2024 RLLR 114

Citation: 2024 RLLR 114
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 11, 2024
Panel: Zoe Knes-Gray
Counsel for the Claimant(s): John W Grice
Country: Bahamas
RPD Number: TC0-10225
Associated RPD Number(s): TC0-10221
ATIP Number: A-2025-00611
ATIP Pages: 50–57

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] XXXX the principal claimant, and his son XXXX the minor claimant, claim to be citizens of the Bahamas and are seeking refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).[1]

ALLEGATIONS

[2] The specifics of the claim are set out in the claimant’s Basis of Claim form.[2] In summary, the principal claimant alleges that his partner, ESJ (who is the minor claimant’s mother) was in an abusive relationship with her former partner in the Bahamas, LM, who continued to pursue her following the end of their relationship, and inquire about her with family. The claimant alleges that if he and his son return to the Bahamas, LM will pursue and harm them as well due to their relationship to ESJ.

[3] The RPD initially rejected these claims, which originally included ESJ as a claimant as well. The RAD overturned the RPD decisions, accepted ESJ’ s claim as a Convention refugee, and returned the principal and minor claimant’s claims to the RPD to be redetermined.

DETERMINATION

[4] The panel finds the claimants to be persons in need of protection under section 97(1) of the IRPA. The test under s.97 is whether the claimants would, on a balance of probabilities, be personally subjected to a risk of life, or a risk of cruel or unusual treatment or punishment, or a danger of torture if they were to return to the Bahamas. The panel finds that the claimants have met this test and established on a balance of probabilities that they face a risk to life, or a risk of cruel or unusual treatment or punishment in the Bahamas.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[5] The claimants’ identities have been established through testimony and through documents filed, including copies of their passports issued by the government of the Bahamas.[3] The panel is satisfied on a balance of probabilities of the claimants’ personal and national identities.

Nexus

[6] The panel finds there is no link between what the claimants fear and a Convention ground. The claimants’ fear in this case is not linked to race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. The claimants fear LM, who has physically abused and continuously pursued ESJ. The claimants fear that LM will pursue and harm them as well due to their connection to ESJ. The panel finds that the claimants’ fear is related to a personal vendetta, and as such is not linked to a Convention ground. The panel has therefore assessed the claims under s.97(1).

Credibility

[7] When a claimant affirms to tell the truth, this creates a presumption of truthfulness unless there is evidence to the contrary.

[8] ESJ testified as a witness at the hearing. She spoke about her abusive relationship with LM, and how he continued to pursue her following the end of their relationship. She testified about an incident in October 2019 when he showed up at her workplace, started arguing with her, and accused her of not being with her son. ESJ indicated that LM used to come around the house when she was still living in the Bahamas with the principal claimant. She explained that LM had seen the claimant at the house and that he knew they were living together. She also spoke about how LM continued to contact her sister after she left the Bahamas and would say that ESJ is his wife, which led to the sister blocking LM. The principal claimant also testified at the hearing. He spoke about his contact with LM, explaining that while they had not technically met in person, there had been occasions when they had seen each other. Specifically, the claimant described an incident where LM was outside the house in his car, explaining that he and LM saw each other when the claimant went outside at this time.

[9] Overall, the panel found the claimant and witness to be credible and believes what they have alleged on a balance of probabilities. Their testimony was spontaneous, detailed, and consistent with their basis of claim forms. There were no relevant omissions or inconsistencies going to the core of the claim. The claimants also provided documentation to support their claims, including photos of injuries, police reports, and letters of support. The panel finds these documents to be credible and to support the claimants’ allegations.

[10] The panel finds on a balance of probabilities that ESJ has been in an abusive relationship with LM, that he continued to pursue her after the relationship ended, and that he continued to inquire about her after she left the Bahamas.

Personalized & Forward-Facing Risk

[11] The NDP reports that the issue of gender-based violence has been a consistent concern in the Bahamas. CEDAW has listed violence against women in the Bahamas as among the top two concerns facing women in that country. Caribbean countries generally experience high rates of rape and other forms of violence linked to the social and economic situation of women, which constitutes a “continuum of exploitation and abuse” often ending with the “ultimate form of violence, death.”[4] There is an apparent normalization of violence against women across the country, rooted in culture, gender socialization, stereotyping as well as socio-economic realities.[5] According to the Special Rapporteur on violence against women on her report on the Bahamas, … “violence against women [in the Bahamas] is hidden, denied and, even more worryingly, accepted as normal.”[6]

[12] The panel notes that in this case, LM has not harmed or targeted the claimants in the past. His harassment and abuse has been largely focused on his former partner, ESJ. ESJ testified that LM is affiliated with gang members, has connections in the Bahamas, and that she believes he has weapons. She also testified that he was able to locate her through word of mouth when she moved (she did not tell him she was moving), and that the small size of the island likely assisted him in locating her. LM also continued to inquire about the claimant with her sister after she left the Bahamas, leading her sister to block him. ESJ testified that she believes LM still wants to harm her and that he is a very jealous person. She explained that he knows she has another partner in her life, that even if LM couldn’t get to her, he would settle for the next best thing (which would likely be her current partner, the principal claimant), and that he would direct all of his hatred towards him and try to harm him. ESJ also testified that LM has seen the principal claimant at the house when they lived together, and that word about who he is would have gotten around. The principal claimant also testified that he believes there is a risk of harm for him and his son from LM. He explained that LM is gang affiliated and that gang members are everywhere in the Bahamas, which is a small place. He indicated that LM would be motivated to harm him due to his relationship with ESJ, and that his son could be incidentally harmed by being near the violence.

