Tag: All Case Types

2020 RLLR 135

Citation: 2020 RLLR 135
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 24, 2020
Panel: L. Bonhomme
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Talia Joundi
Country: Jordan
RPD Number: TB9-13034
Associated RPD Number(s): TB9-13090, TB9-13117, TB9-13128
ATIP Number: A-2021-01106
ATIP Pages: 000118-000127

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] The claimants, [XXX]and[XXX] are seeking refugee protection from Jordan pursuant to ss. 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“IRPA”).^[1]

[2] [XXX] is the principal claimant and he is married to [XXX] the associate claimant. Their children are [XXX], and [XXX] the minor claimants. The principal claimant was appointed as the designated representative of the minor claimants.

Determination

[3] The panel finds the principal claimant to be a person in need of protection within the meaning of s.97(1) of the IRPA.

[4] The panel does not find the associate claimant or minor claimants to be Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

Allegations

[5] The details of the claimants’ allegations are more fully set out in the principal claimant’s Basis of Claim Form (“BOC”) and amended BOC.^[2] In short, the principal claimant’s cousin murdered a teenaged neighbour belonging to another tribe. As a result, the principal claimant and his family are being pursued for a revenge killing by the tribe.

[6] The oldest minor claimant, [XXX], is a citizen of the United States of America. The claimants do not make any allegations against the United States of America.

Analysis

Identity

[7] The principal, associate and youngest minor claimants’ personal identities as citizens of Jordan have been established by the principal claimant’s testimony and the certified true copies of their Jordanian passports and Canadian visas on file.^[3]

[8] The panel finds on a balance of probabilities that the principal, associate and youngest minor claimants are who the say they are and that the country of reference for them is Jordan.

[9] The personal identity of the oldest minor claimant, as a citizen of the United States of America, has been established by the principal claimant’s testimony and the certified true copy of his passport issued by the United States of America on file.^[4]

[10] The panel finds on a balance of probabilities that the oldest minor claimant is who he says he is and that a country of reference for this claimant is the United States of America.

Credibility

[11] The determinative issue in this claim is credibility. In making this assessment, the panel has considered all the evidence, including the oral testimony and documentary evidence entered as exhibits as well as post-hearing disclosure. The principal and associate claimants both testified and although there were some inconsistences between the principal claimant’s testimony, the BOCs, and the documentary evidence, the panel finds that there is sufficient documentary evidence and credible testimony going to the core of the claim to overcome the inconsistencies.

[12] The claimants allege in the BOCs that in [XXX] 2016, the principal claimant’s cousin, [XXX] murdered a seventeen year old named [XXX] by shooting him with a gun resulting in his death eight days later. The cousin and the victim were neighbours in the [XXX] neighbourhood of Irbid. The claimants submitted two news articles closely corroborating the details of the murder, including the timing and location and naming the individuals involved.^[5]

[13] However, the panel does note that there are some inconsistencies between the news sources’ accounts of the aftermath and the claimants’ testimony and BOCs. According to the news reports, the cousin’s [XXX] and the tribe’s hosting place were burned that day, after the victim’s death was announced. According to the BOCs, the principal claimant began receiving weekly phone threats which increased over time and both he and the associate claimant received warnings from neighbours of threats against their lives. At some point, the principal claimant received face to face threats while working, as his job involved [XXX] in the [XXX] neighbourhood. The BOCs allege that the threats turned into action around [XXX] 2016 when the cousin’s store, the clan’s reception home, and the cousin’s brothers’ homes were set on fire. The BOCs do not mention any fires before that time.

[14] At the hearing, the principal claimant testified that he learned of the shooting that same day as tribe members started to burn things and fire shots. When asked for specifics of what was burned, the principal claimant listed the cousin’s house, two reception homes, and stores. The fires went on for a week after the shooting and after the victim died. This was repeated in [XXX]. When asked to explain this, the principal claimant described how tribe members would set fire to the building, burn it, put out the fire and then burn it again. The principal claimant was asked why he did not indicate in his BOCs that the fires happened the same day as the shooting and he responded that he did not know. When asked why the BOCs only mention fires in [XXX] 2016, the principal claimant responded that the fires increased then. Although the panel does not find that the principal claimant’s explanations are compelling, the panel accepts that there were some fires related to the murder.

[15] Aside from the timing of the fires, both claimants’ testimony was consistent with the BOCs and with one another. The principal claimant was able to adequately describe in detail the threats he received, both on the phone and in person, and how they changed over time. Furthermore, the claimants have produced a number of documents corroborating various aspects of their claim.

