Tag: All Case Types

2022 RLLR 11

Citation: 2022 RLLR 11
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 10, 2022
Panel: Kari Schroeder
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Mary Jane Campigotto
Country: Mexico
RPD Number: VC1-05967
Associated RPD Number(s): VC1-05966
ATIP Number: A-2022-01960
ATIP Pages: N/A

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claims of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the “principal claimant”), and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX(the “minor claimant”) as citizens of Mexico who are claiming refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “Act”)[1].

[2] I have reviewed and applied the Chairperson’s Guideline on Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution[2] during the hearing and in this decision.

[3] The principal claimant acted as designated representative for the minor claimant. Their claims were previously joined with the principal claimant’s husband, however, due to allegations of domestic violence the claims were separated.

ALLEGATIONS

[4] The claimant fled Mexico with her husband XXXXand son due to fears of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (XXXX). The claimant’s husband owned XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. He had been extorted for two years before the principal claimant learned about what was happening. The claimant’s husband left Mexico on XXXX XXXX, 2019 and the claimants went to live with an Uncle in Pachuca. However, when they returned the principal claimant began receiving multiple threats. The XXXX asked about her husband’s whereabouts and threatened to kill the claimants if the husband’s debt was not paid. The claimants left Mexico on XXXX XXXX, 2019. The principal claimant has since been separated from her husband and has full custody of the minor claimant. She fears additional harm from him if she returns to Mexico.

DETERMINATION

[5] I find the claimants are Convention Refugees pursuant to s.96 of the Act, for the reasons that follow.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[6] The claimants’ identities as nationals of Mexico are established through certified copies of their passports on file.

Credibility

[7] The claimant was a credible witness and I believe what she has alleged in support of their claims. The principal claimant testified in a direct and straightforward manner, even when asked to testify about difficult subjects. There were no material inconsistencies between her testimony and her Basis of Claim form. There were no attempts to embellish her evidence even when given the opportunity to do so. I have documentary evidence to support her claim. I accept that even though her initial reasons for fleeing Mexico were to escape the XXXX cartel due to her husband’s activities, the claimant formulated an additional fear of domestic violence after initiating her refugee claim. It is clear from her testimony and the documents before me that she did not necessarily understand that she was a victim of domestic violence until arriving in Canada. Based on the totality of the evidence, I accept her allegations as credible.

Well-Founded Fear of Persecution

[8] I find there is a nexus in this claim to the Convention Ground of membership in a particular social group, namely women fearing gender-based violence for the principal claimant, and family members of a persecuted person for the minor claimant.

[9] The claimant testified that she became pregnant at a very young age and was essentially forced into a marriage with XXXXby her family and XXXXfamily, both who followed the Jehovah Witness faith. From the beginning of the marriage, XXXX, who is several years older than the claimant, was physically and emotionally abusive as well as unfaithful. The claimant told some members of her family about the abuse but had no recourse. She testified that she tried to tell her mother, who did not really listen to her.

[10] She testified that the physical abuse stopped once she arrived in Canada, but only because XXXXappeared to understand that he could potentially face repercussions from authorities in this country, whereas he could act with relative impunity in Mexico. Indeed, in the transcript the claimant captured of a zoom call with XXXX, he states the following in response to the claimant’s assertion that hitting XXXX as a form of discipline is violence:

“XXXX, that is not violence. That is not violence. Those are your rules and your laws as a Canadian, and honestly, well, you aren’t even a Canadian. [3]”

[11] In other words, it appears that the only reason the claimants were not subjected to physical abuse here in Canada was due to the fact that XXXXwas aware the claimant could call the police. However, according to the claimant’s testimony and witness affidavit before me, emotional abuse continued, as did the withholding of financial support for food and other necessities.

[12] The objective evidence also supports the claimants’ allegations. Sources report that gender-based violence is common in Mexico. In its Concluding Observations on the Ninth Periodic Report of Mexico, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) notes that “the persistence of high levels of insecurity, violence and organised crime in [Mexico] … is negatively affecting the enjoyment by women and girls of their human rights”. Sources report that the average of 10 women who were killed per day in 2019 remained unchanged in [January] 2020. The New York Times also reports that an average of 10 women were killed each day in 2019 and adds that this rate represents an increase from 7 killed per day in 2017.[4]

[13] The 2016 National Survey on the Dynamics of Household Relationships found that 42 percent of married women over 15 years old and 59 percent of separated, divorced, or widowed women have experienced situations of emotional or economic abuse, or physical or sexual violence in their current or previous relationship. The same source reports that 64 percent of the women victims of domestic violence have experienced severe or very severe violence at the hand of their spouse or partner.[5]

[14] According to recent evidence provided by the Board in an RIR report, women are often seen by their intimate partners who are involved in organized crime as an accomplice and “they must participate to varying degrees in their illicit activities, [whether] it be actively in aiding and abetting crimes, or by keeping secrets and providing a minimal amount of support. Women in those situations do not tend to leave their partners unless they feel it is safe or necessary to do so because if they end up returning to them afterwards, the violence always escalates.[6]

[15] Based on the totality of the evidence, I find the claimants would face a serious possibility of persecution in Mexico.

State Protection

[16] In terms of state protection, the federal penal code prohibits domestic violence and stipulates penalties for conviction of between six months’ and four years’ imprisonment. Of the 32 states, 29 stipulate similar penalties, although in practice sentences were often more lenient. Federal law criminalizes spousal abuse. However, state and municipal laws addressing domestic violence largely failed to meet the required federal standards and often were unenforced.[7] Despite passing laws to protect women in 2007, the situation for women in Mexico has worsened. The process of seeking state protection has been described as perpetual bureaucratization, politicization, and revictimization”, and so far very few of the state’s efforts have resulted in a reduction of gender-based violence.[8]

[17] XXXXhas already demonstrated that while he is mindful of Canadian laws, he is aware that he can act with far more impunity in Mexico. I find that state protection would not be forthcoming to the claimants in this case.

Internal Flight Alternative

[18] I also find that the claimants do not have an internal flight alternative in Mexico. Although the principal claimant has a temporary custody order from a Canadian court, there is no evidence that this would be valid in Mexico. XXXXhas told the claimant that if returned to Mexico he would ‘fix things’, which the claimant believes means he would take XXXX away or attempt to seek custody. A Response to Information Request (RIR) issued by the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) also states the following with respect to family court legal proceedings:

Once a family law-related proceeding, including divorce, custody or guardianship, has been initiated before the court, if the address or location of the other parent is unknown and they fail to comply with their obligation to the child, the other parent can request that the judge issue an order to government institutions such as the Mexican Social Security Institute (Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social), the Tax Administration Service (Servicio de Administración Tributaria), among others, to search in their respective databases on the estranged parent.[9]

[19] I find that the agent of harm in this case has the means and motivation to track the claimants to another location.

[20] Further, the claimant would be returning to Mexico as a young, uneducated single mother. Her father is deceased, and she has never worked outside the home. The objective evidence before me states that low-income single mothers with children under 15 years of age face limited access and enjoyment of the right to food, as well as economic, social and cultural rights due to, among others, the vulnerable income status in which they find themselves, the discrimination they have suffered in different sectors such as social, labour and family, unequal access to employment opportunities, as well as low-paid jobs.[10] I find it would be objectively unreasonable for the claimants to relocate in these circumstances.

CONCLUSION

[21] I find the claimants are Convention Refugees pursuant to s.96 of the Act and the Board therefore accepts their claims.

(signed) Kari Schroeder

January 10, 2022

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

[2] Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution, November 13, 1996.

[3] Exhibit 5.

[4] National Documentation Package, Mexico, 29 September 2021, tab 5.10: Domestic violence, including treatment of survivors of domestic violence; legislation; protection and support services available, including psychological services, particularly in Mexico City and Mérida (2017–September 2020). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 11 September 2020. MEX200311.E.

[5] National Documentation Package, Mexico, 29 September 2021, tab 5.10: Domestic violence, including treatment of survivors of domestic violence; legislation; protection and support services available, including psychological services, particularly in Mexico City and Mérida (2017–September 2020). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 11 September 2020. MEX200311.E.

[6] National Documentation Package, Mexico, 29 September 2021, tab 5.20: Women whose past partners are involved in criminal activities and implications for their safety (2019–August 2021). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 27 August 2021. MEX200735.E.

[7] National Documentation Package, Mexico, 29 September 2021, tab 2.1: Mexico. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2020. United States. Department of State. 30 March 2021.

[8] National Documentation Package, Mexico, 29 September 2021, tab 5.20: Women whose past partners are involved in criminal activities and implications for their safety (2019–August 2021). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 27 August 2021. MEX200735.E.

[9] National Documentation Package, Mexico, 29 September 2021, tab 5.13: Whether a parent may relocate with a child without notifying the other parent, including in situations involving domestic violence and whether this is affected by protection or restraining orders; procedures for a parent to locate their child … Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 13 February 2020. MEX106366.E.

[10] National Documentation Package, Mexico, 29 September 2021, tab 5.7: Situation of single women and of women who head their own households without male support, including access to employment, housing and support services, particularly in Mexico City and Mérida (Yucatán) (2017-October 2019). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 5 February 2020. MEX106364.E.

All Countries Iraq

2022 RLLR 10

Citation: 2022 RLLR 10
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 3, 2022
Panel: Bonita Small
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Rami Alsaqqa
Country: Iraq
RPD Number: VC1-08806
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01960
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: These are the reasons for the decision in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX, who claims to be and is a citizen of Iraq and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[2] The allegations are as follows. The claimant fears persecution at the hands of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in Iraq. The claimant was a recent graduate from XXXX XXXX and was the XXXX XXXX, and working in the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, spelt XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. During his tenure there, he noted that there were fraudulent activities happening. He reported these fraudulent activities to his management, because he noted that there were fictitious contractors named in the invoices. After advising management about his concerns, the claimant was informed that his employment was terminated.

