2024 RLLR 1

Citation: 2024 RLLR 1
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 30, 2024
Panel: Carolyn Adolph
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Catherine Felix
Country: Czech Republic
RPD Number: TC3‑31371
Associated RPD Number(s): TC3-31372, TC3-31373, TC3-31374
ATIP Number: A-2024-01886
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1]                   MEMBER: This is the decision for the claims gathered under TC3-31371. This is a family with four (4) members XXXX XXXX, the principal claimant, XXXX XXXX, the associate claimant and XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, the minor claimants. They are citizens of the Czech Republic. They are claiming refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Principal claimant was the designated representative for the minor claimants, and the claims were joined pursuant to RPG Rule 55.

ALLEGATIONS

[2]                   Their allegations are set out in the Basis of Claim forms and in the narratives of the principal claimant and the associate claimant at Exhibit 2. They also provided amendments of Exhibit 5.

[3]                   In summary, they are making their claims on the grounds of their Roma ethnicity. They say they fear the Czech state and society, and that there is no state protection or an internal flight alternative for them.

DETERMINATION

[4]                   Having considered the totality of the evidence, I find each claimant to be a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96. They each face a serious possibility of persecution on a balance of probabilities, on the basis of their Roma ethnicity.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[5]                   I find that the claimants have established their personal and national identities on a balance of probabilities. I rely on the copies of their passports issued by the Czech Republic at Exhibits 1 and 4.

Nexus

[6]                   I find there is a link between the claim fear of return and the Convention grounds ethnicity, and the claims are assessed under section 96.

Credibility

[7]                   When a claimant swears that certain facts are true, there is a presumption  that they are true, unless there is a valid reason for doubt. In this case, there are no such reasons.

[8]                   Both adult claimants testified at the hearing. At all times, their testimony was clear, direct, spontaneous, and unembellished. Their testimony was internally consistent as well as consistent with their Basis of Claim and the other documentary evidence on file. Their testimony is presumed to be true.

[9]                   The principal claimant testified that his Roma ethnicity interfered with his ability to get and retain reliable work. He testified that he got temporary work at times, including from a large German corporation, but he was let go whenever his ethnicity came to the employer’s detention.

[10]                   He testified that he established his own XXXX business but was run out of that business by competing XXXX companies with ties to the local police. He also testified that competing XXXX XXXX and Czech customers who discovered he was Roma complained about it, made a production of it, made it difficult for him to do his job as the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX company.

[11]                   He testified that he brought with him to Canada documentary evidence regarding the efforts to shut down his XXXX business, including his loss of his XXXX XXXX, but that all of these documents were damaged in transit. I accept his testimony and his explanation for the lack of documentary evidence, I find the principal claimant that established with his testimony that because of his Roma ethnicity, he struggled with steady employment. I also find that on a balance of probabilities even his efforts to start his own business and be his own employer met significant obstacles because of his Roma ethnicity.

[12]                   Both adult claimants testified that the family also struggled with housing. The associate claimant testified that she found they had to lie and say they were not Roma in order to get housing, though once their ethnicity was discovered, they would be driven out. The adult claimants testified that in the last three (3) months of their residency in the Czech Republic, they were homeless and living in shelters. I find they established that their ethnicity led to economic as well as housing insecurity.

[13]                   The adult claimants also testified they feared their children would suffer from segregation in education, including social isolation and the possibility of being sent to a special school. I asked the principal claimant if, based on his own experience as a Roma student in school, he believed his children could receive a good education and qualify for a stable career in a skilled occupation. He testified that such things were not possible as such doors are not opened to Roma children in the Czech Republic. I accept this testimony. I find it to be consistent with the objective evidence.

[14]                   The claimants say they got a break that allowed them to leave the Czech Republic. While they were homeless and living in a shelter, they encountered a friend and this friend, they said, offered them money to buy the family plane tickets to Canada. The claimants testified that they took this offer and left the Czech Republic as soon as they could. I find the established that they fear the Czech government, which controls the education system, as well as racism in Czech society at large, and that despite the adult claimant’s energy and efforts, they had been unable to establish a stable home in which to raise their children because of their Roma ethnicity. They have established their subjective fear.

Well-Founded Fear of Persecution

[15]                   I found objective evidence to corroborate the claimants fear of return in the National Documentation Package.

[16]                   Tabs 2.1 and 7.2 state that the situation of the Roma minority remains one of the country’s most pressing problems. Despite some efforts at change, they report that marginalization, social exclusion, and territorial segregation of Romas continues.

[17]                   The US State Department writes a Tab 2.1 that members of the Roma community face daily prejudice, intolerance and discrimination in housing, education, and employment. About a third of Roma lived in socially excluded communities, and Roma face difficulties in getting housed and remaining housed, just like as the claimants have. The report states there is a lack of accountability for crimes of violence and threats against Roma and hate crimes against Roma continued to be a problem.

[18]                   The adult claimants testified that they experienced isolation during and segregation during their school years. They testified they fear that upon return, the minor claimants would face the same treatment.

[19]                   Tab 1.7 reports that Roma children are marginalized and are disproportionately educated in special schools, with much lower educational standards.

[20]                   Tab 2.1 reports that children who attend these special schools were found to have lower academic attainment and fewer economic opportunities. I accept this objective evidence and I find on a balance of probabilities, the education system operated by the state is part of the foundation of a system of discrimination against Roma. Lower educational attainment, combined with societal prejudice, leads to a lack of economic stability, and this in turn leads to instability in housing and in all other aspects of life. This creates a system of discrimination that interests Roma people from generation to generation. I find the objective evidence shows a pattern of sustained and systemic violations of human rights, including to education, equality before the law, the right to work, and the right to security of the person and that these violations cumulatively rise to the level of persecution.

[21]                   Counsel submitted to country conditions evidence at Exhibit 6, which I found to report that conditions for Roma have not improved significantly since the claimants fled in XXXX 2023. Therefore, the claimant’s subjective fear of persecution has an objective basis, and they have a well-founded fear of persecution upon return.

State Protection

[22]                   There is a presumption that a state can protect its own citizens. However, the objective evidence establishes that the government of the Czech Republic remains an active participant in the persecution of Roma. It governs the segregation of a substantial portion of the Roma population. It governs the education and medical care systems, both of which discriminate against Roma. I find it would be objectively unreasonable for the claimants to seek the protection of the state when it is itself a main agent of persecution. Therefore, I find there is no adequate state protection available to the claimants.

Internal Flight Alternative

[23]                   I also considered whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for them. The Czech Republic is a small country. I find on a balance of probabilities conditions hostile to Roma are about the same everywhere and given that the state is an ancient persecution, and it exercises control over all of Czech territory, I find there is no viable internal flight alternative.

[24]                   In conclusion, based on the totality of the evidence, I find each of the claimants to be a Convention refugee on the grounds of their Roma ethnicity. On a balance of probabilities, they each face a serious risk of persecution upon return to the Czech Republic, and all four (4) claims are accepted.

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———