[16] The principal claimant alleges in his BOCs that he is being targeted because he was particularly close with his cousin and in his testimony, he added that he is a young man distinguishable in the town. The principal claimant is university educated and active in the humanitarian field, having been employed for several years with the [XXX], and later the [XXX]. The claimants submitted a certificate indicating the principal claimant was awarded a [XXX] of [XXX] in 2009 and letters confirming his employment with the [XXX] from [XXX] 2013 to [XXX] 2017 and with the [XXX] from [XXX] 2017 to [XXX] 2018.^[6] The claimants submitted a letter from the principal claimant’ s father expressing his fear for his son’s life and that his son’s life is particularly being threatened due to his relationship with the perpetrator of the shooting.^[7]The claimants also submitted a letter from the leader of the [XXX] tribe dated [XXX] 2019 confirming the risk of revenge killing to the family members of [XXX] generally, including the claimants.^[8]

[17] The claimants allege that the motivation for the agents of persecution to pursue them increased when another local tribe enacted a revenge murder against another tribe in a similar blood murder situation, a year (in [XXX] 2018) after a sulha (truce) had been reached. The claimants submitted newspaper articles from [XXX] 2017 describing a truce between the two tribes due to the killing of one of the tribe members after a parking dispute. The claimants also submitted a travel advisory from the U.S. Embassy in Jordan in 2017 recommending that U.S. citizens avoid travel to the [XXX] area in Irbid due to violent incidents, including arson and fatalities in [XXX] 2017.^[9] At the hearing, the principal claimant explained how word had spread that another tribe had exacted revenge whereas the [XXX] tribe had not yet done so. He testified convincingly that his fear was heightened as a result.

[18] The claimants resided in the [XXX] neighbourhood. According to the principal claimant’s testimony, it was about a one to two minute walk from where the murder occurred. The claimants moved on at least two occasions to try to ensure their safety; however, the threats followed them. The claimants submitted two tenancy contracts: one from [XXX] 2016 to [XXX] 2017 for an [XXX] address and the other from [XXX] 2018 for an address behind the [XXX] Hospital and close to [XXX] College.^[10]

[19] The claimants alleged that in [XXX] 2019, threatening messages to the principal claimant were received on Facebook and that the principal claimant’s brother continues to receive threats. The claimants submitted communications to the principal claimant from “[XXX]” and from the principal claimant’s brother corroborating this allegation.^[11]

Objective Basis

[20] Sources in the National Documentation Package for Jordan confirm that revenge is part of tribal practices, including revenge killing. According to an article entitled, “Tribal Customary Law in Jordan,” when a murder takes place in a village, the male members of the victim’s family have the right under Bedouin law to murder a male member of the perpetrator’s family. The victim’s family will often choose the most respected member of the perpetrator’s family so as to bring shame on the perpetrator within his own family.^[12]

[21] Counsel for the claimants submitted numerous news articles attesting to the current prevalence of revenge practices in Jordan, including killings and retaliatory fire-setting.^[13]

[22] In considering the mostly credible testimony from the principal and associate claimants, the ample corroborating documentary evidence, and the country conditions, the panel believes what the claimants have alleged in support of the claim in relation to the principal claimant and finds that a personal risk to the principal claimant’s life of a revenge killing by the [XXX] tribe in Jordan is established, on a balance of probabilities.

[23] The panel finds that there is not sufficient credible and trustworthy evidence to establish on a balance of probabilities that there is a personal risk to the lives, or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, of the associate and youngest minor claimant. There is no evidence of any threats to the youngest minor claimant, a two year old girl. The principal claimant testified emphatically that the tribe would not pick a child to exact revenge upon. The only evidence in relation to the associate claimant are warnings from neighbours of hearing of threats against their lives which the panel finds to be too vague. The principal claimant’s own evidence was that he was specifically targeted due to his relationship with his cousin, his gender and profile in the community, clearly distinguishing him from his wife who is not alleged to have enjoyed a similar relationship with the cousin. There is no evidence in the country conditions of females being targeted for revenge killings for murder.

[24] The panel does not find that there is any evidence of a nexus to a Convention ground in relation to the associate claimant and youngest minor claimant and therefore the panel finds that the associate claimant and youngest minor claimant are not Convention refugees.

State protection

[25] States are presumed to be capable of protecting their own citizens, except in situations where the state is in a state of complete breakdown. To rebut the presumption of state protection, a claimant has to provide clear and convincing evidence of the state’s inability or unwillingness to protect its citizens.

