2024 RLLR 33

Citation: 2024 RLLR 33
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 22, 2024
Panel: Lusine Unanyan
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Kingsley I Jesuorobo
Country: Ghana
RPD Number: TC1-06722
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: N/A
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: Okay. This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division in the claim of XXXX XXXX, a citizen of Ghana who is claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[2] In rendering my decision, I have considered and applied the Chairperson’s Guideline 4, which offers guidance on gender specific aspects of the claim.

ALLEGATIONS

[3] The full allegations of the claimant are set out in her Basis of Claim form and narrative. In summary, the claimant fears gender-based violence at the hands of a man who wished to forcibly marry her, as well as sexually assaulted her. She also fears her father, who attempted to forcibly marry her to an older man and to undergo circumcision.

DETERMINATION

[4] I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee for the following reasons.

Identity

[5] I find that the personal and national identity of the claimant as a citizen of Ghana, has been established through her testimony and the copy of her passport in evidence.

Nexus

[6] I find that the claimant’s allegations establish a nexus to the Convention ground of membership in a particular social group, of women fearing gender-based violence. This claim has therefore been decided pursuant to section 96 of IRPA.

Credibility

[7] The claimant’s sworn testimony is presumed truthful unless there are material reasons to doubt the veracity of the allegations. In this case, I find that the totality of the claimant’s evidence sufficiently establishes her core allegations on a balance of probabilities.

[8] The claimant testified on her core allegations at today’s hearing. She testified about her life in Ghana, her experiences with XXXX (ph), how she came to meet him and the encounters that took place where he and her maternal uncle attempted to force her to marry XXXX XXXX

[9] She testified about his attack on her when he raped her in XXXX 2018, as well as what happened after the incident. Her testimony included allegations that she and her mother attended a police station to report the rape.

[10] I had a concern about this for the following — about this part of the claimant’s testimony for the following reasons.

[11] The claimant has submitted a copy of her police complaint, found at Exhibit 5, which I note states that the police is located in Accra. When asked, the claimant testified that she and her mother took a one (1) hour car ride to Accra to meet with the police because there were no police stations in their small town of XXXX XXXX. I will spell that. It is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.

[12] However, a search of this town on Google maps, which was done with the claimant, shows that it is a significant distance, XXXX XXXX XXXX away from Accra. The claimant testified that she made a mistake when she said it was an hour drive, and that time has passed and the psychological impact of her experiences have caused her to misremember these events.

[13] While I acknowledge the claimant’s testimony in this regard, as well as the XXXX report that is disclosed which speaks to her XXXX state and impact, I do not find that this explanation adequately explains the inconsistency noted for the following reasons.

[14] I find that the claimant would have remembered taking a lengthy drive in order to report the sexual assault. I note that this drive would be multiple hours given the vast distance between the two (2) locations. I further note that the medical report from the claimant’s medical examination, which allegedly took place on the same date — this is also disclosed at Exhibit 5 — further called the claimant’s testimony about this into question, because the hospital on the report is noted to be located in yet another city, Kumasi. Which, according to the claimant, is about XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX hours away from XXXX XXXX.

[15] I do not find credible that the claimant would have traveled to all three (3) cities with a cumulative distance of XXXX XXXX XXXX, all in one (1) day as alleged, and not remember it. For all of these reasons, I draw a negative credibility inference.

[16] Aside from the above negative credibility findings, however, I had no other concerns about the claimant’s evidence, such that would be sufficient to rebut the truthfulness of her core allegations. The claimant’s testimony was, for the most part, open, fluid, and spontaneous, and there were no other material omissions, contradictions, or inconsistencies.

[17] She testified about her personal beliefs against forced marriage, and that she had been vocal about her views, causing her to be fined by the community where she resided.

[18] She testified further about her father’s attempts to force her to marry his friend, who was an older man, and required her to undergo circumcision. When she refused, she was assaulted by her father and attacked and threatened by the men that she alleges were sent by her father.

[19] The claimant has provided a letter from her mother, which corroborates and is consistent with her allegations. On its face, this document does not contain any irregularities or other reasons that would cause me to doubt the validity of this document, and I therefore accord it full weight in supporting the claimant’s core allegations.

[20] Though I had the above concern about the claimant’s credibility, I find that it is insufficient to be fatal to the claim when considered in the context of the entirety of her evidence.

[21] In addition to the claimant’s testimony on her allegations, I have also considered her profile. She is a single woman and a single mother to a 10-month-old. She alleges experiencing gender-based violence from several individuals. She testified that she would not be able to reside with either her father or her mother, due to the risks she faces in both locations. She further testified that she would not be able to live safely on her own in any part of Ghana, as a single woman. And the country conditions evidence about Ghana, which will be summarized below in my decision, support this assertion.

[22] For all of these reasons, I find on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant has established her subjective fear of gender-based persecution, on a balance of probabilities.

[23] I also note that the claimant delayed in making a refugee claim for approximately a year after arriving in Canada. She testified that she did not know about the refugee claim process until she met someone who told her about it. I note that the claimant had a valid student visa until 2022, and she made her claim in 2020, and therefore I do not draw a negative credibility inference with respect to her subjective fear.