[3] After that, the claimant went back to his manager and told him that he believed that he was being terminated because of his reporting of these fraudulent activities. He warned his manager that he would report the names, and the fact that he was terminated to the Iraq Commission of Integrity, which was tasked with preventing and investigating corruption at all levels of the Iraqi government. Shortly after the claimant’s termination from his position, he was picked up by members who he believes to have been part of this XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. He was kidnapped, tortured, and beaten physically, and harmed, for three (3) days in total. The belief that these individuals who kidnapped him were part of this XXXX XXXX comes from knowledge with the — which the claimant did not have at the time of the reporting. Apparently, that he learned, that his manager and others within that department were members of this XXXX. And that the report of fraudulent activities would be considered perilous to their corrupt activities and being able to continue with them.

[4] The claimant’s father had some influence within the government, and he confronted the claimant’s former manager about the claimant’s whereabouts when he discovered that he was missing. The father was told that his son was being detained by them. And that the reason was that his son “talked too much”. The manager then told him, the father, that the only way to resolve this was to provide a guarantee that the father and claimant would not report the matter to the Integrity Commission. Furthermore, the manager demanded a ransom from the father for the continued safety of the claimant and the father. The father managed to pay the ransom demanded, and in consultation with the claimant, it was decided that the claimant should leave Iraq and go to Lebanon.

[5] The claimant stayed in Lebanon from 2016 until his arrival in Canada in 2019. He started out in Lebanon with a short-term visitor’s visa, and then converted it to a one (1) year student visa once he enrolled in university. While living in Lebanon, the claimant met and married a young woman. She was not interested in having a religious ceremony and filing the necessary legal documents of marriage until she found out she was pregnant. For the interest of the child, both the claimant and the former spouse made attempts to legalize their marriage. However, the legalization process was fraught with administrative errors, particularly regarding proper dates. The claimant and his spouse at the time tried to fix the errors, but while doing so, (inaudible) to the intervene and the claimant came to Canada for refuge. The claimant and his spouse ended up to divorcing.

[6] The claimant said he was never able to attach any resident status to this marriage. He did go through the motions of getting the paperwork corrected but did so only to legalize his daughter. In order to keep this visa active in Lebanon, the claimant had to travel to Iraq, and he did so twice. The first time he went back, he said that he was in hiding. Five (5) days after getting to Iraq, his father received a threatening text, saying that the agents of persecution knew that the claimant was back in Iraq. The second time the claimant went back to Iraq, he decided on his own to seek justice, and he went to the Integrity Commission, where he told them his story about the corruption, the violence, and the termination of his position.

[7] On his way back to Lebanon, he was in a taxi interact, and it was hit by another car from behind. He was taken to hospital for treatment, and he believes that it was the persons who had kidnapped him, and who were no doubt his former managers that were at the root of this intentional hit to his vehicle. Shortly after that, the father received a letter under his door to the effect that the agents of harms knew that the claimant had broken the deal and that — for silence. And that death would be his destiny.

[8] The claimant has also filed additional information from his parents about events that have happened to them since the claimant has been in Canada. There have been new — it is okay — there have been new threats which the parents had not shared due to their concerns about putting the claimant under pressure. The claimant believes that he has been targeted due to his whistleblowing, and is at risk of further violence, detention, and threats, and possibly assassination, if he returns to Iraq. My determination is that I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee. And my analysis is as follows.

[9] First of all, I am satisfied that the claimant has established his identity on the balance the probabilities by providing his passport. In terms of country to reference and exclusion, at the outset of the hearing, I advised the claimant that I would be exploring his status in Lebanon, particularly as it pertains to his marriage. I am satisfied that his visitor visa and student visa did not constitute any engagement of these issues due to the temporary and limited nature of them. However, it was not clear to me why the claimant’s marriage did not attract more permanent status. In reviewing the NDP, there is little if any mentioned about how to acquire citizenship in Lebanon.

[10] I advised the claimant (inaudible) that I had done a Wikipedia search and it was indicated in that, that while non-Lebanese women can attain citizenship through marriage, the reverse was not the case for men. The claimant confirmed this information. He testified that he was told that the only way he could attach any residency to his spouse — his former spouse, was for a period of three (3) years, subject to renewal. He did try to do so initially when they — when he learned that they were having a child. However, due to the administrative wrangling he endured during this process, it took a long time. And by the time he was ready to file, he and his spouse had decided to divorce.

[11] The claimant has filed his divorce certificate, which appears authentic on its face, since the claimant is no longer married and no longer has ties to the spouse, I find that the issues of country and reference and exclusions have not been engaged here. I am satisfied that the only country of reference for the purposes of this analysis is Iraq.

[12] In terms of inclusion, and credibility, a claimant is presumed to tell the truth unless there is evidence to the contrary. In this case, I found the claimant to be articulate, and I find that there was consistency between his narrative and his testimony. In addition, the claimant has filed substantial corroborative evidence to support his claim. Most importantly, he has filed a statement from his father, which aligns with the narrative of the claimant. I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of this statement. Additionally, the claimant has provided statements from witnesses who had knowledge of the claimant’s circumstances back in XXXX 2016. All of which align with the claimant’s allegations.

[13] And finally, the claimant has provided a notice and an investigation has been started by the Integrity Commission into the allegations made by the claimant. This in my view is solid evidence to support that the claimant had a story to tell about what he believed to be fraudulent activity. I am satisfied based on those documents and on the plethora of documents provided, and on the credible testimony that the claimant’s allegations are true. That he quite rightfully as a legal consultant tried to report fraudulent activity, but due to the corruption at the higher levels in his department, that he was faced with violence and significant negative repercussions for disclosing these matters to persons that he initially trusted, but then had reason to learn that he should not have trusted them. I am satisfied that despite the claimant’s reavailment to Iraq, that this has not negated his subjective fears based on the circumstances surrounding these redevelopments.

[14] In terms of a nexus, I considered whether or not the claimant has a nexus, and I find that he does. His actions were perceived by the agents of persecution to be against the interests of the state, and it was the state that employed the claimant. I find this meets the ground for the claimant perceived as being acting against the state, thereby it being an imputed political opinion. I have therefore analyzed this claim under section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[15] In terms of the objective evidence, I have looked at NDP 10.4, which specifically talks about this particular XXXX that the claimant believes has been — which the claimant believes is the one that targeted him. In particular, I notice that this particular document talks about how the XXXX ask the victims to pay exorbitant ransoms, and that the victims despite paying these exorbitant ransoms, remains unknown whether their bodies are found dumped on the streets, or on the outskirts of cities, or near riverbanks. In some cases, even after the relatives pay ransoms. All of this is consistent with how the claimant and his father were treated.

[16] I have also considered the claimant’s subjective evidence provided in Exhibit 8. The articles talked about the power of the XXXX in Iraq, and how they are for example, killing protesters with impunity. In my view, the objective evidence and the subjective evidence all support that the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution were he to have returned to Iraq.

[17] In terms of state protection, the claimant worked for a government department, and the agents of persecution were part of that apparatus, Since the state is the agent of persecution, the claimant would not be able to access protection in an adequate manner. The same applies to an internal flight alternative. Since the state is the agent persecution, I find that he would not be safe anywhere in his country. And this is borne out by the violence he endured when he did try to reavail. Clearly, he was being surveyed and pursued.

[18] So, my conclusion is that I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee and I therefore approve his claim.

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———

All Countries Syria

2022 RLLR 9

Citation: 2022 RLLR 9
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: May 11, 2022
Panel: Kay Scorer
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Salema Hage
Country: Syria
RPD Number: VC2-00062
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01960
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: I’ve considered your testimony and the other evidence before me and I’m prepared to provide you with my decision orally.

[2] This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division in the claim of XXXX XXXX as a citizen of Syria who is claiming protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act also referred to as the Act.

[3] In rendering my reasons and also in the conduct of the hearing, I’ve considered and applied the Chairperson’s Guideline on claims relating to a woman’s gender.

ALLEGATIONS

[4] The claimant’s full allegations are contained in her Basis of Claim form and in her testimony at the hearing. Summarized only briefly, the claimant is an elderly Sunni widowed woman from Syria. She fears risk of persecution in Syria on the basis of her gender as a woman. All of her children reside outside of the country and she has no immediate family remaining in the country apart from a sister-in-law who is also an elderly woman. She fears being targeted as a vulnerable elder woman. The claimant also fears persecution on the basis of her religion as Sunni and her political opinion.

DETERMINATION

[5] I find the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to Section 96 of the Act. I find the claimant has established a nexus to Convention grounds of membership in a particular social group as a woman and religion as Sunni. It’s the intersections of these identities where I find the claimant faces a risk in Syria.

ANALYSIS

IDENTITY

[6] The claimant’s identity is established on a balance of probabilities by her testimony and by the copy of her Syrian passport in Exhibit 1.

CREDIBILITY

[7] In refugee determination claims, there is a presumption that the claimants and their allegations are true. In this case, I find no reason to doubt the claimant’s truthfulness. The claimant testified in a forthcoming and spontaneous manner.

[8] The claimant is an 80 year old woman and despite obvious frailties, I found that she testified in a clear and compelling manner. There were no material inconsistencies or contradictions between her Basis of Claim form, her testimony, and the other evidence before me.

[9] The claimant was also able to support her claim with some documentary evidence all of which can be found in Exhibits 4 through 6 which includes identity documents and a copy of her late husband’s death certificate. I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of these documents and I assign them weight as they corroborate the material elements or the claimant’s allegations, namely the fact that she is an elderly widowed woman from Syria. I find the claimant has established on a balance of probabilities that she is an elderly Sunni widowed Syrian woman who fears persecution by the state on the basis of her gender as a woman, her political opinion, and her religion as a Sunni Muslim. I find the claimant has established her subjective fears.

WELL-FOUNDED FEAR OF PERSECUTION

[10] The objective evidence supports the claimant’s fears of returning to Syria, My reasons for this are as follows: The documents in the NDP, for example, at items 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 indicate that gender-based violence against women and children is pervasive in Syria and it has increased due to the conflict. Rape and sexual violence are endemic, underreported, and uncontrolled and are used to terrorize women, men and children perceived to support the opposition. Regime officials perpetrated gender-based violence with impunity. Government forces have perpetrated rape and sexual abuse of women. When women try to file police reports, the police often do not investigate thoroughly if at all and sometimes responded themselves with abusing women. The risk of gender-based violence is exacerbated in this case because the claimant is an elderly widowed woman. The country evidence before me confirms that women with particularly vulnerable profiles including widowed women like the claimant herself, face a higher risk of gender-based violence.