[26] The claimants’ evidence was that the principal claimant consulted with some friends who work in the police force and was told there was nothing that could be done because he could not be given a personal security guard. The claimants submitted a document from the police directorate in Irbid dated [XXX] 2016 indicating that the principal claimant had requested protection for himself and his family from the [XXX] tribe but that he could not be provided with private protection and that if the identities of the individuals making the threats was known, further steps could be taken.^[14]

[27] In this case, tribal dispute resolution was invoked; however, the process was ineffective to the principal claimant. The claimants submitted a document that was translated as “deed of tribal truce by admission” issued February 3, 2016 describing a ja’ha between the Al-Rawabdeh tribe and the Al-Irjoob tribe due to the shooting on January 23, 2106 of Ayhan Ali Salah Al-Rawabdeh by Ibrahim Saleh Abdelhafiz Al-Irjoob.^[15]

[28] Sources in the National Documentation Package indicate that although tribal law in Jordan was abolished in 1975, tribal dispute resolution has come to forma prevailing part of the Jordanian culture and customs, despite the fact that it no longer constitutes a part of the Jordanian legal system. This is especially so in relation to blood crimes, honour crimes and conflicts between families.^[16] In practise, the legal system defers to tribal customs and practises. Although the tribal dispute resolution process operates outside of and alongside the legal system, the state is often complicit and even active in tribal dispute resolution processes (e.g. police often supervise jalwa, atweh may be supervised by state security forces, state-appointed officials may form part of a jaha, state or members of the royal family may act as waseet).^[17]

[29] Based on the evidence before the panel, the panel finds that in this case the state is unwilling or unable to protect the principal claimant effectively.

[30] The country information is clear and convincing evidence that rebuts the presumption that adequate state protection is available to the principal claimant in Jordan. The panel therefore finds on a balance of probabilities that the principal claimant cannot access adequate state protection in Jordan.

Internal Flight Alternative

[31] The panel has also considered whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for the principal claimant. Jordan is a small country. The tribe pursuing the claimants is a powerful and politically influential tribe, counting a former Jordanian Prime Minister as a member. Although the tribe is based in [XXX], members live outside the village. Given the profile of the tribe, the agents of persecution would likely have no difficulty being able to locate the principal claimant throughout the country.

[32] The panel finds that, on a balance of probabilities, the principal claimant’s life would be at risk throughout Jordan and therefore finds that there is no viable internal flight alternative.

Conclusion

[33] Based on the totality of the evidence, the panel finds the principal claimant to be a person in need of protection from Jordan and therefore his claim is accepted. The panel finds that the associate claimant and youngest minor claimant are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection from Jordan and therefore their claims are denied.

[34] The claimants did not make any allegations of persecution, risk of persecution or risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in relation to the United States of America in the BOCs. When asked at the hearing what the principal claimant feared for his son in the United States of America, the principal claimant responded that when they lived there, two Muslim girls and a young man were murdered close to where they were living in North Carolina. The principal claimant alleged that it was a racist crime. Without any other evidence, the panel does not find that there is sufficient credible or trustworthy evidence to establish that the oldest minor claimant would face a serious possibility of persecution, nor on a balance of probabilities would he face a risk to life or qa risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or a danger of torture, if he returned to the United States of America.

[35] The panel finds that the oldest minor claimant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection from the United States of America and therefore his claim is denied.

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

^[2] Exhibit 2: Basis of Claim Form (BOC) TB9-13034 and Exhibit 11: Amended Basis of Claim Form (BOC) TB9-13034 dated January 10, 2020.

^[3] Ibid.

^[4] Exhibit 1: Package of information from the referring CBSA/CIC.

^[5] Exhibit 9: Claimant’s personal documents received January 5, 2020.

^[6] Exhibit 8: Claimants’ disclosure package received January 3, 2020 (personal documents X2 and country conditions X1).

^[7] Exhibit 12: Claimants’ late disclosure (personal document).

^[8] Exhibit 8: Claimants’ disclosure package received January 3, 2020 (personal documents X2 and country conditions X1).

^[9] Ibid.

^[10] Ibid.

^[11] Ibid.

^[12] Exhibit 6: National Documentation Package for Jordan version August 2019, Item 9.1.

^[13] Exhibit 10: Claimants’ disclosure package received January 10, 2020 (personal documents X1 and country conditions X1).

^[14] Exhibit 8: Claimants’ disclosure package received January 3, 2020 (personal documents X2 and country conditions X1).

^[15] Exhibit 10: Claimants’ disclosure package received January 10, 2020 (personal documents X1 and country conditions X1).