[13] The panel agrees that in these circumstances, there is a personalized and forward-facing risk of harm for the claimants in the Bahamas. The panel notes that the Bahamas is a small place, and that LM is believed to have gang connections. He has also been able to locate ESJ when she has moved in the past. While there is a lack of direct past contact between LM and the principal claimant, the panel notes that they have observed each other outside ESJ’s house. The panel also accepts that, given the small size of the island and LM’s connections, it is likely that LM is aware of the claimants’ identities and personal connections to ESJ. LM has a demonstrated history of violence towards ESJ, and had continued to pursue her after the relationship ended, including by inquiring about her with family members after ESJ left the country. The panel finds that these factors indicate that there is a risk that, should the claimants return to the Bahamas, LM would become aware of it and would be motivated to pursue them in order to obtain information about ESJ, in an effort to influence or punish ESJ, or out of anger/jealousy over the principal claimant’s relationship with ESJ. The panel also accepts that this poses a risk of incidental violence for the minor claimant, due to his proximity to his father.

[14] The panel finds that in these particular circumstances, the evidence is sufficient to establish on a balance of probabilities that the claimants face a personalized forward-facing risk to their life, or of cruel or unusual treatment or punishment, which is not faced generally by others in the Bahamas.

State Protection

[15] States are presumed to be capable of protecting their own citizens, except in situations where the state is in a state of complete breakdown. A claimant is required to approach the state for protection if protection might reasonably be forthcoming or, alternatively, if it is objectively reasonable for the claimant to have sought protection. To rebut the presumption of state protection, a claimant has to provide clear and convincing evidence of the state’s inability or unwillingness to protect its citizens.

[16] ESJ indicated that she did seek assistance from the police, and the claimants provided copies of police reports in their disclosure. However, ESJ explained that nothing would really happen after she filed these reports; the police said they would get back to her and never did. She would call and ask for updates but would continue to be told the police would get back to her, with no further action or assistance from them.

[17] The NDP for the Bahamas indicates that there is a lack of financial and legal resources, and even societal motivation to support victims of domestic violence. Domestic violence is often seen as a private matter in which the state should not intervene.[7] There is no comprehensive law addressing domestic violence and no national strategic plan in place to address such violence.[8] The objective evidence also suggests that police in the Bahamas are slow to respond and lack resources.[9] Among the concerns noted are police abuse and challenges within the judicial system which lead to delays and witness intimidation. [10] Police rarely inform victims of the right to apply for a protection order,[11] and CEDAW has expressed their concern about the capacity of the police and courts to address complaints from victims about domestic violence in a sensitive manner.[12]

[18] The panel therefore finds that adequate state protection would not be reasonably forthcoming to the claimants in the Bahamas. The country information is clear and convincing evidence that rebuts the presumption that adequate state protection is available.

Internal Flight Alternative

[19] The panel has also considered whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for the claimants in the Bahamas, and finds that in these circumstances, there is no viable internal flight alternative available. The claimant and ESJ testified that LM is believed to have gang connections in the Bahamas, and that he was previously able to locate ESJ’s new address after she moved. The panel notes that the Bahamas is a small country, which would further assist LM in locating the claimants through his connections or word of mouth. Additionally, LM continued to pursue ESJ after the relationship ended, and continued to contact her sister about her after ESJ left the country, demonstrating a continued interest in her. The panel finds this continued interest could extend to a continued motivation or interest in contacting/targeting the claimants, given their close connection to ESJ. In these circumstances, the panel finds that the claimants face a personal risk to life, or a risk of cruel or unusual treatment or punishment throughout the Bahamas. The panel therefore finds that the claimants do not have a viable internal flight alternative available in the Bahamas.

CONCLUSION

[20] The panel has considered the claimants’ testimony, their personal circumstances, the objective documentary evidence, and the claimants’ personal documentary evidence. Based on the totality of the evidence, the panel finds on a balance of probabilities that the claimants would be personally subjected to a risk to life, or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if they returned to the Bahamas. The panel therefore finds the claimants to be persons in need of protection as per s.97(1) of the IRPA and accepts their claims.

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———

[1] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c27, as amended, sections 96, 97(1)(a) and 97(1)(b)

[2] Exhibit 2

[3] Exhibit 1

[4] National Documentation Package, Bahamas, 29 September 2023, 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.

[5] National Documentation Package, Bahamas, 29 September 2023, 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.

[6] Exhibit 5.

[7] National Documentation Package, Bahamas, 29 September 2023, tab 5.5: Concluding observations on the sixth periodic report of the Bahamas. United Nations. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. 14 November 2018. CEDAW/C/BHS/CO/6.

[8] National Documentation Package, Bahamas, 29 September 2023, tab 5.4: Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 18 of the Convention. Sixth periodic report of States parties due in 2016. Bahamas. Bahamas. 31 May 2017. CEDAW/C/BHS/6.

[9] National Documentation Package, Bahamas, 29 September 2023, tab 7.2: OSAC Country Security Report. The Bahamas. United States. Overseas Security Advisory Council. 26 April 2022.

[10] National Documentation Package, Bahamas, 29 September 2023, 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.

[11] National Documentation Package, Bahamas, 29 September 2023, tab 5.5: Concluding observations on the sixth periodic report of the Bahamas. United Nations. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. 14 November 2018. CEDAW/C/BHS/CO/6.

[12] National Documentation Package, Bahamas, 29 September 2023, tab 5.4: Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 18 of the Convention. Sixth periodic report of States parties due in 2016. Bahamas.
Bahamas. 31 May 2017. CEDAW/C/BHS/6.