[11] At NDP item 5.1 of the NDP, it states that widowed women face a heightened risk of sexual exploitation and are highly stigmatized by the Syrian society. The combination of being both female and Sunni adds a further dimension of risk in this case.

[12] According to NDP item 1.12, Sunnis are often targeted by the regime due to a perceived anti-government opinion and arrests may be based merely on a person having resided in an area associated with the opposition or associated with Sunni communities.

[13] Item 5.2 states that sexual violence against women has been used as a tactic in the war and has an integral part to the regime policy of subjugation of the opposition. The regime has framed the conflict as a fight between Alawites and Sunnis instead of a struggle for democracy. This government’s antagonism towards Sunnis in particular has led to sexual violence against Sunni women. Ultimately I found the country evidence before me does establish that Sunni elderly widowed women face a serious possibility of persecution in Syria on the basis of their religion and their gender. I find the claimant’s subjective fears are therefore objectively well-founded.

STATE PROTECTION

[14] Except in situations where a state is in complete breakdown, states are presumed capable of protecting their citizens. In this case, the primary agent of persecution is the state and the persecution the claimant would face if returned to Syria is at the hands of the authorities. Accordingly, I find there is no state protection available to the claimant.

INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE

[15] Further, the state of Syria is the agent of harm and it is in control of most of its territories. Where it is not in control, other armed groups as discussed posed a threat to women such as the claimant herself. Ultimately the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution as an elderly woman without family support in all parts of Syria. I therefore find there is no Internal Flight Alternative available to this claimant.

[16] For the foregoing reasons, I find the claimant is a Convention refugee under Section 96 of the Act and I therefore accept her claim.

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———

All Countries Colombia

2022 RLLR 8

Citation: 2022 RLLR 8
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: August 15, 2022
Panel: Kay Scorer
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Karen Jantzen
Country: Colombia
RPD Number: VC1-08948
Associated RPD Number(s): VC1-08949
ATIP Number: A-2022-01960
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: Your testimony and the other evidence before me, and I am prepared to provide you with my decision orally.

[2] This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division in the claims of protection of XXXX XXXX XXXX, the principal claimant, and her daughter, XXXX XXXX XXXX, the minor claimant, as citizens of Colombia, who are claiming protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. In coming to this decision today, I have considered and applied the Chairperson’s Guidelines on woman claimants fearing gender-related persecution.

DETERMINATION

[3] I find the claimants are Convention refugees within the meaning of section 96 of the Act, because there is a serious possibility they will be persecuted in Colombia by reason of their membership in a particular social group of women and girls who are victims of domestic and family violence.

ALLEGATIONS

[4] The following is a brief synopsis of the allegations that the claimants put forth in their Basis of Claim forms and narratives in Exhibit 2.

[5] The claimants allege they face persecution in Colombia at the hands of the Principal Claimant’s ex-partner, XXXX (ph), who is also the father of the minor claimant. The principal claimant met XXXX when she was young. Shortly after their relationship began, XXXX became violent. The principal claimant wanted to leave him, but she then became pregnant, and believed she had to stay for the sake of the minor claimant. The abuse continued throughout their relationship, including the pregnancy, the abuse was emotional, psychological, physical, and sexual. XXXX would follow her to and from work, threaten the claimant and her family, and abuse her on a regular basis. He stalked her in person and online and contacted partners and family members. The claimant was able to separate from XXXX after the minor claimant was born. The principal claimant felt compelled to allow XXXX and his family access to the minor claimant. At times, he would take her without bringing her back and at other times, when the minor claimant returned, she was unwell and seemingly uncared for. The principal claimant does not know how XXXX earns money but would be advised that he was involved with the Medellin Cartel and narco traffickers. He would post photographs on social media with narco traffickers. He would also advise the claimant of these connections and threatened to have someone kill her.

[6] Despite being separated from XXXX, the abuse continued. The principal claimant tried to seek state protection. She called, for example, the XXXX XXXX XXXX a number of times. XXXX would flee before they arrived, and the police would never follow up on the incident. This allowed XXXX to continue with his behaviour. The principal claimant also obtained a protective order, which is in evidence, but XXXX abuse continued. In XXXX 2017, the principal claimant met a Canadian citizen online named XXXX (ph). XXXX paid for the claimant’s travel to Canada. On the first trip, in XXXX 2018, the principal claimant came alone because she did not know how to obtain XXXX authorization for the minor claimant’s travel. The claimant returned to Colombia in XXXX 2018. She wanted to bring the minor claimant to Canada with her. She spoke to a lawyer, and ultimately, the principal claimant was able to make an agreement not to pursue support payment against XXXX in return for his agreement to allow the minor claimant to permanently leave Colombia. Again, a copy of this agreement is also in evidence.

[7] The claimants entered Canada for the final time in XXXX 2019. The claimants were fearful of returning to Colombia. They believed XXXX was going to sponsor them in Canada. In the summer of 2019, the claimant contacted the office responsible for the sponsorship application and was advised that XXXX had put a stop to the process without advising her. In XXXX 2019, he left the home, which forced the claimant to move in with a friend. Both claimants, I should say. XXXX returned after a month and apologized. They again began the spousal sponsorship process with a new firm. In XXXX 2020, XXXX again left with — while the claimants were out. He did not return. At the end of the relationship, he also was abusive.

[8] At the end of XXXX 2020, the claimants contacted a legal clinic. The principal claimant explained her situation in Colombia and was advised about the refugee process. She then initiated the claim in about XXXX 2021.

[9] Over the years, XXXX has continued to threaten the claimants, including by contacting XXXX in Canada and other partners and family members in Colombia. The claimants fear ongoing domestic violence should they return to Colombia.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[10] I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the claimant’s identities as nationals of Colombia are established by the copies of their passports in Exhibit 1 and also by the principal claimant’s credible testimony today.

Credibility and Well-Founded Fear of Persecution

[11] The duty of this Panel is to find that there is sufficient, credible, or trustworthy evidence to determine that there is more than a mere possibility that these claimants would be persecuted if returned to Colombia. My role is to determine if there is a reliable and trustworthy evidence that can establish the claimant’s allegations on a balance of probabilities. In this case, I find there is.

[12] The principal claimant testified on behalf of her family. She testified in a voluntary, detailed, and straightforward manner. She testified to her personal history, including her abusive relationship, and the resulting threats that she and her daughter have faced. Her testimony was very detailed, spontaneous, and emotive, and the claimant also provided ample supporting evidence to corroborate their allegations, including identity documents, a copy of the minor claimant’s birth certificate, a custody order, a permanent travel authorization for the minor claimant, numerous police and state documents relating to the abuse from XXXX, including police reports and a copy of the temporary protective order, numerous documents relating to the relationship with XXXX and the sponsor — spousal sponsorship application in Canada, copies of correspondence between the principal claimant and the airport authorities in Colombia requesting information on XXXX notification request. I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of any of these documents. I assign the documents significant weight, as they corroborate the central elements of the claimants’ allegations.

[13] I also find the principal claimant has satisfactorily explained her delay in making a claim for protection in Canada and her re-availments to Colombia, which were at the behest of her ex-partner, XXXX, who controlled her immigration status in Canada, and which were based on her understanding of the requirements of the sponsorship process in Canada, and given she was required to return to Colombia to pick up her daughter. The delay in re-availments do not diminish the claimant’s overall credibility or the core of their story about domestic, physical, and sexual violence. I find that the claimant’s delays in claiming or the returns to Colombia do not impact the credibility of the claimant’s subjective fears, as I find she has provided reasonable explanations. I therefore make no negative inference against the claimants.

[14] Overall, I identified no material contradictions, inconsistencies, or omissions between the claimant’s allegations and the evidence before me. I find the principal claimant was a credible witness, and I believe what she has alleged both in testimony and in whole in her Basis of Claim form and narratives. I note the — I note further that the claimant’s subjective fears are objectively well-founded and corroborated by the country evidence before me.

[15] According to a report at Item 5.4 of the NDP, “sources indicate that violence against woman has become normalized to the point that it is invisible to authorities and society in general in Colombia. Although prohibited by law, rape, including spousal rape, remains a serious problem. In Cali, women only report domestic violence to the FGN’s office. Family commissaries not properly trained to deal with domestic violence complaints, and the process for dealing with domestic violence complaints are slow and lack effectiveness. Women are revictimized at state institutions as their — as they are the object of offensive or inconsiderate comments by officials who lay the blame on these women for the violence they have experienced. Conciliation is often considered in domestic violence situations, which, in practice, makes women vulnerable, because it means they have to accept the violence from their partner, and leaves them in an even more dire position. The infrastructure and personnel, especially at the family commissiaries (sic), is insufficient.

[16] I accept the principal claimant was a victim of intimate partner violence, and that the minor claimant was a victim of domestic violence in Colombia as she was used as leverage by XXXX to harm the principal claimant. I also accept the principal claimant’s testimony that she is certain that XXXX would harm the minor claimant. I find this certainty is not speculative, but actually a valid inference which can be drawn from the evidence, and which is derived from her own firsthand experiences. I note the objective evidence supports the claimant’s allegations of the tolerance and impunity perpetrators of violence experience in Colombia. I find the claimants have established, with reliable and credible evidence, that they would likely – more likely than not, continue to experience emotional and physical violence from XXXX in Colombia. I find the claimants face a serious possibility of persecution in that country.

State Protection

[17] States are presumed capable of protecting their citizens. In this case, I find the presumption has been rebutted. According to the country condition documents before me, the Colombian Government has passed legislation to address domestic violence. However, these efforts have not been effective on an operational level, and domestic violence continues to be a serious problem throughout the country. The US DOS report at Item 2.1 of the NDP states that although prohibited by law, rape, including spousal rape, remains a serious problem in the country. The report further states that violence against women and impunity for perpetrators continue to be a problem.