^[16] Exhibit 6: National Documentation Package for Jordan version August 2019, Item 9.1.

^[17] Ibid, Item 5.10.

All Countries China

2020 RLLR 134

Citation: 2020 RLLR 134
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: October 29, 2020
Panel: Avril Cardoso
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Nkunda I. Kabateraine
Country: China
RPD Number: TB9-12791
Associated RPD Number(s):
ATIP Number: A-2021-01106
ATIP Pages: 000110-000117

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] [XXX] (the claimant) claims to be a citizen of China and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“the Act”)^[1].

ALLEGATIONS

[2] The claimant’s allegations are fully set out in the Basis of Claim form (BOC). In summary, the claimant alleges a fear of persecution in China at the hands of the government due to his membership in the particular social group of Falun Gong practitioners.

DETERMINATION

[3] I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the Act.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[4] The claimant’s personal and national identity as a citizen of China has been established on a balance of probabilities by his resident identity card^[2], hukou and oral testimony^[3].

Credibility

[5] When a claimant swears that certain facts are true, this creates a presumption of truth unless there is valid reason to doubt their veracity.

The claimant practiced Falun Gong in China

[6] I find that the claimant was introduced to Falun Gong in [XXX] 2018. He testified that he went to a park near his family home on weekends when he visited and observed people doing exercises. He testified that after speaking with one of the practitioners he confided in him that he was diagnosed with Hepatitis B which was not responding well to treatment. During his testimony, the claimant testified that he spoke with the group leader in [XXX] 2018. When confronted with the discrepancy between his narrative where he states he was introduced to the group leader on [XXX] 2018 and not [XXX] 2018, the claimant said that he was not formally introduced in [XXX] but merely chatted informally with the group leader. I reject the claimant’s explanation. The claimant is well educated. He has a [XXX] in [XXX] and worked as an [XXX] and [XXX] in China. He is [XXX] years old. His narrative specifically states that he was approached by the leader on or about [XXX] 2018. There is no mention about any prior communication only that the claimant was watching people doing exercises. Taking into account, the claimant’s education and work history, his explanation for an omission about a central event in his claim is not credible. I draw a negative inference.

[7] The claimant testified that he joined the group practice in a corner of a park in his neighbourhood. When asked if he had any concerns about practicing in a public space considering that Falun Gong was banned in China, he testified that the group was surrounded by trees and it would be difficult to see what the group was doing and the group kept the size to six people. The claimant said he practiced with the group for about a month on Saturdays.

[8] I find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant was introduced to Falun Gong in China and joined the group practice. Although there are a couple of credibility concerns, the claimant described how he was taught exercise one in a very detailed and spontaneous manner which is consistent with the Falun Gong text^[4] and his testimony was generally consistent with his narrative. He submitted a medical record which indicates his diagnosis date and repeated treatments for persistent Hepatitis B which are consistent with his narrative^[5]. Therefore, the credibility concerns are insufficient to undermine his overall testimony about his introduction to and practice of Falun Gong in China.

The claimant feared arrest by the PSB in China

[9] The claimant testified that there was an incident on [XXX] 2018 which caused him to stop group practice. He testified that he was at a convenience store near the park where he practiced and saw PSB officers and vehicles outside. He said the store staff told him that some people involved in an evil cult were arrested at the park plaza and some escaped but the PSB said they would be caught and arrested. The claimant testified that he had no way to contact the group leader and since he had provided the leader with his name and address, he decided to stop group practice and instead practiced alone at home.

The claimant omitted his resignation from his job after [XXX] 2018

[10] The claimant testified that he resigned from his job but continued to live at his rented apartment which was close to his place of work. The claimant did not mention that he stopped working in his narrative. When confronted with this omission, he testified that he did not think this was an important detail. The claimant also failed to indicate that he stopped working in [XXX] 2018 in his immigration forms but instead indicated that he continued to work until [XXX] 2018 at which time he left China. When confronted with this discrepancy, the claimant testified that he made a mistake. I reject the claimant’s explanation. Deciding to resign from one’s workplace because of fear is a detail which is directly connected to the core of this claim. The claimant was very precise in completion of his immigration forms and he is well educated and worked as an accountant, a profession that is focused on details. I draw a negative inference from this omission and discrepancy.

