2024 RLLR 133

Citation: 2024 RLLR 133
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 18, 2024
Panel: R. Jackson
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Robin Edoh
Country: Suriname
RPD Number: TC3-04808
Associated RPD Number(s): TC3-04810
ATIP Number: A-2025-00724
ATIP Pages: N/A

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] XXXX XXXX (“JM”) and XXXX XXXX XXXX (“BA”) claim to be citizens of XXXXand are claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

ALLEGATIONS

[2] BA alleges that she is a lesbian who entered a relationship with JM with her mother’s encouragement, in an effort to avoid social stigma due to her sexual orientation. They had one child together many years ago, and maintained their relationship, eventually moving in together, and a few years later, getting married. BA testified that she never admitted to her family that she was a lesbian, but assumptions were made at a young age as she was seen as unladylike. This stigma caused her social isolation, and she was the target of physical bullying and taunts, which the teachers in school did not address. As an adult, she continued to receive daily insults (such as when out shopping) and she was passed over for a promotion due to her sexual orientation.

[3] The claimants allege the reason they came to Canada was because, after many years together, they decided to get married in 2019. This caused some of their family members to issue threats of physical violence against JM. The agents of persecution (AOP) alleged that the marriage was shameful as it was probably meant to disguise and support BA’s sexual orientation.

[4] The claimants allege a fear of physical harm upon a return to Suriname, from family members and/or the general population.

DETERMINATION

[5] The claimants are Convention refugees as they have established a serious possibility of persecution on account of their memberships in particular social groups – BA as a lesbian, and JM as her husband (family).

[6] In rendering my reasons, I have considered the Chairperson’s Guideline 9: Proceedings Before the IRB Involving Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Expression, and Sex Characteristics (SOGIESC).

ANALYSIS

Identity

[7] The claimants’ identities were established based on their passports.

Credibility

[8] The claimants testified in a straightforward manner and provided sufficient details and explanations as required at the hearing. There were no relevant inconsistencies in their testimony or contradictions between their testimony and the other evidence before me which have not been satisfactorily explained. They provided relevant supporting evidence reflecting what was reasonably available for them to provide, and they were able to answer questions about that evidence.

[9] While the claimants testified that they feared being forced by the family to undergo a Winti ritual to prove that BA is not a lesbian, the panel finds that it is speculative that they would be forced into that situation. Neither claimant testified as to any actual information that there were plans or intentions to force them to do such a thing, and they didn’t have much information about the practice. While JM said that years ago, he had seen some nephews undergo such a ritual, it was not established that the claimants would be forced to do so upon a return to Suriname.

[10] Otherwise, the claimants were generally credible witnesses, and the panel finds the supporting evidence to be generally credible as well. Therefore, I accept the allegation that BA is a lesbian and that some of her family members, some of JM’s family members, and many in society at large were opposed to BA’s sexual orientation.

[11] Although the Basis of Claim narratives indicate that the claimants were threatened with death, when the panel asked for specific examples of such incidents, it seemed that in fact this had not occurred as openly as such a statement implies.

[12] After hearing the claimants’ testimonies, it appears that the main problems BA faced in Suriname due to her sexual orientation were social ostracism, frequent taunts and insults by the community at large, being passed over for a promotion, and the overriding fear of violence which could erupt from family or strangers at unpredictable moments. The claimants testified about having seen social media reports about violence against LGBT individuals and a lack of consequences for such violence. As well, BA previously experienced violence when she was in high school.

[13] As for JM, he was openly threatened with death once by a stranger on the street. The threats from family members were less overt, though there was an incident when JM ran into his brother-in-law and some of his friends on the street, they were screaming at him and throwing bottles and stones. He has been told to divorce his wife.

Well-Founded Fear of Persecution

[14] There is little objective evidence in the National Documentation Package for Suriname about the conditions for LGBTIQ2+ individuals in that country. The objective country condition evidence in item 2.1 of the National Documentation Package (NDP) notes few official reports of violence against LGBTQI+ persons, primarily due to fear of retribution. Authorities investigated and prosecuted reported cases of violence against LGBTQI+ persons, but the LGBTQI+ community alleged authorities did not take all complaints filed by the LGBTQI+ persons seriously. As well:

The law prohibited discrimination and hate speech based on sexual orientation, specifically protecting the LGBTQI+ community. Violations were punishable by a fine or prison sentence of up to one year. The law did not set standards for determining what constituted such discrimination or hate speech. Same-sex couples could not marry, since the civil code recognized only marriages between a man and a woman. In January, the Constitutional Court upheld the existing law. The law on retirement benefits specifically excluded same-sex couples from benefits granted to heterosexual couples. There were reports that members of the LGBTQI+ community faced discrimination in housing and employment.

