2024 RLLR 69

Citation: 2024 RLLR 69
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 20, 2024
Panel: Ryan Krueger
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Jean Marie Vecina
Country: Türkiye
RPD Number: TC3-00010
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2025-00362
ATIP Pages: N/A

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

[1] XXXX XXXX (the claimant) is a citizen of Türkiye who is claiming refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “Act”).[1]

[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 and paragraph 170(f) of the Act.

ALLEGATIONS

[3] The specifics of this case are set out in the narrative portion of the claimant’s Basis of Claim (BOC) form.[2] In short, the claimant alleges that he fears persecution at the hands of the government authorities and Turkish nationalists due to his Kurdish ethnicity, Alevi religious faith, as well as his support for the HDP (Peoples’ Democratic Party).

DETERMINATION

[4] The panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[5] The claimant has established his identity as a national of Türkiye, on a balance of probabilities, by the supporting documentation filed, namely a copy of his Turkish passport, national identity card, as well as his passport protocol document.[3]

Nexus

[6] The panel finds that there is a nexus between the harm that the claimant fears and his Kurdish race or ethnicity. Furthermore, the claimant’s protection claim has a nexus to the ground of political opinion, as a supporter of the HDP political party, as well as religion, on the basis of his Alevi faith. This claim will therefore be assessed pursuant to Section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.[4]

Credibility and Subjective Fear

[7] Based on the documents in the file, the panel has noted no serious credibility issues. The claimant provided supporting documentation[5] to corroborate his allegations, including a letter from the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX confirming the claimant’s Kurdish descent, letters of support from the claimant’s family and friends, social media screenshots, as well as a video and photographs of the claimant attending an Alevi religious ceremony, HDP events, and a demonstration against the regime.

[8] After reviewing the documents, the panel has no reason to doubt their authenticity. Therefore, after examining the evidence adduced, the panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant’s above-mentioned allegations are credible, namely, that he is an Alevi-Kurd and supporter of the HDP that has experienced mistreatment in Türkiye at the hands of his agents of persecution on this basis.

[9] In assessing credibility, the panel has considered that the claimant travelled to the U.S.A. before entering Canada, but did not claim asylum in the U.S.A. The panel notes that the claimant’s BOC narrative[6] states that the claimant sought to travel to Canada for asylum because of Canada’s respect for human rights and freedom and that he did not wish to remain in the U.S.A. due to the unrest he witnessed in the U.S.A.

[10] The panel accepts the claimant’s explanation and finds that his failure to claim in the U.S.A. does not undermine their credibility or their subjective fear.

[11] Moreover, the panel finds the claimant has established a subjective and forward-facing fear of persecution in Türkiye.

Objective Basis

[12] Given that there are no serious credibility issues with respect to allegations of the claimant, coupled with the documentary evidence set out below, the panel finds that the claimant has established a prospective risk of being subjected to persecution in Türkiye.

[13] The objective evidence demonstrates that Kurds and HDP supporters and members experience persecution at the hands of the Turkish government and ultranationalist groups. The National Documentation Package (NDP) for Türkiye indicates the following[7]:

  • Kurds face brutal police measures, which are aimed at containing protests;
  • There is a rise in discrimination against Kurds, and there have been attacks against individuals for speaking Kurdish;
  • Hate speech and conduct against minorities, and Kurds in particular, has been described as rampant across Türkiye in daily life, political discourse and the media;
  • Being ethnically Kurdish and outspoken politically could cause the authorities to suspect an HDP member or supporter of supporting the PKK, and that individuals who may attract the attention of the authorities include elected HDP officials or election organizers or canvassers;
  • The HDP is the third largest political party in Türkiye with thousands of activists, and so they are seen by authorities as a threat;
  • Turkish nationalist militia groups, which arrange violent attacks against Kurdish groups, exist throughout Türkiye; and
  • HDP activists could be arrested for handing out leaflets and targeted for posting on social media, attending marches, meetings or rallies, or entering and exiting an HDP building.

[14] Moreover, the objective evidence at NDP Item 12.2 highlights the situation and treatment of Alevis in Türkiye and states that violence and discrimination against Alevis is a daily life routine. Alevis face hate speech and occasional hate crimes with perpetrators generally enjoying impunity. This document further maintains that the promotion of ultranationalism in Türkiye has contributed to a rise in discrimination and in hate speech that encourages violence towards non-Sunni religious communities, such as Alevis.[8]

[15] The panel is satisfied that conditions of discrimination against Alevis throughout Turkish society rises to the level that such discrimination can be called persecution in terms of its severity, pervasiveness, repetition, and persistence.

[16] The panel finds the claimant’s subjective fear of persecution is objectively well-founded.

State Protection and Internal Flight Alternative (IFA)

[17] Given that the state is an agent of harm, the panel finds that adequate state protection is not available to the claimant. In consideration of the evidence, Türkiye will not afford the claimant the protection that we expect of a state and, therefore, the claimant is consequently unable to obtain adequate protection from their country. Further, the panel has also considered whether the claimant has an IFA, and the panel has concluded that the claimant does not. As the Turkish authorities control the entirety of the country, and the aforementioned levels discrimination rising to persecution are consistent throughout the country, the panel finds that the claimant would face a serious possibility of persecution throughout Türkiye. Accordingly, the panel finds that there is no IFA available to the claimant.

CONCLUSION

[18] For the forgoing reasons, the panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the Act and therefore accepts his claim.

 

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———

[1] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.

[2] Exhibit 2.

[3] Exhibit 5 and 6.

[4] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.

[5] Exhibit 5, 6 and 8.

[6] Exhibit 2.

[7] Exhibit 3, NDP Items 4.5, 13.1, 13.2, 13.5, 13.6, and 13.7.

[8] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Türkiye, 20 December 2023, tab 12.2: ​Situation of Alevis, including political and religious rights; treatment of Alevis by society and authorities; state protection (2019–November 2021). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 3 December 2021. TUR200819.E.