The claimant travelled circuitously on route to Canada

[11] The claimant testified that an agent arranged for his departure from China. He said he left China on [XXX] 2018 and travelled through a number of Caribbean countries staying from a month to several months in each country before arriving in Canada on [XXX] 2019. When asked about this lengthy and circuitous journey, the claimant testified that he did not know the reason but was following the directions of the agent. The claimant was asked if he questioned the agent about this lengthy route and he said he did and was told not to ask too many questions.

[12] Since the claimant was reliant on the agent to secure his arrival in Canada, the nine-month delay is reasonable under these circumstances.

The claimant is also a genuine Falun Gong practitioner in Canada

[13] I find that the claimant continues his Falun Gong practice in Canada. He testified that he continued to practice Falun Gong in Canada. He said he attends group practice at Milliken Park, distributes pamphlets and attends group study. The claimant provided detailed testimony about his first practice at Milliken Park and described taking the bus there and hearing the Falun Gong music as he walked through the park. He said he purchased Zhuan Falun and the Great Consummation Way of Falun Dafa at Pacific Mall. The claimant testified that he attends group practice weekly except on rainy days and he said he stopped attending once the COVID-19 lockdowns occurred. Overall his testimony was spontaneous, detailed and he elaborated with additional details when they were requested. He also submitted photos and a letter from a fellow practitioner to support his testimony^[6].

Claimant demonstrated knowledge of Falun Gong consistent with his profile

[14] I find that the claimant demonstrated Falun Gong knowledge commensurate with his profile. The claimant testified about jealousy being the most harmful attachment and explained in great detail how this attachment impedes cultivation and why it is prevalent in Chinese culture. He described the three principles and how they affect mind nature, explained the origins of karma and the purpose of the exercises. He provided an example of how he incorporates the principle of truth in his life and correctly explained that the exercises are not for the purpose of healing rather to purify the body. The claimant also explained the purpose of sending righteous thoughts and described activities such as attendance at a rally on World Falun Dafa Day and distribution of pamphlets to clarify the truth. The claimant’s testimony was very detailed, spontaneous and demonstrated in-depth knowledge about Falun Dafa.

[15] When asked if he would continue to practice Falun Gong if he returned to China, the claimant responded in the affirmative and explained that his energy level is low and must be increased and also if he stopped practice, his karma would return and create adverse affects on his health.

Objective Basis

[16] The objective evidence is consistent with the claimant’s account of fearing persecution as a Falun Gong practitioner in China^[7].

[17] At item 2.1 of the NDP, the US Department of State confirms that the People’s Republic of China, is an authoritarian state in which the Chinese Communist Party, the CCP, is the paramount authority. Repression and coercion persist, including against members of banned religions and/or spiritual practices such as Falun Gong.

[18] An IRB Response to Information Request or RIR^[8] on the treatment of Falun Gong practitioners contains information that further confirms there is a serious possibility that the practice of Falun Gong will be met with persecution.

[19] Chinese authorities continue to label Falun Gong an ‘evil cult’ in China. In particular, items 2.1 and 12.23 of the NDP reference the State’s use of harassment, intimidation, imprisonment and torture against Falun Gong practitioners. The 2019 Commission on International Religious Freedom, item 12.2, indicates that as of February 1, 2018 new regulations on religious affairs came into effect detailing strict registration criteria for religious organizations. The regulations ban unauthorized religious teaching and expands the role of local authorities in controlling religious activities. Further as of March 2018, jurisdiction over religious affairs was transferred from the State Administration of Religious Affairs (SARA) to the United Front Work Department (UFWD), an organ of the CCP. International criticism of China increased during the latter half of 2018 as the scale of government crackdown on religious freedom became widely publicized.

[20] I find that the claimant’s fear of persecution because of his Falun Gong practice has an objective basis and is well-founded, especially since he has credibly established that he was a Falun Gong practitioner in China and continues to practice in Canada.

State Protection

[21] A state, unless in a condition of complete breakdown, is presumed to be capable of protecting its citizens. To rebut the presumption of state protection, a claimant must provide clear and convincing confirmation of the state’s inability to protect its citizens.

[22] Given that the state is the agent of persecution, I find that it would be objectively unreasonable for the claimant to seek the protection of the state in his circumstances, and that adequate state protection would not be reasonably forthcoming.

Internal Flight Alternative (IFA)

[23] Given that the state is the agent of persecution with control over the entire country, I find that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout China and therefore a viable IFA does not exist.

CONCLUSION

[24] Having considered all of the evidence, I find that there is a serious possibility that the claimant would face persecution in China. I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee and I accept his claim.

