2024 RLLR 50

Citation: 2024 RLLR 50
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: October 23, 2024
Panel: Gregory Israelstam
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Farid Sarabsky
Country: Türkiye
RPD Number: TC3-28950
Associated RPD Number(s): TC3-28953, TC3-28964, TC3-29601
ATIP Number: A-2025-00128
ATIP Pages: N/A

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION:

[1] XXXX XXXX (the principal claimant), his spouse XXXX XXXX and their two children XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX (the associate claimants) seek protection pursuant to section 96 or section 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“IRPA”). Their claims were heard together, pursuant to rule 55 of the Refugee Protection Division Rules. XXXX XXXX acted as designated representative for the minor children XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX at the hearing.

[2] The principal clamant is a citizen of Türkiye and no other country. Each of the associate claimants is a citizen of Moldova; XXXX and XXXX hold dual citizenship in Moldova and Türkiye, while XXXX is a citizen of Moldova and no other country.

ASSOCIATE CLAIMANT COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:

[3] A claimant must fear a serious possibility of persecution or, on a balance of probability, face harm in all the countries in which a claimant holds citizenship. The claimants present no evidence and make no submissions suggesting that any of the associate claimants, each of whom holds citizenship in Moldova, faces any harm or fears any persecution in Moldova. The claimants were offered the opportunity to do so, but elected not to.

[4] As none of the associate claimants therefore meet the definition of a Convention Refugee found at section 96 of IRPA or the definition of a Person in Need of Protection found at section 97 of IRPA, all of the associates claimants’ claims fails.

[5] The rest of these reasons deal with the claim made by the principal claimant.

ALLEGATIONS:

[6] The allegations of this claim are found in the Basis of Claim (“BOC”) forms submitted by the claimants as well as the principal claimant testimony during the hearing. The principal claimant alleges a fear of persecution in Türkiye at the hands of society in general because of his religion, as he has converted from Islam to Christianity.

More specifically, the principal claimant alleges that he faces discrimination and prejudice from society in general and from state authorities in particular because of anti-Christian social prejudice. The principal claimant alleges that he faces violence at the hands of nationalist groups because of his Christian faith.

DETERMINATION:

[7] As noted above, the claim of the three associate claimants fail, as they have not presented evidence that they fear persecution or face harm from all countries where they hold nationality.

[8] The principal claimant has established a serious possibility of persecution on the Convention ground of religion should he return to Türkiye. The principal claimant meets the definition of Convention Refugee pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA. The reasons for this determination follow below.

ANALYSIS :

Identity:

[9] A copy of a photograph of the biographical data page from the principal claimant’s passport was included in the evidence, along with extracts from Turkish passport and civil registries[1]. Through these documents and the principal claimant’s testimony, I find that the principal claimant has established his personal identity and his exclusive citizenship of Türkiye.

Credibility:

[10] The principal claimant testified at the hearing. A claimant who testifies under oath or affirmation is presumed to be truthful unless there are valid reasons to disbelieve the testimony.

[11] The principal claimant testified that he grew up in an Alevi Muslim family. He testified that he became interested in Christianity as a teenager. He testified that he read the bible and found it closer to his personal beliefs than the Koran; he testified that when he was about 18, he formally joined a protestant church in Adana.

[12] He testified that his family reacted with anger when they found out. He testified that when members of the community learned that he had converted, he faced harassment or ostracization from the community.

[13] The principal claimant testified that he did his compulsory military service in 2002 and faced harassment and violence from fellow conscripts when they found out he was Christian. He also testified that superiors would give him more menial assignments.

[14] The principal claimant describes an increased bureaucratic burden that is imposed by the state on Christians. He testified that as a Christian, it has been more difficult to enrol his children in school in Türkiye or to get official documents.

[15] The principal claimant testified that he has faced violence at the hands of nationalist mobs on multiple occasions because of his Christian faith. He testified that in 2006, he was working at his church in the evening when it was broken into by a group of nationalists who vandalized the church and beat the claimant and his fellow congregants.

[16] The principal claimant testified that the church he attended in Iskenderum in 2010 had to stop its activities because of violent attacks including the assassination of the church bishop by his driver.