[…] Societal discrimination varied depending on location, as discrimination in rural districts was far more pervasive than in the city. In certain communities, young persons also experienced discrimination when coming out.

[15] The panel finds that the above-noted report indicates unclear circumstances in which LGBTQI+ individuals could file a complaint regarding hate speech or discrimination. This reflects BA’s testimony regarding the lack of evidence for the basis of her workplace discrimination, and the couple’s reticence to go to police about other crimes against them.

[16] NDP item 5.3 reports that LGBTQI married couples are ineligible to adopt a child, due to the opposite-sex element of the marriage requirement, which the report deemed discriminatory and unfair treatment based on sexual orientation. The panel notes that this discrimination with respect to who can adopt a child indicates social attitudes with respect to child rearing, and as such it obliquely supports the claimants’ allegation that their families thought it was suspicious that BA had never had any more children since 1998.

[17] Counsel submitted some country conditions documents pertaining to the situation for LGBTQ+ persons in Suriname. A human rights committee report from 2015 (C3) states that such persons are subjected to daily social discrimination, violence and stigmatisation in all spheres of their lives. Other documents from counsel primarily note social rejection by family members.

[18] In analyzing the extent of discrimination against lesbian individuals in Suriname, I have considered the legal principles captured in the SOGIESC Guideline. In particular, the SOGIESC Guideline states that individuals may face instances of harassment or discrimination that cumulatively amount to a well-founded fear of persecution, such as restrictions on access to employment or being the target of repeated acts of intimidation.

[19] BA gave evidence of the incidents of discrimination, harassment, and violence that she experienced while living in Suriname. These incidents are consistent with the objective evidence stating that there is societal discrimination, and I find that the general lack of information about violence faced by the LGBTIQ2 community is more likely than not due to fears of retribution for reporting such incidents. The objective evidence supports a finding that BA faced instances of harassment and discrimination in Suriname that cumulatively amounted to a well-founded fear of persecution. In short, since her sexual orientation was widely assumed in Suriname, she faced various problems which affected her human rights to a sufficient degree to indicate more than a mere possibility of persecution upon a return to Suriname.

[20] Therefore, having determined, on a balance of probabilities, that BA’s evidence is credible and that there is an objective basis for her claim, I find that she has established a serious possibility of persecution based on the Convention nexus of the particular social group of sexual orientation.

[21] As for the claimant JM, her husband, for the reasons noted above, there is an objective basis for his fear of retribution as his marriage is perceived as a shameful way to hide BA’s sexual orientation. JM testified he loves BA and they both testified that they want to remain married. Thus, JM is a member of the particular social group of family.

State Protection

[22] Item 2.1 of the NDP, as cited above, notes a reluctance to report crimes affecting LGBTQ+ individuals due to fear of retribution and a lack of responsiveness from police. The claimants testified that they did not believe they would receive any help from police because they would also harbour homophobic beliefs and be unhelpful.

[23] Regarding state protection, the SOGIESC Guideline states that the actual implementation and effectiveness of legislative or other government actions designed to improve the situation of LGBTIQ2 individuals must be viewed considering how state actors and general society continue to treat them. As noted above, there is no real framework in Suriname to effectively prosecute hate crimes or discrimination based on sexual orientation.

[24] Considering all of the above, I find that the country conditions indicate a lack of state protection for both claimants.

Internal Flight Alternative

[25] It is well-established that an IFA is not viable if an individual must conceal their SOGIESC to live in that location. Suriname is a small country. The claimants were from the capital, and the objective evidence states that societal attitudes towards LGBTIQ2 individuals are worse in rural areas.

[26] The potential IFA of Nieuw Nickerie was addressed at the hearing, and the claimants testified that due to the relatively low population, they would be even less accepted in that city, and their problems would likely follow them.

[27] The panel therefore finds that there is no viable IFA relevant to the claimants’ circumstances.

CONCLUSION

[28] The claimants are Convention refugees.

[29] Their claims are accepted.

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———