^[1] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, sections 96 and 97(1)

^[2] Exhibit 1

^[3] Exhibit 4

^[4] Exhibit 3, Item 12.7

^[5] Exhibit 4

^[6] Exhibit 4

^[7] Exhibit 3

^[8] Exhibit 3, Item 12.9

All Countries China

2020 RLLR 133

Citation: 2020 RLLR 133
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 10, 2020
Panel: Dawn Kershaw
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Deryck Ramcharitar
Country: China
RPD Number: TB9-11038
Associated RPD Number(s):
ATIP Number: A-2021-01106
ATIP Pages: 000107-000109

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: So, this is a decision for [XXX] in file number TB9-11038. I have considered your testimony and the other evidence and will render my decision now orally. I find that you are a Convention refugee as you have established a serious possibility of persecution in China based on your religion. Namely, being a member of the Church of Almighty God.

[2] Your allegations were documented in the Basis of Claim form. In summary, you are a citizen of China who fears persecution in China because you practice your religion as a member of the Church of Almighty God. You alleged that if you return to China, you will be targeted by the Chinese government for your involvement in the Church of Almighty God and will be arrested. You alleged that there is no state protection or an internal flight alternative for you.

[3] Your personal identity has been established by your testimony and supporting documents filed in the exhibits. Specifically, a certified copy of your passport at Exhibit 1 in addition to your original resident identification card, a copy of which is at Exhibit 5. I find that on a balance of probabilities your identity and country of reference have been established. I find that there is a link between what you fear and one of the five Convention grounds, namely religion by virtue of the fact that you are a practicing Christian who practices in the Church of Almighty God. As such, I have assessed your claim under Section 96.

[4] I have found you to be a credible witness and I therefore believe what you alleged in your oral testimony and in the Basis of Claim form. Your claim is supported by documents including a letter from the church leader of your current church in Toronto. As well as a letter of support from four fellow church members. You also provided photos of you with your fellow church members and participation in a human rights demonstration at Old City Hall at which you were demonstrating for China to return freedom of speech and religion to the Chinese people.

[5] Your claim was also well supported by your knowledge of the tenets of the Church of Almighty God. You were able to speak knowledgeably and spontaneously about the faith. Including about the several different books of faith you read, the preaching you do in public by talking to others about God’s word. As well as where and how often you meet to discuss your faith and share your experiences.

[6] In addition, you spoke about accessing the Church’s websites and YouTube to watch different types of singing and skits about the Church of Almighty God which you would not be able to do in China. You also had a support witness, [XXX] (ph) who said she met you when you first came to Canada. She came to Canada in 2016 and has been a member of the Church of Almighty God in Canada since that time. She was granted refugee status in Canada having also claimed on the basis of her religion. She meets together with you and others twice a week to discuss the faith and share your experiences. You also preach in public together by getting friendly with people who will talk to you and then broaching the subject of God.

[7] The Panel finds on a balance of probabilities that you were and are a practicing Christian. Practicing in the Church of Almighty God who holds views that have been outlawed in China.

[8] On an objective basis, it is known from page 5 of Section 12.1 of the National Documentation Package for China, the NDP. Namely, the 2018 U.S. State Department report that the Chinese government considers the Church of Almighty God to be an evil cult. In addition, counsel filed additional country documentation. Namely an excerpt from Bitter Winter. It states that in October 2018, in Anhui province where the claimant lived, the provincial authorities launched an arrest operation of believers that belonged to the Church of Almighty God in multiple cities. Calculations put the number of members arrested in a two-week span at more than 100. And more than 500 left their homes and went into hiding.

[9] Finally, in Section 12.3 of the NDP it was reported at page 24 of the 2018 Annual Report on Chinese Government Persecution of Churches and Christians in Mainland China that a meeting was held in Jiangsu province to promote the sinicization of Christianity. Making it clear that that means changing Christianity in China to Chinese Christianity. Amnesty International also reported at Section 2.2, page 4 of the NDP that in June, the State Council passed the revised regulations on religious affairs to come into effect on the 1st of February 2018. It codified far-reaching State control over every aspect of religious practice. And extended power to authorities at all levels of the government to monitor, control and potentially punish religious practice.

[10] I find that you would not be able to practice Christianity in the Church of Almighty God freely in China without fear of repercussions. As such, I find that you have established an objective basis for your fear of persecution on a balance of probabilities.

[11] In summary, I find that you have a well-founded fear of persecution. I find that China is enforcing the law against unauthorized religious practice. And does not sanction churches that are not registered which includes the Church of Almighty God.