[17] The principal claimant testified that during 2018 he worked as a XXXX XXXX in XXXX; he testified that during a service at a church there, the congregants were attacked by a mob of nationalists.

[18] The claimant testified that in Türkiye he and his family faced a constant level of harassment, with people approaching the principal claimant to demand he convert back to Islam or approaching his family to demand they convert or take Muslim names.

[19] The principal claimant testified that he believes that he would continue to face prejudice, harassment and violence should he return to Türkiye.

[20] As noted, claimants testifying oath or affirmation are presumed to be testifying truthfully absent a valid reason to reject the testimony. I find no valid reason to reject the principal claimant’s testimony. The principal claimant was generally forthright in his testimony. He presented documentary evidence in support of his claim, including evidence of his Christian practice both in Canada and in Türkiye. His testimony was consistent with the testimony of his wife, who also testified, and with the narratives found in both adult claimants’ Basis of Claim forms.

[21] I find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant did convert, as alleged, from Alevi Islam to Christianity as a teenager. I find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant did practice devoutly as a Christian in Türkiye and continues to do so here.

[22] I find on a balance of probabilities that the principal claimant has faced harassment and prejudice from the community at large because of his and his family’s Christian faith. I find on a balance of probabilities that the principal claimant has faced bureaucratic hurdles and difficulties not imposed on non-Christians.

[23] Finally, I find on a balance of probabilities that the principal claimant has faced multiple instances of violence at the hands of nationalist mobs who oppose a Christian presence in Türkiye,

[24] I find that the principal claimant does have a subjective fear of persecution in the form of harassment, prejudice and violence because of his conversion to Christianity.

Objective Basis:

[25] Having found the principal claimant to have a subjective fear of persecution, I turn to the question of whether this fear has an objective basis. Country condition reports, found in the National Documentation Package for Türkiye address conditions for Christians in Türkiye. Item 12.1 notes that the government of Türkiye continues to limit rights of even long-established religious minorities. Prominent or public Christians may be accused of attempting to convert and face harassment. Churches may find it difficult to obtain or renew building or other permits.[2]

[26] Items 12.4 notes that minority religious communities remain concerned about instances of societal violence, intolerant rhetoric and discrimination. Prominent Christians have been targeted for attack or assassination.[3]

[27] There is sufficient evidence on record to conclude that the principal claimant’s fear of persecution in Türkiye has an objective basis. The principal claimant therefore has a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of religion.

State Protection and Internal Flight Alternative:

[28] The principal claimant alleges that the state is unwilling or unable to protect the Christian minority from persecution. He notes that the state in many ways is complicit in the harassment of Christians by making it more difficult for Christians to build and maintain places of worship, to have their faith recognized, and by imposing additional bureaucratic burdens on Christians.

[29] The principal claimant alleges that he attempted to seek police protection after the attack on the church in 2006. He testified that he and the pastor of the church went to the police to report the attack, but that the police refused to take a report or conduct an investigation. Given my finding with respect to credibility, I find on a balance of probabilities that the principal claimant did attempt to secure police protection but that it was denied.

[30] The principal claimant testified that he did not attempt to obtain police protection in the future, as he felt that he would be unlikely to get assistance.

[31] I find that the claimant has provided evidence that the state is unable or unwilling to protect him. I find that the claimant does not enjoy state protection.

[32] As country condition reports cited above note that anti-Christian animus and prejudice does not appear limited geographically in Türkiye, I find that the principal claimant does not have an internal flight alternative within Türkiye.

CONCLUSION

[33] As noted above, none of the three associate claimants fears persecution nor faces harm in all countries in which they holds nationality; for that reason, each of the three associate claimants’ claims fail.

[34] Based on the evidence before me and the testimony of the principal claimant, I conclude that the principal claimant has established a serious possibility of persecution on the Convention grounds of religion should he return to Türkiye. This serious possibility of persecution exists throughout Türkiye and the principal claimant can not expect state protection. The principal claimant is therefore a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA. The principal claimant’s claim is accepted.

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———

[1] Exhibit 5

[2] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package for Türkiye 28 June 2024, item 12.1: Turkey. International Religious Freedom Report for 2023. United States Department of State, 26 June 2024.

[3] Exhibit 3, item 12.4: Turkey. United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. 2024 Annual Report. 1 May 2024.