2024 RLLR 53

Citation: 2024 RLLR 53
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 7, 2024
Panel: Josée Bouchard
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Sarah Voegeli
Country: Democratic Republic of the Congo
RPD Number: TC3-38050
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2025-00128
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: This is the decision of the claim for refugee protection filed by the claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX. The file number is TC3-38050. The claimant is claiming to be a citizen of the Democratic Republic of the Congo or DRC and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[2] In making this decision I have to consider and apply the Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Gender Considerations in Proceedings Before the Immigration and Refugee Board effective July 2022 and amended in October 2023.

[3] I have considered the claimant’s testimony and the other evidence in the case and I’m ready to render my decision orally.

[4] The specifics of the claim are set out in the claimant’s narrative of her Basis of Claim form filed at Exhibit 2. The claimant alleges to be a citizen of the DRC. The claimant fears for her life or fears that she will be the victim of cruel or unusual treatment or punishment at the hands of the DRC rebels, namely the M23 because she is the daughter of a man who was persecuted for denouncing criminal activities. The claimant alleges there is no state protection for her or an Internal Flight Alternative.

[5] I find the claimant to be a person in need of protection because she has established a risk to her life or to cruel or unusual treatment or punishment in the DR Congo and that is because her father was persecuted by rebel forces for denouncing criminal activities.

[6] The claimant’s personal and national identity as a citizen of the DRC have been established on a balance of probabilities by the claimant’s testimony and the supporting documents filed as Exhibit 1, namely the claimant’s valid passport issued by the government of the DRC.

[7] I find that there’s no break between what the claimant fears and the grounds under section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act therefore the claim is assessed under section 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[8] In terms of the claimant’s general credibility I found her to be a credible witness and I therefore believe what she has alleged in her oral testimony and Basis of Claim form. The claimant’s evidence was consistent both internally and with her documentation. Throughout the hearing the claimant was articulate and responsive. The claimant was able to elaborate on her narrative and gave explanations to the questions. I noted no material inconsistencies or omissions such that the presumption of truthfulness could be rebutted.

[9] Her witness, XXXX, testified in favour of the claimant. She is a XXXX XXXX of Congolese origin and met the claimant in Canada in XXXX 2020. I found the witness credible as she testified in a spontaneous way. Her testimony was consistent with the evidence and the claimant’s testimony. I noted no material inconsistencies or omissions such that the presumption of truthfulness could be rebutted.

[10] The claimant filed supporting documentation for her claim as outlined below. The documents were entered as Exhibits 5 and 6. There is no reason to cast any doubt on the veracity of these documents and as such I place great weight on these documents to support the claimant’s allegations and overall claims.

[11] The claimant has established on a balance of probabilities the following. The claimant arrived in Canada on a student permit in 2019. In the DRC the claimant’s father was a XXXX XXXX XXXX in a XXXX XXXX company. In or around XXXX 2020 the claimant’s father denounced his supervisor to the police when he found discrepancies in the accounting books. His supervisor was arrested and then released.

[12] Shortly after that incident the claimant’s father assisted an 18 year old female employee of the company to make accusation against the same supervisor for sexual assault. The supervisor was detained. The supervisor had links to the rebels M23, more specifically his brother was the leader of one of M23’s units.

[13] Shortly after the denunciation the 18 year old woman was found assassinated and the supervisor was released from detention. Following the incident in XXXX 2020 the claimant’s family members were attacked in their house by rebels and they have since disappeared. The claimant is still in touch with her uncle who lives in Kinshasa in the DRC. He has been looking for the family however he is doing so in a very discreet way because he too fears for his life. He has also told the claimant that he wishes to have very little communications with her for fear of being discovered as a family member.

[14] The witness testified that when she met the claimant in XXXX 2020 the claimant was very sad and told her she was unable to reach her family to wish them a good holiday season. The claimant confided in the witness and the witness helped the claimant locate a neighbour and her uncle. They told the claimant what they knew about the situation. The claimant testified that she is registered on several social networks including refugee networks in other countries. She still has no news of her family and she verifies the networks on a daily basis.

[15] The claimant testified that she – if she returns to the DRC she will be at risk of being killed by the rebels as they appear to have (inaudible) to eliminate her whole family which would include her. The claimant filed a declaration from the claimant’s family’s neighbour who witnessed the attack of the house and a declaration from her uncle. These were filed as Exhibit 6.