[12] As such, I find that there is no state protection available to you. I have also considered if there’s an internal flight alternative for you. I find that there is no internal flight alternative. Again, because the Chinese government is the agent of persecution and exists in all parts of the country. Therefore, it is not safe anywhere for you.

[13] Based on the totality of the evidence, I find that you are a Convention refugee because of a serious possibility of persecution. And I accept your claim.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

All Countries China

2020 RLLR 132

Citation: 2020 RLLR 132
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: October 28, 2020
Panel: Suraj Balakrishnan
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Carla Sturdy
Country: China
RPD Number: TB9-09017
Associated RPD Number(s):
ATIP Number: A-2021-01106
ATIP Pages: 000103-000106

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: This is a decision for [XXX] claim for refugee protection.

[2] You are claiming to be a citizen of China and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[3] I have considered all of the evidence including your testimony and the other evidence in the case and I am ready to render my decision orally.

[4] I find that you are a Convention refugee on the grounds of being a Falun Gong practitioner for the following reasons.

[5] The specifics of your claim are set out in the narrative of your Basis of Claim form as amended.

[6] You allege the following:

[7] You are a citizen of China and you fear persecution from Chinese authorities because you are a Falun Gong practitioner.

[8] You allege that if you return the Chinese authorities will persecute you.

[9] You allege that there is no state protection for you or an internal flight alternative.

[10] Your personal identity as a citizen of China has been established by your testimony and the supporting documents file in the exhibits including a certified true copy of your Chinese passport.

[11] I find that on a balance of probabilities that identity and country of reference have been established.

[12] I find that there is a link between the harms that you fear and the Convention ground of particular social group.

[13] This claim will therefore be assessed under Section 96.

[14] The test under Section 96 is whether there is a serious possibility of persecution should you return to China and I have found that you have met that test.

[15] When a claimant affirms to tell the truth, this creates a presumption of truthfulness unless there is evidence to the contrary.

[16] You have been entirely consistent and credible in your evidence.

[17] The claimant demonstrated a solid understanding of, and commitment to, Falun Gong practice and philosophy.

[18] There have been no relevant contradictions or omissions that would go to the core of your claim.

[19] In terms of your general credibility, I have found you to be a credible witness and I therefore believe what you have alleged in your oral testimony and your Basis of Claim form as amended.

[20] These claims were corroborated through a support letter from a fellow practitioner as well as photos of the claimant participating in Falun Gong practice and a rally in support of Falun Gong practitioners.

[21] There’s no reason for me to cast any doubt on the veracity of these documents and as such I place good weight on them to support your allegations and claim.

[22] Specifically, you established on a balance of probabilities that you are a Falun Gong practitioner and that Chinese authorities warned you against being a Falun Gong practitioner.

[23] I therefore find that your subjective fear is established by your credible testimony and I believe what you have alleged on a balance of probabilities.

[24] The documentary evidence confirms that Chinese authorities have pursued nationwide sanctions against Falun Gong practitioners since 1999.

[25] Amnesty International describes the state’s actions as a long-term campaign with intimidation and persecution.

[26] The documentary evidence states that the Chinese government has carried out an unprecedented campaign against practitioners including detaining a large number of believers and abusing them in detention.

[27] The documentary evidence states that Falun Gong adherents in China face harassment, imprisonment, and torture.

[28] The campaign against Falun Gong has been characterized as brutal and systemic persecution; the systemic process of imprisonment without trial, escalating torture, and the murder of thousands of innocent people.

[29] The Chinese government views Falun Gong as being an enemy of mankind and confirms the existence of re-education facilities in order to rid people who practise Falun Gong – of the obsession with what they allege to be a cult.

[30] Based on the credible evidence provided by you with respect to your Falun Gong activities both in China and in Canada as well as the country documentation on file, I find that your fear of persecution in China at the hands of the Chinese government is objectively well-founded.

[31] It is state authorities who have outlawed the practice of Falun Gong whom you fear. I therefore find it objectively unreasonable for you to seek the protection of the state.

[32] I further find that the agent of persecution is the state and they are in control over the whole state.

[33] So, I find that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout the country and that there is no internal flight alternative for you.

[34] Based on the foregoing analysis, and considering the totality of the evidence before me, I conclude that you are Convention refugee because you face a serious possibility of persecution in China.

[35] I accept your claim.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

All Countries Mexico

2020 RLLR 131

Citation: 2020 RLLR 131
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: September 29, 2020
Panel: S. Seevaratnam
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Jared Will
Country: Mexico
RPD Number: TB9-08058
Associated RPD Number(s):
ATIP Number: A-2021-01106
ATIP Pages: 000093-000102

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] The claimant, [XXX], claims to be a citizen of Mexico and is claiming protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).^[1]

[2] The claimant alleges she fears returning to Mexico due to her imputed and real political opinion and her membership in a particular social group, a woman.

