervasive pattern of discrimination across multiple contexts can amount to persecution. This is particularly the case when this discrimination is accompanied by an increased threat of violence.

[14]     The adult claimants testified to multiple instances of violence directed against them because of their ethnicity. The claimants testified that XXXX was attacked and injured by skinheads who were yelling racist epithets when he was filling his XXXX at a gas station. The claimants testified that their house was attacked and vandalized in 2019, and their dog killed by intruders. The claimants testified that they believe that this was a racist attack. Finally, both adult claimants were attacked by a group of four (4) skinheads while visiting the burial site of one (1) of the claimants’ parents. Both adult claimants were injured and required medical attention.

[15]     Both adult claimants were able to present medical documentation showing treatment for injuries consistent with the claimants’ factual allegations. I find on a balance of probabilities that the claimants have experienced violence and threats of violence in Poland because of the claimants’ Roma ethnicity. This, in concert with the discrimination and harassment noted above, leads me to conclude that the claimants do have a subjective fear of persecution in the form of continued, pervasive discrimination and risk of violence if they were to return to Poland.

[16]     Having found the claimants to have a subjective fear of persecution, I turn to the question of whether there is an objective basis for this fear. As noted, the claimants’ allegations concerning their treatment in Poland largely conform to reports concerning the situation of Roma found at the National Documentation Package at Exhibit 3, and Country Condition article submitted on behalf of the claimant at Exhibit 5. These reports note that prejudice and bigotry have effectively closed out large areas of society from the Roma community.

[17]     Items 13.3 and 13.4 of Exhibit 3 discuss discrimination against Roma in Poland in education, employment, and health care. Item 13.4 notes that although there have been some legislative attempts to reduce discrimination against Roma in Poland, the Roma community remains largely excluded from the workforce and higher education. There remains some reluctance among Polish employers to hire Roma.

[18]     Roma are similarly generally restricted to substandard housing and face discrimination in the provision of health services. Finally, these reports also increasing prevalence —

[19]     COUNSEL: I am so sorry. There is some — I am going to come and meet the claimant’s microphone. Hold on.

[20]     MEMBER: No problem. It seems to have ended. I am just seeing where I was. Finally, these reports also note an increasing prevalence of hate crimes and violence against Roma in Poland. I find that the evidence presented establishes that the claimant does have an objective basis for their subjective fear of persecution. As such, I find that all three (3) claimants have a well-founded fear of persecution in Poland.

[21]     With respect to state protection, Item 13.4, cited above, notes that the police may be ineffective in addressing violence against Roma, and that in some instances police may share political sympathies with racist groups.

[22]     Attacks on Roma often go under-reported, as Roma feel reluctance to go to the police for assistance. The claimants testified that they did approach the police after violent attacks, but that the police were reluctant to act because the claimants were not able to personally identify their assailants, and that, in fact, at one (1) point, the claimant was treated with suspicion as having somehow provoked his attackers.

[23]     The claimants testified that in their view, the police are reluctant to assist or protect the Roma community. I find that this is reasonable, given the claimants’ testimony and other evidence. The claimants presented sufficient evidence to establish that the state is unable or unwilling to protect the claimants.

[24]     With respect to the possibility of an internal flight alternative,  again, country condition reports indicate an anti-Roma animus throughout Poland. I find the claimants have no viable internal flight alternative where they could reasonably escape persecution.

[25]     My conclusion, based on the documentary evidence before me, and the testimony of the adult claimants, is this. I find that the claimants have established a serious possibility of persecution on the Convention grounds of race if they were to return to Poland. All three (3) claimants are therefore Convention refugees pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. All three (3) claims for protection are accepted.

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———