[18] According to Item 5.4 of the NDP, as I said, violence against women has become normalized in Colombia to the point that it is invisible to authorities and society in general. A Colombian non-governmental organization that advocated for woman’s rights reports that in many cases women prefer not to report domestic violence out of a fear of being stigmatized or revictimized by state institutions. According to the United Nations, institutions that deal with cases of domestic violence in Colombia have insufficient capacity, resulting in high levels of impunity. As an example, in 2015, Colombia’s Attorney General’s office received over 85,000 cases of intra-family violence, with charges laid in just 12 percent of the cases, and a conviction rate of only 24 percent. Ultimately, I find there is sufficient objective clear and convincing evidence to establish the claimants are unable to receive operationally effective protection from the state authorities in Colombia. In this case, the principal claimant herself has already attempted to seek state protection on numerous occasions, each without any meaningful follow up or protection provided, and even after contacting the state, XXXX continued to harm the claimants. I find in this case the presumption of state protection has been rebutted.

Internal Flight Alternative

[19] the first prong of this assessment is to determine on a balance of probabilities if there is a serious possibility of persecution in the internal flight alternative or a risk to life, cruel and unusual treatment. In this case, I did identify Medellin as a potential IFA. However, the Panel notes the agent of harm in this case has remained motivated and capable in finding the claimants through families and friends. He has been able to find the principal claimant online and even contacted her ex-partners. I find the claimants would have to remain in hiding to not come to XXXX attention. Further, as the father of the minor claimant having a parental connection to the child in the case would allow him to use the courts or police to assist him in locating the claimants throughout Colombia. Although the Panel recognizes court injunctions on him knowing her whereabouts could potentially be put in place under legislation, as previously noted, the ineffectiveness and the conciliation used in these cases is simply not reasonable, and I find there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that they would be effective.

[20] Ultimately, I find the claimants do face a series possibility of persecution throughout Colombia, and that there is no internal flight alternative available for the claimants as a result.

CONCLUSION

[21] For the above noted reasons, I find both of the claimants are Convention refugees pursuant to section 96 of the Act, and I accept these claims today.

[22] So, as I said, that will conclude our hearing for today. Again, thank you, everybody, for your involvement. I will take us off the record now and wish you all the best. Okay?

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———

All Countries Yemen

2022 RLLR 7

Citation: 2022 RLLR 7
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 1, 2022
Panel: Kay Scorer
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Diane B. Coulthard
Country: Yemen
RPD Number: VC1-07100
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01960
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: I have considered all of the evidence in this case, and I am prepared to provide my decision orally. This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, as a citizen of Yemen who is seeking protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. In coming to this decision today, and including in the hearing, I have considered and applied the Chairperson’s guideline on woman claimants fearing gender-related persecution.

Allegations

[2] The claimant’s allegations are contained in full in her Basis of Claim form and attached narrative at Exhibit 2. Summarized only briefly, the claimant is an elderly divorced female, alleging fear of persecution in Yemen due to her Sunni religion, her perceived political opinion, and membership in a particular social group, namely, her gender as a woman.

Determination

[3] I find the claimant is a Convention refugee. I find the claimant has established a nexus to the Convention ground of membership in a particular social group, namely, her gender as a woman. Therefore, I am assessing this claim under section 96. I do note that the claimant has also alleged persecution based on her political opinion and her religion, however, I found her claim to be established on her gender alone, and have therefore only analyzed this element of her claim as a result.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[4] I find the claimant’s identity as a national of Yemen is established based on her testimony, and also a copy of her passport, which can be found in Exhibit 1.

Credibility

[5] Pursuant to the Maldonado principle, the claimant benefits from a presumption that her allegations are true. In this case, I have no reason to doubt the truthfulness of the claimant. I note that the claimant is an uneducated elderly woman. This vulnerable profile was taken into consideration when assessing her testimony, and in questioning today. Despite some obvious barriers, she did testify in a forthcoming and emotive way that I did find to be compelling. Her Basis of Claim and narrative were detailed and materially consistent with her testimony at the hearing, and the other evidence before me. I found the claimant to be a credible witness. Further, I find that the material elements of her profile, namely her profile as an elderly woman, are corroborated by the objective evidence before me, which includes a copy of her passport. I find she has established she is a national of Yemen who fears persecution in Yemen based on her gender as a woman.

Well-founded Fear and Risk of Harm

[6] For a claimant to be a convention refugee, the claimant must have a well-founded fear of persecution due to a Convention ground. In this case, I find the documentary evidence is clear and consistent that women in Yemen face significant pervasive discrimination that amounts to persecution. I note that in this particular case, the claimant’s vulnerabilities are further exacerbated by the fact that she is an elderly, uneducated, and divorced woman. She has no family in Yemen, and I find that this puts her at a serious risk of persecution based on her gender in that country. As noted by the report at the human rights watch at Tab 5.8 of the NDP which is in Exhibit 3, laws in Yemen require women to be obedient to their husbands. Women are generally not allowed to leave the house without permission of men. Honour killings by men of women and girls are treated very leniently by the courts, if they are prosecuted at all. As noted by the US DOS report at Tab 2.1, a male relative’s consent was often required before a woman could even be admitted to a hospital. The claimant has no male relatives in Yemen. Without even taking into consideration the ongoing conflict in which woman and children bear a heavier burden of negative consequences, the discrimination against woman and girls in Yemen is so significant and pervasive that a woman is not even able to reliably seek medical treatment or help without a man there to give her permission. The US DOS report notes that with the loss of many men from households in the conflict, this requirement for a man’s consent before women can get medical treatment means that many women are simply not receiving any medical treatment because hospitals are refusing to deal with women alone. According to the report at 5.7, gender-based violence in Yemen has risen to alarming proportions, with an estimated 90 percent of woman facing sexual harassment in public spaces. A report at Tab 2.7 by the UN Human Rights Council notes “in 2018 and 2019, new oppressive gender norms have proliferated, and women and girls are further marginalized”. Women are marginalized by both state and non-state actors, and the conditions have only worsened in recent years. I am satisfied based on the evidence before me and the remaining evidence in the NDP that the claimant will face a serious possibility of persecution as a woman if she were to return to Yemen. I find the claimant’s fears are well-founded and forward-facing.

State protection and Internal Flight Alternative

[7] Except in situations where the state is in complete breakdown, states are presumed to be capable of protecting their citizens. The objective evidence before me indicates that all sides to the conflict in Yemen continue to commit severe human rights abuses. Given this, along with the ongoing conflict, instability, and widespread violence, I find there is no adequate or operational state protection available to the claimant in her particular circumstances, including the circumstances of being a divorced, elderly woman without male support. I find the presumption of state protection has been rebutted.

[8] Further, I find that it is not safe nor objectively reasonable in all of the circumstances, including those particular to this claimant, to relocate anywhere in Yemen. I find the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution through Yemen on the basis of her gender and profile as an elderly divorced woman. I also find that her gender would make internal relocation entirely unreasonable, given that women in Yemen often require permission from men to even leave their house. Accordingly, I find there is no IFA available to this claimant.

CONCLUSION

[9] Based on the foregoing analysis, I find the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the Act, and I therefore accept her claim.

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———

All Countries Ethiopia

2022 RLLR 6

Citation: 2022 RLLR 6
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 6, 2022
Panel: Kay Scorer
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Paul Vandervennen
Country: Ethiopia
RPD Number: VC1-07071
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01960
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: I’ve considered your testimony and all of the other evidence before me, and I’m ready provide you with my decision orally. This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX, a citizen of Ethiopia who is claiming protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, also known as the Act. In coming to my decision, I’ve reviewed and applied the Chairperson’s Guideline on woman refugee claimants fearing gender-related persecution.

Allegations

[2] The claimant is an Amhara woman who fears political, ethnic, and gender-based persecution in Ethiopia. The claimant’s full allegations are contained in her Basis of Claim form and narrative in Exhibit 2 and are reproduced briefly below. In about XXXX 2017, the claimant and her daughter were traveling back to Ethiopia after visiting a relative in Germany. The claimant’s daughter was interrogated at the airport and the authorities demanded that she appear at the police station the following morning. The claimant’s daughter was arrested on about XXXX XXXX, 2017 and held for three days. While she was arrested, she was tortured, beaten, and raped. She was accused of supporting political dissidents abroad, meeting the opposition in the diaspora, and bringing funds into the country to help the opposition in Ethiopia. The claimant herself paid her daughter’s bail of about 10,000 birrs to facilitate her release, with the conditions that her daughter did not leave Addis Ababa, and that she report to the police on the first Monday of every month. Fearing for her life and safety, the claimant’s daughter fled Ethiopia on about XXXX XXXX, 2017 and came to Canada, where she has since been found to be a Convention refugee. The claimant herself assisted her daughter in getting out of Ethiopia. She did this even while she was afraid that doing so would cause repercussions.

[3] After the claimant’s daughter fled Ethiopia, security agents went to the claimant’s house in about XXXX 2018 with a summons for her daughter. The police warned the claimant that if her daughter did not appear, they would detain the claimant in her place. At this time, the claimant’s daughter had already left the country. After this, the claimant herself continued to fear for her life and safety. She started to look for ways out of Ethiopia. She applied for a visitor’s visa to Canada but was denied. Her son, who was in the USA, invited her to that country on a visitor’s visa. That visa was approved in about XXXX 2019. From XXXX 2018 (sic) until about XXXX 2019, the claimant lived in hiding. She went from place to place, from relative to relative, trying to evade security forces. She did not live at her home. The claimant then paid a bribe to exit the airport safely. She had to do this because she was afraid that if she went through airport security, she would be arrested. She arrived in the USA in about XXXX 2019. The claimant remained in the USA from about XXXX XXXX, 2019 to XXXX XXXX, 2019. She did not claim protection because her son advised her to wait and see what would happen in Ethiopia. The claimant applied again for a Canadian visa while she was in the USA, and it was granted. The claimant traveled to Canada in XXXX 2019.

[4] Since arriving in Canada, the claimant says the situation in Ethiopia has deteriorated. She fears returning to Ethiopia because she’s already been threatened by the authorities with arrest. This is exacerbated by her gender and by the fact that she is now in Canada with the daughter, and both have sought protection, despite the claimant and her daughter breaching the conditions of her daughter’s release. The claimant also fears persecution as an Amhara, and religious persecution as an orthodox Christian.

