2024 RLLR 15
Citation: 2024 RLLR 15
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 25, 2024
Panel: Oluwabunmi Bosede
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Deborah Samara Rachlis
Country: Türkiye
RPD Number: TC3-06268
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2024-01886
ATIP Pages: N/A
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
[1] These are the reasons for the decision in the refugee claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX, who alleges to be a citizen of Türkiye, and is seeking protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).
[2] This claim has been decided without a hearing, according to the Immigration and Refugee Board’s Chairperson’s Instructions Governing the Streaming of Less Complex Claims at the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) and paragraph 170(f) of the Act.
[3] The Panel has considered the Chairperson’s Guideline 9: Proceedings Before the IRB Involving Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression, and Sex Characteristics, in this decision.
[4] In assessing the claim, the panel have considered the claimant’s Basic of Claim[1] (BOC), the objective evidence contained in the National Documentation Package[2] for Türkiye, (NDP) and the documentary evidence[3] provided by the claimant.
ALLEGATIONS
[5] The claimant’s allegations are contained in the Basis of Claim form[4]. In summary, the claimant alleges fear in the hands of the government authorities and community at large in Türkiye, because of her sexual orientation. The claimant was born as male, but he does not feel as one as she sees herself as a female.
DECISION
[6] The panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee, pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA, as there exists a serious possibility of persecution, should she return to Türkiye, on account of the claimant membership in a particular social group in regards sexual orientation.
ANALYSIS
Identity
[7] The panel finds that the identity of the claimant as a national of Türkiye is established, on a balance of probabilities, by the documents provided: copies of the passport.
Credibility
[8] Based on the documents in the file, the panel has noted no serious credibility issues. In particular, the evidence establishes the allegations as set out above and after reviewing the documents, the panel has no reason to doubt their authenticity.
[9] The claimant provided various documentary evidence[5] such as Medical Evaluation Report from the medical doctor in Türkiye, Photographs of the claimant, medical report form the claimant’s medical doctor in Canada, support letter from the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX confirming the claimant participation in their programs and support letters from the claimant friends and family confirming the claimant’s allegations.
[10] After reviewing the above evidence and documents, the panel finds that the claimant has established the credibility of her allegations, on a balance of probabilities. The claimant documentary evidence was consistent, in content and chronology, with the allegations in her BOC form and narrative, which were themselves internally consistent. The panel therefore finds that the claimant has established, on a balance of probabilities her sexual orientation.
Objective Basis
[11] The claimant fear of persecution in Türkiye is objectively well founded, and the panel finds that going forward they faces a serious possibility of persecution based on the sexual orientation. In reaching this conclusion, the panel have considered the documents in the National Documentation Package[6] (NDP).
[12] The US Department of State 2020 human rights report sets out the dangers faced by LGBTI+ citizens in Türkiye. It states that LGBTI+ individuals experienced discrimination, intimidation, and violent crimes. Human rights groups reported that police and prosecutors frequently fail to pursue cases of violence against” transgender persons or “accepted justification for perpetrators’ actions[7].” Police often did not arrest suspects or hold, “them in pretrial detention, as was common with other defendants. When arrests were made, defendants who claim, ‘unjustifiable provocation’ under the penal code and request a reduced sentence.” And “judges routinely applied the law to reduce the sentences” of persons who killed LGBTI+ individuals. While numerous LGBTI+ organizations reported a continued sense of vulnerability as restrictions on their freedom of speech, assembly, and association continued.
[13] LGBTI+ advocates also described a ‘frightening’ rise in hate speech of a ‘fundamentally different character’ following controversial remarks by the president of the Directorate of Religious Affairs and subsequent support for the Diyanet,” that’s the acronym, “president from high-ranking government officials, including the president…Criminal code does not include specific protections based on sexual orientation or gender identity,”. [8]
[14] Accordingly, the panel finds that given Türkiye repressive and increasingly authoritarian regime, the claimant has established that the claimant will faces a serious possibility of persecution by the Turkish state because of the sexual orientation.
Nature of The Harm
[15] The panel has examined this claim under section 96 of the IRPA, as it concludes that the risk the claimant faces constitutes persecution based on at least one of the grounds prescribed in the Refugee Convention, specifically her membership in a particular social group – sexual orientation.
State Protection
[16] The panel finds that there is clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection.
Internal Flight Alternative
[17] The panel has examined whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for the claimant. Based on the evidence on file, the panel find that the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution throughout Türkiye and an internal flight alternative does not exist for the claimant in Türkiye.
CONCLUSION
[18] In light of the preceding, the panel concludes that the claimant is a Convention refugee, pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA and accepts this claim.
——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———
[1] Exhibit 2 and 5.
[2] Exhibit 3.
[3] Exhibit 5.
[4] Exhibit 2.
[5] Exhibit 5.
[6] Exhibit 3.
[7] Exhibit 3, Türkiye NDP, tab 2.1.
[8] Ibid.