[16] I turn now to the objective basis for the claim.

[17] The objective country reports are consistent with the claimant’s evidence about the treatment and violence caused by rebel groups in the DRC, in this case M23. The claimant is particularly at risk at her whole family has been targeted and have disappeared. She is also in greater risk of being targeted by rebels as a young single woman.

[18] The National Documentation Package for the DRC dated April 28, 2023 at Exhibit 3, item 2.7 is a report by Freedom House. It notes that physical security is tenuous in the DRC due to violence and human rights abuses committed by government forces as well as armed rebel groups and militia in many areas of the country.

[19] The report also notes that women are at heightened risk of sexual abuse by rebel groups and government soldiers. Sexual and gender based violence is common. Rebels and government soldiers have regularly been implicated in cases of rape and sexual abuse. Rebel commanders have abducted girls into forced marriages, convictions for these offences remain rare.

[20] The UK Home Office at Exhibit 3 item 4.9 notes that citizens are unable to freely exercise basic civil liberties and corruption is endemic throughout the government. Physical security is tenuous due to violence and human rights abuses committed by government forces as well as armed rebel groups and militias that are active in many areas of the country.

[21] The claimant also filed country of origin information reports at Exhibit 5 outlining the escalating violence particularly in eastern DRC due to the conflict between rebel groups and the government. I believe what the claimant has alleged on a balance of probabilities and I find that she faces a personalized risk to her life and to cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

[22] I turn now to state protection.

[23] When making a refugee claim a claimant must establish on a balance of probabilities that adequate state protection is not available. There is a presumption that state protection is available and on the onus is on the claimant to provide clear and convincing evidence to rebut such presumption.

[24] The United States Department of State report at Exhibit 3 item 2.1 notes that there were numerous reports of government corruption during the year and officials frequently engaged in corrupt practices with impunity. The UK Home Office report at Exhibit 3 item 4.9 notes that citizens are unable to freely exercise basic civil liberties as corruption is endemic throughout the government.

[25] Physical security is tenuous due to violence and human rights abuses committed by government forces including the police as well as armed rebel groups and militias that are active in many areas of the country.

[26] A response to information request published by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada in March 2021 filed as Exhibit 3 item 5.3 note that there is rampant corruption and impunity in the judicial sector including in the police.

[27] I find that state protection would not be reasonably forthcoming in the claimant’s case. Accordingly I find that there is no state protection available to the claimant.

[28] I’ve also considered whether a viable Internal Flight Alternative exists for the claimant in Lubumbashi however the claimant testified that she – if she were to return to Lubumbashi she would have to remain in hiding. She has no relatives or networks in Lubumbashi who could help her. She would have to cut all communications with her uncle, her only remaining relative with whom she has contacts because it would be dangerous for both of them to continue communicating. She also testified that she would face extreme challenges finding a position or a residence as a single young woman who has no XXXX school diploma and limited work experience.

[29] A response to information request published by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada in March 2021 filed as Exhibit 3 item 5.3 notes that violence against women and girls in the whole of Congo is endemic, especially sexual violence. This is paired with rampant and corruption and impunity of the judicial sector. This is coupled with women’s inability to access state protection. The same report notes that a majority of victims or unable to initiate legal proceedings for several reasons including lack of financial means, social shaming, sociocultural inertia, distance from judicial authorities, lack of protection for victims and the corruption of justice officials including the police.

[30] The European Asylum Support Office filed – their report is filed as Exhibit 3 item 5.6 notes that already vulnerable as a woman, a single woman deprived of her family or social network is even more vulnerable without a mean of existence.

[31] In addition the jurisprudence as indicated that an Internal Flight Alternative is not viable if a claimant such as this claimant has to live in hiding and in isolation and has to cut communications with their close network such as the claimant’s uncle for security reasons.

[32] Consequently I find that the claimant faces a risk to her life and to cruel and unusual treatment or punishment throughout DRC and therefore find that there is no viable Internal Flight Alternative for her.

[33] Madam Interpreter this will be the conclusion. Based on the totality of the evidence I find the claimant to be a person in need of protection pursuant to paragraph 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and I accept her claim.

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———