DETERMINATION

[5] I find the claimant is a Convention refugee. I find claimant’s allegations have a nexus to the Convention grounds of political opinion, ethnicity, and gender. I’ve therefore assessed this claim under s. 96 of the Act.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[6] I find the claimant has established her identity on a balance of probabilities by a copy of her Ethiopian passport, which can be found in Exhibit 1, and by her testimony.

Credibility

[7] The claimant benefits from the presumption that her allegations are true. In this case, I find no reason to doubt the truthfulness of the claimant. She testified in a spontaneous, forthcoming and compelling manner. She was detailed in her answers, and her answers were consistent with the narrative and the narrative of her daughter. The claimant also provided supporting documentation to corroborate her allegations, including a copy of her daughter’s Basis of Claim form and her refugee decision, a supporting letter from her church, a supporting letter from her cousin who she stayed with Ethiopia after she was threatened by the state, and her birth certificate, which identifies her as Amhara. I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of these documents and I assign them weight, as they corroborate central elements of the claimant’s allegations. I have considered whether the claimant’s failure to claim in the USA and her delay in claiming once in Canada negatively impact the credibility of her subjective fear, and I find they do not. The claimant was in the USA from about XXXX 2019 to about XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019. She was residing with her son, she did not claim protection. She’s then obtained a visa to come to Canada and arrived in Canada XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019. She did not initiate her claim for protection in Canada until about XXXX 2020.

[8] I note that the claimant is uneducated, and she’s lived much of her life as a homemaker. In the USA, she resided with her son. Her son speaks English and had been in the USA for six years. He told her not to claim protection until they knew what was going to happen in Ethiopia. The claimant accepted that her son was more knowledgeable than she on asylum claims in the USA, and she accepted his advice. Indeed, she relied on him for her livelihood in the USA. I find it reasonable on a balance of probabilities that she would take the advice of her son, even if that advice was perhaps not the best advice. Further, I find it reasonable that the claimant would continue with this advice even while in Canada. I note that the claimant was on valid status that did not expire until about April 2021. At the time that she made her claim, she was not under imminent, immediate threat of removal. Instead, as her son suggested, when she came to Canada, she continued to see what would happen in Ethiopia. Unfortunately, the situation continued to deteriorate and eventually the claimant realized she needed to claim protection. She did this well before her status expired. I find the claimant’s explanations reasonable, and in light of her personal profile and circumstances, I make no negative inference against the claimant for her failure to claim in the USA or her delay in claiming in Canada. Ultimately, I find the claimant has established that her daughter is wanted by the authorities in Ethiopia, that the claimant herself was involved in bailing her daughter out and agreeing to the conditions of her release, and that the claimant herself assisted her daughter in fleeing the country despite the state demanding that she not do that.

[9] I find that the claimant has also established that she fears returning to Ethiopia because of her ethnicity as an Amhara person, and because of her religion. I find that she was also directly threatened by the state, and that the state advised her that if her daughter did not appear, they would detain her in her daughter’s place.

Well-Founded Fear of Persecution and Risk of Harm

[10] The objective evidence supports the claimant’s fears of returning to Ethiopia and indicates that, “Security forces used excessive and sometimes lethal force and carried out extra judicial executions. Hundreds of people were killed, and property destroyed in ethnically motivated violence by armed groups and milia. Opposition members and journalists were subjected to arbitrary arrests and detention.” That can be found at NDP 2.2. This confirms there is recurrent unrest and violence along ethnic lines in Ethiopia. Ultimately, I find on a balance of probabilities that the NDP establishes that ethnic groups like the Amhara, which is the claimant’s ethnicity, face risk of persecution from state and non-state agents in Ethiopia. Specific reports of targeted violence against Amhara people can be found throughout the NDP, for example, at 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, to name a few. At NDP Item 2.2, it states that, “Inter-communal violence intensified in Ethiopia. In November, at least 54 people from the Amhara ethnic group in Gawa Qanqa village were killed in an attack by suspected members of the Oromo Liberation army (sic). In the same month, an armed conflict erupted in the Tigray region, and scores of ethnic Amhara residents, likely hundreds, were massacred in Mai Kadra.” There were numerous reports in Item 2.2 of the NDP of Amhara people being targeted and attacked, including in September 2020 by the Benishangul People’s Liberation Front (sic), where 45 people were killed and thousands displaced, in October 2020, where 31 Amhara residents from Guraferda were killed by armed assailants, and in November 2020, when local militias and youth stabbed and hacked to death scores and likely hundreds of ethnic Amhara residents in the western part of the Tigray region.” According to NDP 2.3, the security and human rights situation in Ethiopia has deteriorated. The landscape “Was defined by ongoing abuses by government security forces, attacks on civilians by armed groups, deadly violence along communal and ethnic lines, and a political crisis.” According to NDP Item 1.8, the government is struggling to contain the disconnect from Ethiopia’s myriad ethnic groups, fighting the federal government and each other for greater influence and resources. Outbreaks of ethnic violence have displaced around 2.4 million people according to the UN in Ethiopia.

[11] I find the claimant, on a balance (sic), faces a serious possibility of forward-facing risk in Ethiopia on the basis of her ethnicity as Amhara. I’ve also considered the claimant’s risk as the known mother of a fugitive of the state in Ethiopia. The claimant’s daughter was arrested on XXXX 2017 after being accused of meeting with political opposition outside of Ethiopia. The claimant assisted in facilitating her daughter’s release from detention, including paying her bail. Both the claimant and her daughter have fled Ethiopia against the demands of the authorities. The authorities directly threatened the claimant that they would detain her if her daughter was not brought for the summons. I find, on a balance, that the claimant, like her daughter, is perceived as a political opponent or political dissident in Ethiopia. According to NDP 4.16, “Individuals who are known dissidents are at a high risk of detention,” on return to Ethiopia. According to Item 4.21, the state continues to direct violence at actual and imputed government opponents, including through continued detention at government re-education camps, where detainees endure brainwashing. Ultimately, I find that the claimant is viewed on a balance of probabilities as a political opponent and dissident in Ethiopia, and that these conditions where these people face risk of persecution apply to the claimant. I find the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution based on her imputed political opinion.

[12] Lastly, I note that the claimant alleges she faces persecution as a result of her religion, being orthodox Christian. According to NDP 1.5, attacks on places of worship have increased since 2018. “According to the Amhara Professionals Union, a US-based advocacy group, 30 churches belonging primarily to Ethiopian orthodox church were attacked between July 2018 and September 2019. These attacks reportedly left hundred people dead, including priests and parishers (sic).” This is echoed in NDP 2.2. However, while I recognize that there are reports of orthodox Christians facing risk in Ethiopia, I find the claimant has established her claim based on her ethnicity and political opinion, and therefore, I am making no finding on whether orthodox Christians face risk of persecution in Ethiopia. Therefore, on a balance of probabilities, I find the claimant has establishes that she faces a serious risk of possibility of persecution in Ethiopia based on her ethnicity as Amhara and based on her imputed political opinion given she’s perceived, on a balance, by the state as a political dissident.

State Protection and Internal Flight Alternative

[13] Given that the state agents are the agents of persecution in this case, I find that there is no operationally effective state protection available to the claimant in her circumstances. Further, given that the state has the capacity to find the claimant throughout Ethiopia, and namely that the claimant would have to go through the state to even enter Ethiopia, I find that it is neither safe nor objectively reasonable in all of the circumstances, including those particular to the claimant, for her to relocate anywhere throughout Ethiopia. Accordingly, I find there is no viable IFA available to the claimant.

[14] In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, I find the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to s. 96 of the Act, and I therefore accept her claim. Mister Interpreter, just a very brief overview, please. Ma’am, I wish you all the best, and I will take us off the record. Everyone have a wonderful day.

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———

All Countries Zimbabwe

2022 RLLR 5

Citation: 2022 RLLR 5
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 6, 2022
Panel: Hannah Gray
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Melissa Singer
Country: Zimbabwe
RPD Number: VC1-06581
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01960
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: So, I have considered your testimony and the other evidence in the case, and I will now give you my decision orally. Okay? You will also receive a written version of this decision in the mail, and that will have reference to documentary evidence and case law. So, I will begin by telling you that my decision is a positive one and I have accepted your claims. So, congratulations.

[2] CLAIMANT: Thank you so much.

[3] MEMBER: You’re welcome. I will now read you the reasons for my decision. They’re a bit lengthy, so just bear with me. This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division, the RPD, in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX, the claimant, of Zimbabwe, who is claiming refugee protection pursuant to s. 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the IRPA. I have considered and applied the Chairperson’s Guidelines on Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution. I have also considered and applied the Immigration and Refugee Board’s Chairperson’s Guideline 9 on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression and Sex Characteristics, the SOGIESC Guidelines.

DETERMINATION

[4] I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to s. 96 of the IRPA based on her well-founded fear of persecution in Zimbabwe.

[5] The specifics of the claim are stated in the claimant’s Basis of Claim form and narrative in evidence. The claimant is a 38-year-old woman who identifies as bisexual. She faced threats and physical harm in Zimbabwe from her family members and general society due to her sexual orientation and her relationship with a woman. She was physically harmed on many occasions in public and in her home, and her home was burned down while she was inside. She soon — after this incident, she soon decided to move to South Africa, which she did in 2009 and remained there until 2018, where she lived on a work permit, which she renewed annually or biannually. In South Africa, she was also in a same-sex relationship with a woman named XXXX (ph) for four years, who she met at XXXX XXXX in Cape Town. Their relationship ended when the claimant moved to the USA in 2018 for employment on a cruise ship. The claimant relocated to the USA on a temporary work permit in XXXX 2018 and remained there until the end of 2018. While working on the cruise ship, she met her current partner, XXXX XXXX (ph), who is from Belize. They have been in an exclusive relationship since this time and they communicate daily. The claimant moved to Canada in early XXXX 2019 and made her refugee claim at that time. The claimant fears returning to Zimbabwe and being harmed or killed due to her sexual orientation.

IDENTITY

[6] I’m satisfied with the identity of the claimant as a citizen of Zimbabwe, which is established by her testimony and the copy of her passport with a USA visa, type C (inaudible) in evidence.