Objective Basis

[24] The objective evidence supports the claimant’s fear of returning to Ghana. According to the National Documentation Package for Ghana at Item 2.1, it states that rape and domestic violence are serious problems in Ghana, and the authorities do not enforce the law effectively.

[25] One (1) of the significant human rights issues in Ghana in 2022, as noted by the report, was lack of investigation and accountability for gender-based violence, including domestic and intimate partner violence.

[26] The Domestic Violence Act was adopted in 2007. Item 5.2 of the NDP identifies that Ghana created a National Action Plan on domestic violence, and published the 2015 National Gender Policy to mainstream gender equality and enforced legislation addressing violence against women. However, as noted in NDP Item 5.1, there remains work to be done to ensure laws are enacted and understood by the broader population.

[27] 5.2 also states that despite the increased number of reports of domestic violence following the enactment of this legislation, it did not result in increase in prosecutions or convictions. Item 5.8 speaks about lacking resources within support units.

[28] Item 2.1 also states that spousal rape is not criminalized in Ghana.

[29] Item 5.6 and 5.7 in the NDP state that domestic violence is largely seen as a private family matter, and protection from state authorities is only sought in extreme cases. Women frequently withdraw complaints about gender-based violence due to fear of stigma and reprisals. Various forms of domestic violence are seen as socially acceptable by the majority of people.

[30] 5.1 identifies that families often convince women to return to their abusers and not pursue prosecution, and family intervention is frequent to prevent divorce and stigmatization.

[31] 5.6 states that family arbitration is common and prevents women going outside of the family to report the abuse.

[32] Items 5.2 and 5.1 also states that women are largely blamed for violence that they experience, and that persistent violence in Ghana is the result of cultural norms, practices, and traditions, in addition to patriarchal attitudes and deep rooted stereotypes regarding the roles and responsibilities of men and women in family and society,

[33] The claimant’s country condition documents at Exhibit 5 are also consistent with the information found in the NDP regarding the prevalence of gender-based violence throughout Ghana and the over-patriarchal attitudes within society.

[34] So, based on all of the above, I find that the claimant has established a well-founded fear of persecution in Ghana.

State Protection

[35] I find that there is clear and convincing evidence before me that the state is unable or unwilling to provide the claimant with adequate protection, and that the presumption of state protection has been rebutted.

[36] Item 10.1 of the NDP is a UK Home Office report which states that corruption and bribery are widespread, and the police have a poor record of investigating and solving serious crimes, particularly local police in remote rural areas. Police seldom intervene in cases of domestic violence, returning victims to their families in cases deemed less severe, or are unwilling to prosecute — and where the police do arrest suspects, few cases result in conviction.

[37] NDP Item 5.2 identifies the establishment of the Domestic Violence and Victim Support Unit within Ghana Police Service, that is mandated to respond to and enforce legislation regarding sexual and gender-based violence, and to investigate such allegations.

[38] Item 2.1 states that police seldom intervene in domestic violence cases unless specifically directed by the Domestic Violence and Victim Support Unit. Even then, few cases result in convictions or even reach courts.

[39] Given the country conditions evidence noted above, I find that state protection is not adequate at the operational level, and that adequate state protection would not be forthcoming to the claimant in her circumstances.

Internal Flight Alternative

[40] To determine whether a viable IFA exists, I must consider a two (2) pronged test. Under the first prong, I must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant would not face a serious possibility of persecution or a risk to her life, or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, in the part of the country where the IFA exists. Secondly, the IFA must be such that it would not be objectively unreasonable or unduly harsh in all the circumstances for the claimant to relocate. And both of those prongs have to be satisfied in order to find that the claimant has a viable IFA.

[41] Having considered the objective country documentation and the claimant’s personal circumstances, I find that it would be objectively unreasonable or unduly harsh in her particular circumstances, to relocate within Ghana.

[42] The claimant is a single woman and a single mother to a 10-month-old child. She has experienced gender-based violence from multiple agents of harm, including her father. According to the disclosed XXXX report, she is diagnosed with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and requires XXXX XXXX treatment.

[43] The objective country conditions evidence referenced above, highlights the prevalence of gender-based violence, as well as the inadequacy of state protection accorded to women, throughout Ghana.

[44] Item 5.2 of the NDP is a report on gender equality and women’s rights in Ghana. States that, “There are other cultural practices that dehumanize Ghanaian women and girls and deny them a right to living dignified lives.”

[45] Other country conditions documents in the NDP and Counsel’s disclosure package, refer to patriarchal norms and discriminatory attitudes that still exist in Ghanaian society that create hardship for women, particularly single women, without family support.

[46] If the claimant were to relocate away from her family in Ghana, she would be living alone as a single woman and potentially as a single mother to a 10-month-old child. She would not have family or other support networks.

[47] Having considered the objective evidence in the claimant’s personal circumstances, I find that the conditions associated with relocating to an IFA, to be objectively unreasonable and unduly harsh in the claimant’s particular circumstances.

[48] As the second part of the test is not met, it is not necessary for me to consider the first prong of the test. Accordingly, I find that the claimant does not have a viable IFA in Ghana.

CONCLUSION

[49] I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee, pursuant to section 96 of IRPA, and her claim is therefore accepted.

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———