Credibility

[7] When a claimant swears to the truth of allegations, this creates a presumption that those allegations are true unless there is reason to doubt their truthfulness. I find no reason to doubt the truthfulness of the claimant. She testified in straightforward, forthright, detailed, and candid manner. There were no material inconsistencies, omissions, or contradictions between the claimant’s testimony and the other evidence in this case that were not reasonably explained. She did not exaggerate or tailor her evidence. In summary, her testimony was consistent with the other evidence on central aspects of her claim.

[8] I find the claimant also provided ample details to expand upon her allegations and she provided evidence in Exhibit 4 which included a letter from the XXXX, which is an LGBTQ+ support organization in Canada, a certificate of attendance at the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX from XXXX 2019 to XXXX 2020, a letter from her current partner, XXXX XXXX and as well as her identification document, and a letter of support from XXXX XXXX (ph) from XXXX 2021, and a letter of support from her partner in South Africa — her former partner in South Africa, XXXX XXXX (ph) as well as for identification document. During the hearing, the claimant was asked if she could provide any photographs or other evidence to substantially her relationship to her current partner. The claimant testified that she had photographs and spontaneously turned on her phone and pulled up multiple photographs of her and her partner, Janalie Cruz. She further testified in a candid manner that her partner was a female who considered herself to be male. However, she was not able to afford the gender-affirming surgery yet. She further testified that her and her partner speak daily over video chat and they have future plans to be together in person and even get married as they have been in a relationship since 2018.

[9] The claimant lived in South Africa from 2019 — sorry, 2009 to 2018, and then relocated to the USA on a temporary work visa for employment on a cruise ship. While in the USA, the claimant met her current partner. However, she feared making a refugee claim in the USA due to the Trump administration’s stringent policies on refugees. She therefore relocated to Canada in 2019 to make a refugee claim. Considering the particular circumstances of claimant, I find her explanation to be reasonable and I find that her failure to claim asylum in the USA is not indicative of her lack of subjective fear. As such, I do not draw a negative inference on her credibility.

[10] Due to the pandemic, the claimant has participated intermittently in LGBTQ organizations and events in Canada. There’s a support letter from the XXXX in Exhibit 4 which is a settlement organization, providing programs and services to the LGBTQ community, who confirm the claimant’s participation, and she participated in a number of XXXX hosted events.

[11] Given the claimant’s careful testimony and supporting documents, I find the claimant has established on a balance of probabilities the facts alleged in her claim, including that she has been threatened and harmed by her family in Zimbabwe as well as general society, as well as the allegations that she’s a bisexual woman who is currently in a relationship with someone named XXXX XXXX, and therefore the subjective fear she has of returning to Zimbabwe now. In sum, I find the claimant to be a credible witness and therefore believe what she has alleged in support of her claim.

Nexus

[12] To qualify for refugee status under the Refugee Convention, an individual must demonstrate that they have a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The allegations establish a nexus to the Convention ground for the claimant based on her membership in a particular social group as a bisexual woman facing violence due to her sexual orientation. I will therefore assess this claim under s. 96. I find the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution based on her sexual orientation.

[13] The claimant testified that she experienced frequent physical violence and threats in Zimbabwe due to her same-sex relationships. The country condition documents indicate that LGBTQI persons face societal and official harassment and discrimination, arbitrary detention, and sporadic violence in Zimbabwe. According to the National Documentation Package for Zimbabwe at Item 6.1, the atmosphere — it states that the atmosphere of severe sociopolitical hostility directed at sexual and gender minorities over the past year was described in the UK Home Office’s 2018 report. In fact, former President Mugabe’s anti-gay rhetoric has been backed up by many politicians, including a member of the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission. This report further states that this is frequently reflected in the media where journalists report that it is risky if not deadly to be gay and lesbian in Zimbabwe, a country where such relations are beyond taboo. According to a source in the National Documentation Package at item 6.2, a report on laws applying to LGBT individuals in selected Southern African countries, OutRight Action International, it states that “An international LGBTIQ organization that seeks to advance human rights and opportunities for LGBTIQ people around the world,” and similarly states that in Zimbabwe, although the criminal law and Codification and Reform Act does not explicitly extend to homosexual women, in practice, lesbians are subjected to the same victimization, censure, and police harassment as gay men.

[14] Additionally, one of the UN Human Rights Council stakeholder submissions for the forthcoming 2016 universal periodic review stated that — GALZ stated that homophobia permeates Zimbabwean society unchecked and manifests itself in different forms, ranging from verbal and physical assault (inaudible) discrimination of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex people on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. NDP Item 6.3 states that refusal by duty-bearers and policymakers to address this issue has resulted in the public intolerance of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex persons becoming deeply ingrained in the community and reinforces the general stigmatization of sexual minorities in society. With respect to treatment by state actors, the DFAT report from 2016 stated that the authorities more commonly harassed LGBTI persons using loitering, indecency, and public order statutes, although violations are underreported because of the stigma attached to the LGBTI community. In 2014, Gays and Lesbians of Zimbabwe, the GALZ, reported that — 41 cases of arbitrary arrest, violence, harassment, unfair dismissal, and forceful displacement involving LGBTI persons.

[15] The claimant has identified as a bisexual woman who has already experienced physical violence in Zimbabwe on the basis of her sexual orientation. The objective evidence indicates that she faces a well-founded fear of persecution. Therefore, I find the claimant has demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution on both a subjective and objective basis. I also find the claimant would face a serious possibility of persecution in Zimbabwe based on her profile as a bisexual woman.

State Protection

[16] In all refugee claims, a state is presumed to be capable of protecting its citizens unless there is clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. In this case, I find that this presumption has been rebutted. To rebut this presumption, a claimant must establish on a balance of probabilities through clear and convincing evidence that their state’s protection is inadequate, and the onus is on the claimant to do this. According to NDP Item 6.3, there is a high level of official discrimination against LGBTI persons in Zimbabwe. Authorities continue to violate rights of LGBT people. A Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission report published in July showed continued hostility and systematic discrimination by police and politicians against LGBT people, driving many to live underground. At NDP Item 6.2, LGBTI individuals face arbitrary detention and torture at the hands of law enforcement officials. Police reportedly detained and held persons suspected of being gay for up to 40 hours before releasing them. LGBTI activist groups also reported police using extortion, threats, frequent beatings, mocking, and forced to pay bribes in order to escape custody. Where agents of the state are persecutors, a claimant’s effort to seek state protection need not exhaust all avenues and recourse. In light of the country condition evidence regarding the availability of state protection to those who are similarly situated, I find that the claimant’s efforts in this regard were reasonable and that on a balance of probabilities the state will not afford her adequate protection, and I find she has rebutted the presumption of state protection.

Internal Flight Alternative, or IFA

[17] The test for a viable IFA has two prongs, and I must be satisfied of both on a balance of probabilities in order for there to be a viable IFA. First, I must be satisfied that the claimant would not face a serious possibility of persecution and that she would not be personally subjected to a risk to life of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or a danger of torture in the IFA. Second, I must be satisfied that it would not be unreasonable in all the circumstances, including those particular to the claimant, for her to seek refuge there. Once an IFA has been proposed, the onus is on the claimant to show that the IFA is unreasonable. As the Zimbabwean state is involved with the harm and is therefore the agent of persecution and is in effective control of all of its territory, I find there is no viable internal flight alternative for the claimant within Zimbabwe as she would face a serious possibility of persecution throughout the country.

[18] For these reasons, I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee under s. 96 of the Act, and I accept her claim. Thank you.

[19] CLAIMANT: Thank you.

[20] COUNSEL: Thank you very much.

[21] MEMBER: You’re welcome. Thank you for sharing your experiences with me today, and congratulations.

[22] CLAIMANT: Thank you.

[23] MEMBER: Have a nice afternoon, everyone. That is it for today.

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———

All Countries Iran

2022 RLLR 4

Citation: 2022 RLLR 4
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 8, 2022
Panel: Vanessa Fairey
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Ramin Joubin
Country: Iran
RPD Number: VC1-06888
Associated RPD Number(s): VC1-06913
ATIP Number: A-2022-01960
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: So, this is the decision.

INTRODUCTION

[2] These are the reasons for the decision in the claim for XXXX XXXX, who is the principal claimant, and her stepson XXXX XXXX, the associate claimant, who are citizens of Iran and who are seeking refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I have heard these claims jointly pursuant to rule 55 of the RPD Rules.

ALLEGATIONS

[3] The full allegations are set out in the claimants’ Basis of Claim forms found at Exhibit 2. However, I will summarize the allegations briefly. The principal claimant is a 52-year-old woman who has converted to Christianity. She was born into a Muslim family in Tehran. Her father was strict with Islam and imposed many of the rules on her. However, her mother was more liberal. The principal claimant was injured in a car accident when she was about 30 and was in a coma. An elderly Christian neighbour who is friends with her mother provided prayer and spiritual support for the principal claimant’s recovery. Once she had recovered from the coma, she began to think of Christianity as benevolent. Unfortunately, her neighbour passed away.

[4] The principal claimant then came to Canada in XXXX 2019 with her stepson, the associate claimant, where she continued to explore the Christian faith. She began to attend XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and gained knowledge from the church leaders. She states that she has formally converted in XXXX 2020. She also has a sister in Canada, who accidentally advised another Muslim sister in Iran of the principal claimant’s conversion. Her sister in Iran then informed her work, and she was fired. The principal claimant alleges that her conversion to Christianity places her at risk of persecution in Iran from both the state and her family. She believes that she is in danger if she returns to Iran.

[5] The associate claimant is a 19-year-old man and the stepson of the principal claimant. He came to Canada in order to study. He feels that Shia Islam is superstitious and restrictive. He disagrees with practices that he feels are outdated and has been exploring Christianity also. At the time of his initial claim, he did not yet consider himself to identify as a Christian but stated that his beliefs and lifestyle are un-Islamic and that he has renounced Islam. In addition to being considered an apostate, he also fears an imputed religious conversion, as his stepmother has converted formally to Christianity. Moreover, his allegations note that he fears conscription to the military in Iran.

DECISION

[6] I find that the claimants are Convention refugees in accordance with section 96 of the Act.

Identity

[7] I find that the claimants’ national identities as nationals of Iran is established through their testimony and the supporting documentation filed, including their passports found at Exhibit 1.

Nexus

[8] I find that the persecution feared by the principal claimant has a nexus to the Convention by reason of religion, as she has converted to Christianity. For the associate claimant, I also find there is a nexus to the Convention by way of religion, as his renunciation of Islam is considered apostasy.

ANALYSIS

Credibility

[9] The determinative issue in this claim is the credibility of the allegations. Pursuant to the Maldonado principle, it is presumed that sworn testimony is true, unless there is sufficient reason to doubt its truthfulness. In these cases, I find there to be no such reasons. Overall, the principal and associate claimants testified with authenticity and without embellishment at the hearing, and I find them both to be credible. Further, there was sufficient corroborative documents provided which supported the testimony and which I will discuss. I therefore accept what they have alleged in support of their claims. And specifically, I accept that the principal claimant is a Christian convert who subjectively fears persecution in Iran and that the associate claimant has also renounced Islam and is in the process of converting to Christianity and therefore subjectively fears persecution, as he is considered apostate.

[10] The principal claimant was asked about her conversion to Christianity and baptism. She stated that she attended classes for about 10 months in addition to regular services before being baptized. Her family in Canada also attended her baptism ceremony. And she testified that after, when her sister in Canada sent photos of another family birthday event, she also accidentally attached the baptism photos. This caused an issue with the principal claimant’s family in Iran, and they have not had positive relations since then. On the other hand, both she and the associate claimant testified that her husband and the father of the associate claimant, while remaining Muslim, does not take issue with her conversion. Additionally, her job had allowed her leave of absence, but once the year was up, they contacted her family in Iran to inquire about her return and were told she would not return and that she had converted to Christianity. She was then fired. She also spoke briefly about being interested in Christianity while in Iran but not having the option to attend church there, as it was not allowed. She articulated that she chose Christianity because she wanted peace of mind and tranquility, and due to the interpretation of Islam in Iran that women are not considered equal to men. She stated that she tried different churches, but that her church has Farsi interpretation available, and therefore, she is able to understand the content.

[11] The associate claimant also expressed that since coming to Canada and attending church with his stepmother, he now identifies as Christian, and he has plans to be baptized in the next few weeks. He testified that he is attending classes on Tuesdays to learn about Christianity and that he also attends services on Sundays. He was able to demonstrate knowledge of Christianity beyond a basic understanding, speaking about the mechanics of a service in particular. The associate claimant was asked to expand on what he disagrees with in Islam, and he stated that he does not like the constant bloodshed and war that he feels exists in the religion. He noted that there is a lot of sadness and limitations in the Islamic traditions in Iran.

[12] There is persuasive documentary evidence submitted in the claims, which are found at Exhibits 4 and 5. Regarding her conversion to Christianity, the principal claimant submits both confirmation and baptism certificates from Holy Trinity Catholic Church in North Vancouver. She also has a support letter on file from the priest of the church, and copies of text and email communications between herself and other church leaders and attendees, as well as a copy of her dismissal letter from her employer in Iran. There is also some limited documentary evidence regarding the associate claimant. He is also named in the support letter from the church, and there is some evidence of email communication between the church and himself.

[13] Overall, I find that both claimants are credible and have established a subjective fear of persecution in Iran.

Well-Founded Fear

[14] To establish one’s status as a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection, claimants must show that there is a serious possibility that they would be persecuted or, on a balance of probabilities, be subjected to a risk to life, or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or a danger of torture, if removed to their country of origin, in these claims, Iran. I find that the claimants have met that burden. The risk that the claimants allege is corroborated by the objective country conditions evidence provided in the National Documentation Package before me at Exhibit 3. Several documents speak to this. Found at 2.1 is the US Department of State report, which describes Iran as an authoritarian, theocratic republic with a governmental human rights record that is extremely poor. Islam is the official state religion. The law prohibits Muslim citizens from changing or renouncing their religion. The country conditions evidence found in Exhibit 3 at Tabs 12.11, 12.14, and 12.15 clearly indicates that religious freedom is virtually nonexistent in Iran, with the government engaged in systematic and ongoing egregious violations of religious freedom, including prolonged detention, torture, and execution. Regarding their religious beliefs or absence of belief, their rejection of Islam may be understood as both a religious and, by extension, even political opinion that is against the theocratic regime in Iran.

[15] The principal claimant has fully converted to Christianity, which puts her at risk of persecution as apostate from Islam. The associate claimant has been involved with the church in Canada, and given his relationship to his stepmother, who has now fully converted, a perception that he is a convert to Christianity could also be imputed to him. Either way, he rejects Islam, which is considered apostasy and subject to grievous punishment in Iran. I find on a balance of probabilities that the claimants have established a well-founded fear of persecution in Iran with a nexus to the Convention ground of religion. They fear the state and the principal claimant’s family, both. Apostasy is punishable by death, according to Iranian law.

State Protection and Internal Flight Alternative, IFA

[16] In these claims, the claimants’ religion as converts to Christianity, or in the process of converting to Christianity, and rejection of Islam is grounds of persecution. There is more than a mere possibility of persecution for both the claimants if they were to return to Iran. I find that it would be objectively unreasonable for the claimants to seek the protection of the state. As the state is feared as an agent of persecution, the claimants would not be able to avail themselves of the protection of the authorities of Iran, and the presumption of state protection has been rebutted.

[17] Furthermore, as the claimants fear persecution at the hands of the state, they would not be able to relocate to escape the risks that they face, and there is no viable internal flight alternative. I find there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout the entire country of Iran.

CONCLUSION

[18] Based on the totality of the evidence, I find that the claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Accordingly, I accept their claims.

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———

Afghanistan All Countries

2022 RLLR 3

Citation: 2022 RLLR 3
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 26, 2022
Panel: Vanessa Fairey
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Robin David Bajer
Country: Afghanistan
RPD Number: VC1-07308
Associated RPD Number(s): VC1-07309 / VC1-07310 / VC1-07311
ATIP Number: A-2022-01960
ATIP Pages: N/A

INTRODUCTION

[1] MEMBER: These are the reasons for the decision in the claims of the principal claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX, and his spouse, XXXX XXXX XXXX, who is the associate claimant, and the minor claimant, XXXX XXXX, who are all citizens of Afghanistan, and in the case of the second minor claimant, XXXX XXXX, who is a citizen of both Afghanistan and the United States of America, who are claiming refugee protection pursuant to s. 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or IRPA. I note for the record that the principal claimant has been designated as the representative for the minor claimants.

DETERMINATION

[2] For the reasons that follow, I find that the principal claimant, associate claimant, and minor claimant, XXXX XXXX, are Convention refugees as they have each established a serious possibility of persecution on account of at least one Convention ground in Afghanistan. In the case of the minor claimant, XXXX XXXX, in order for claim for refugee protection to be successful, the Act requires that the claim must establish a claim against each of their countries of nationality. In this case, no claim was advanced against the United States by the minor claimant or on her behalf. Indeed, there is no evidence before me that the minor claimant faces a risk of persecution or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or of torture in the United States. Accordingly, it’s unnecessary to examine the risks she faces in Afghanistan, and her claim for protection must be rejected.

ALLEGATIONS

[3] You each fear persecution at the hands of the Taliban in Afghanistan due to the principal claimant’s previous employment as a XXXX XXXX XXXX with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, in which he XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in the United States at the XXXX XXXX XXXX in New York. The associate and minor claimants alleged persecution as members of a particular social group as the family members of the principal claimant.

[4] The former Afghan government collapsed on August 15, 2021, resulting in the principal claimant’s job being terminated and with it, any status as a government employee. After monitoring the situation for a couple of weeks and watching evacuations of Afghans that had previously worked with the US Government, the claimants chose to travel to Canada XXXX XXXX, 2021, and submit claims. They were deferred until XXXX XXXX, 2021, due to border restrictions as a result of the pandemic. The claimants submit that they did not submit claims in the US as they have a family member in Vancouver and due to a long and uncertain asylum process in the USA. It is again noted that the youngest family member, Elina, was born in the USA and thus holds US citizenship.

[5] The claimants allege that the Taliban targets anyone who has XXXX XXXX XXXX and especially Americans and that they are considered a kafir or infidel. The principal claimant notes that as the Taliban has taken over the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where he was once employed, that they will have access to his information and, certainly, he and his family will be marked for harm and/or death. He notes that he has publicly stated his political opinion, which is opposite to that of the Taliban, on social media and that this will further incite persecution from the Taliban. The claimants have also submitted that the female claimants will face gender-based persecution and harm from the Taliban due to their membership in a particular social group as females.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[6] I find that your identities as nationals of Afghanistan have been established by the documents provided at Exhibit 1, namely your Afghan passports. In the case of the female minor claimant, I am satisfied of her identity and citizenship in the United States by her USA passport as well as her citizenship in Afghanistan as per her parents, who are Afghanis, and this is also found at Exhibit 1.

Credibility

[7] Pursuant to the Maldonado principle, a claimant’s testimony is presumed to be true unless there is valid reason to doubt their truthfulness, such as with inconsistencies, contradictions, or implausibilities. In these cases, I have no such reason to doubt the testimony of the claimants. There were no relevant inconsistencies in the evidence or contradictions between the evidence and other evidence before me.

[8] The principal claimant has testified regarding his occupation that he was employed from XXXX 2019 until XXXX 2021 in the USA XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. He explained that they were not offered assistance to remain in the US by the US government and that he did not seek out assistance in the US as it did not appear that, as Afghan employees, the US government would assist. He fears the Taliban to due to his employment in this capacity and especially as someone who worked with the Americans as the Taliban specifically targets people in those positions. The associate claimant also testified to the same fear and additionally testified emotionally regarding her fear for herself and the minor female claimant of having no rights as females in Afghanistan under the Taliban.

[9] The claimants have provided ample supporting documentations to support their allegations. These are found at Exhibit 5 and include photographs of the principal claimant at various official events in his capacity as an Afghan government representative, copies of his social media posts, and, at Exhibit 1 again, service passports for the principal, associate, and minor male claimant. Upon a review of these documents, I find no reason to doubt their authenticity and therefore place significant weight on them as they serve to corroborate the allegations. I find that the claimants are credible and have established a subjective fear of persecution in Afghanistan.

Well-Founded Fear

[10] For equipment to be a Convention refugee, they must have a well-founded of persecution due to a Convention ground. The Convention grounds are race, religion, nationality, membership, in a particular social group, and political opinion. I find that the harm these claimants fear is by reason of multiple intersecting factors, including their actual or perceived political opinion, as the principal payment was an employee of the previous government as well as having been posted to North America, and in the case of the associate and male minor claimants, their membership in a particular social group as members of an employee of the former Afghan national government. As well, the harm feared by the associate claimant is due to her membership in a particular social group as woman.

[11] I also find that the objective evidence in the National Documentation Package, the NDP, for Afghanistan supports the allegations, including at Items 1.5 and 2.1 as follows. Civilians associated with or perceived to be supporting the former Afghan government, civil society, and the international community in Afghanistan, including the international military forces and international humanitarian and development actors, have been subject to intimidation, threats, abduction, and targeted attacks by anti-government elements, including the Taliban. This may include returnees from Western countries. The Taliban continues to commit human rights abuses, including killings and kidnappings against those who oppose them, and maintains illegal detention centres. The Taliban and other insurgents continue to kill security personnel and civilians using indiscriminate tactics, such as improved explosive devices, IEDs, suicide attacks, and rocket attacks, and to commit disappearances and torture. The Taliban referred to their attacks as martyrdom operations.

[12] Violence against women remains a widespread, common, and undeniable reality in Afghanistan. Impunity in relation to such violence is reportedly common, despite the previous government’s efforts to promote gender equality. Women who are perceived as transgressing social norms continue to face social stigma and gender discrimination and threats to their safety, particularly in rural areas and areas controlled by anti-government entities or the Taliban. At Item 1.20, the report notes regarding recent political situations that the Taliban states that women’s rights will be permitted within the limits of Islamic sharia. Such norms include a strict dress code as well as requirements that restrict a woman’s freedom of movement, such as the requirement to be accompanied by a male relative chaperone when appearing in public. The level of discrimination that women such as the associate claimant face is sufficiently serious to constitute persecution. The recent withdrawal of international troops from Afghanistan has increased this risk. This is supported by Item 1.14 of the NDP as follows.

[13] In the wake of the withdrawal of international troops from Afghanistan, there has been rapid deterioration in the security and human rights situations in large parts of the country. Reports emerged from Taliban-held areas of the imposition of restrictions on personal and social freedoms and the erosion of women’s rights and access to services, including education. The Taliban has taken control of a rapidly increasing number of districts, with their advance accelerating in August 2021 to capturing 33 out of 34 of Afghanistan provincial capitals in the space of 10 days, ultimately taking control of the presidential palace and capital. Again, this is at 1.14 in the NDP. This upsurge of violence has had a serious impact on civilians, including women and children. At Item 1.28, we have a UNHCR report that notes that it is concerned about the risk of human rights violations against civilians, including women and girls, and against Afghans who are perceived by the Taliban to have a current or past association with the Afghan government or with the international military forces in Afghanistan or with international organizations in the country. It advises against returns to Afghanistan of those who have fled, including those whose asylum claims have failed.

[14] I find that the country evidence noted above establishes that those associated with the government and/or international agents and women who do not abide by traditional Islamic criteria, such as the associate claimant before me and the principal claimant, face persecution by the Taliban in Afghanistan. I therefore find that three claimants, the principal, associate and male minor claimants have established a serious risk of persecution, including death by the Taliban, should they return to Afghanistan.

[15] Regarding the female minor claimant, as I’ve mentioned, there is no claim advanced against the United States, of which she is a citizen, and therefore, I find her not to have established a well-founded fear persecution in the United States. I find that she’s neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection with respect the United States. Consequently, I need not examine her claim against Afghanistan as she can safely return to the USA.

State Protection and Internal Flight Alternative

[16] Based on the objective evidence just discussed, I find that there’s not adequate or operationally effective state protection available in Afghanistan. The former Afghan government pardon has collapsed, turning the entire country, effectively, over to the Taliban. The agents of persecution govern most, if not all of the country. Given the specific circumstances of the principal, associate, and male minor claimants and the very recent occurrences in the country and that the Taliban control most of the country, I also find that there is no viable internal flight alternative for these claimants in Afghanistan.

CONCLUSION

[17] I find that the principal, associate, and male minor claimants, are Convention refugees pursuant to s. 96 of the IRPA, and I accept their claims. I find that the female minor claimant is not a Convention refugee pursuant to s. 96 of the IRPA or a person in need of protection pursuant to s. 97 of the IRPA. I therefore reject her claim, and that is the end of decision and reasons for the transcription records.

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———

All Countries Lebanon

2022 RLLR 2

Citation: 2022 RLLR 2
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: May 24, 2022
Panel: Douglas Cryer
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Hachem Hassan Fawaz
Country: Lebanon
RPD Number: VC1-08109
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01960
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: This is a decision of the Refugee Protection Division in the claim of XXXX XXXX, citizen of Lebanon and making a claim for refugee protection under section 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[2] You allege the following. You owned XXXX XXXX, which were forced to close because members of Hezbollah and other religious extremist groups were accusing you of pulling women away from Islam. You did this by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and this is contrary to some people’s beliefs, that women should stay at home and wear the niqab when outside. On XXXX XXXX in 2021, you are at your client’s house in Beirut. You heard gunfire. You looked outside and you recognized one (1) of the members of Hezbollah who was a high-ranking official. When you called out to him, he was shocked that someone actually recognized him. He and his accomplices ran after you and fired gunshots towards you, but you are able to lock yourself and shelter in a building. 10 hours later when the clash ended, you were rescued by some police. The day following this clash, you received a threatening phone call from this Hezbollah member. He said he knew where your family was. He asked you to provide information about the people who sheltered you. He thought that you had taken a cellphone video of him. Out of fear, you did not return home, this based on the advice your father gave you. You fled to the United States before coming to Canada to make your refugee claim.

[3] INTERPRETER: Excuse me, sir?

[4] MEMBER: You fled to the United States before coming to Canada to make a refugee claim.

[5] This is a case where we consider the Chairperson’s gender guidelines. I did not have to make any particular application in relation to credibility. I considered the guidelines throughout.

[6] At the beginning, we listed the issues. Let us go through them now. Do you meet the definition of a Convention refugee or a person who is in need of protection? A Convention refugee is a person by reasons of a well-founded fear of persecution and for the following reasons. Race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or for political opinion as outside of your country of nationality, in this case, Lebanon, and that you are unable or by reason of your fear unwilling to avail yourself of the protection of the state. The definition for a person in need of protection does not apply here, so I will go over that.

[7] This is my decision. I find that you are a Convention refugee as you have established that you have a serious possibility of persecution if you return to Lebanon. This is based on your nexus to the Convention grounds. You belong to a particular social group, someone who fears gender-related persecution and for imputed political opinion because members of Hezbollah think that you could harm them. They think you have a video showing their violent actions.

[8] Next question. Have you established your identity, and do you possess acceptable documentation establishing your identity? I find that your identity as a national of Lebanon is established by your credible testimony and by the documents you provided. There is a certified photocopy of your passport in Exhibit 1.

[9] Is your claim credible? When you affirmed that you would tell the truth, this created a presumption that your allegations are true unless there are serious reasons to doubt their truthfulness. I had no reason to doubt your truthfulness. Your testimony today was consistent with what you wrote in your narrative. It is corroborated by documentary evidence, including letters of support from your father and your husband, especially.

[10] Is your fear to your return to your country well-founded? There must be both a subjective and an objective basis for your fear. What we mean by subjective fear is that your behaviour or your actions should be consistent with somebody who fears return to their country. In this case, the incident happened in Beirut and your family warned you not to return to your village. You stayed in hiding until very shortly afterwards you fled your country. These actions are consistent with somebody who would have a subjective fear of return. Is there objective evidence? The answer is yes based on your credible testimony and current country condition reports that you provided in Exhibit 4. Exhibit 3, the National Documentation Package, contains the evidence that people who fear Hezbollah, that Hezbollah has the resources to track people they are seeking. They have the ability to exercise control outside of the traditional legal system in Lebanon and they control large portions of Lebanon. This is described in Item 1.3, the Department of Foreign Affairs report for Australia and Item 7.8, which is a Response to Information Request that shows the extent and reach of Hezbollah.

[11] Have you provided evidence which establishes on a balance of probabilities that the authorities in your country cannot provide you with adequate protection? There is a presumption that states can protect their own citizens. This can be rebutted in a claimant’s individual circumstances. In this case, there is evidence that Hezbollah has harassed your husband and your immediate family over the months. There is evidence that the clash that you were speaking of, that there were approximately 30 people killed that day. Hezbollah has a reach and an influence that goes beyond Lebanon security forces. And like some other groups, Hezbollah has not given up their weapons. When you read these two (2) documents that I mentioned earlier, it is clear and convincing evidence that the state has an inability to protect from people who fear Hezbollah.

[12] Concerning the treatment of women in Lebanon, the Department of Foreign Affairs report that I referred to earlier mentions that Lebanon ranks I think 133 out of 144 for treatment of women in the world. This document summarizes that women generally face discrimination. In your own case, you face direct persecution, in that you had to shut down XXXX XXXX because religious extremists did not agree XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. And it is obvious in your case that the police did not offer you adequate protection in this case.

[13] Finally, we ask the question, would it be unreasonable for you to seek refuge in a different part of your country? Although not mentioned specifically throughout the hearing, Beirut is likely the most viable place that a person could flee to and live there. This is where you faced your own persecution, so it would be unreasonable for you to relocate to Beirut. There is a two-pronged test or two (2) tests. Could you live anywhere without a serious possibility of being persecuted? Since I find that there is inadequate protection for you in Lebanon, I find that there is no viable internal flight alternative.

[14] These are all the reasons that make you a Convention refugee under section 96 of the Act, and these are the reasons your claim is accepted.

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———