[3] The panel has also carefully considered the Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution, prior to assessing the merits of this claim.^[2]

ALLEGATIONS

[4] The details of the allegations are outlined in the claimant’s Basis of Claim (BOC) Form and the amended Narrative.^[3] A synopsis of the allegations are as follows.

[5] The claimant testified that she grew up in a family which supported the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), and she was introduced to the party by family friends around 2012.^[4] She officially joined the party in 2016.^[5] She further testified that the party was actively recruiting young people in order to expand its support base. They were expected to follow the political line of [XXX],^[6] the former Governor of Hidalgo from 2005 – 2011.^[7]

[6] Through her sister, [XXX], and brother-in-law, [XXX]^[8] she was introduced to high level politicians both at the Federal and State levels. She gradually became a trusted member of the PRI inner circle.

[7] The claimant was in a romantic relationship with [XXX], the brother of [XXX], from 2013 until 2016. The claimant testified that the [XXX] brothers were wealthy, influential, and powerful.

[8] The claimant explained that during and following their intimate relationship, she discovered “many unsavoury things about [XXX]. He is a very corrupt person and made his money largely by diverting public fonds he owns and controls a number of newspapers but hides his interest in the papers, as he does in other businesses that he controls. He uses other peoples’ identities and operates shell businesses that he controls.”^[9] The claimant detailed numerous other instances of corruption and extravagant spending diverting federal public fonds.

[9] From [XXX] to [XXX] 2016, the claimant worked on the social media team for [XXX] the PRI candidate in Hidalgo.^[10] The claimant explained that she knew [XXX] socially through events at her sister’s home. She further explained that [XXX] was a close friend of her brother-in-law and he played a significant role at their wedding. Thus, when [XXX] was elected the [XXX] of Hidalgo in [XXX] 2016, she was disappointed that she was not rewarded with a job in the state government. She was instructed to pursue employment opportunities with his private secretary, [XXX]. He pressured the claimant to engage in an intimate relationship which she refused.^[11] The claimant knew as a member of the inner trusted circle within the PRI that [XXX] and [XXX] had been lovers.^[12] She explained that this was not common public knowledge and his sexual orientation (bisexual) could ruin his political career.

[10] In 2017, the claimant became a victim of sexual harassment, theft, and stalking. She retained a lawyer and lodged a complaint with the office of the Attorney General, City of Hidalgo. After about a year, she was advised by her lawyer to drop the charges since she was being pursued by state and federal government officials. She suspected [XXX] or [XXX] as the perpetrators. Fearing for her life, the claimant fled to Canada and initiated a refugee claim.

DETERMINATION

[11] The panel finds the claimant to be a Convention refugee. The panel’s reasons are as follows.

IDENTITY

[12] In Exhibit 1, the claimant has submitted a copy of her passport issued by the United Mexican States, which was certified as a true copy by an immigration officer on [XXX] 2019.^[13]

[13] In Exhibit 7, the claimant has submitted a copy of her birth certificate,^[14] her membership card with the PRI,^[15] and her record of employment with the government of Mexico.^[16]

[14] The panel finds the claimant to be a national of Mexico. The panel further finds that the claimant was an active member of PRI and was employed with the government of Mexico.

CREDIBILITY

[15] The panel is cognizant of the leading jurisprudence on the issue of credibility. Maldonado^[17] stands for the principle that when a claimant swears to the truth of certain allegations, this creates a presumption that those allegations are true unless there is reason to doubt their truthfulness.

[16] The claimant provided clear and detailed testimony regarding her experiences in Mexico and her involvement with the PRI and its inner circle. Her testimony was consistent with her Basis of Claim (BOC) Form,^[18] her amended BOC narrative,^[19] her personal documents,^[20] as well as country condition documents provided by counsel,^[21] and the National Documentation Package (NDP).^[22]

[17] Having considered the totality of the evidence, the panel finds the claimant to be a credible and trustworthy witness. Accordingly, the claimant has established her subjective fear.

WELL-FOUNDED FEAR OF PERSECUTION

[18] Commencing in early [XXX] 2017, the claimant became a victim of an attempted armed robbery; her cell phone was stolen, and she became the subject of a scandal on Facebook where altered nude photos were posted.^[23]

[19] The claimant reached out to her mother for assistance who contacted a lawyer, [XXX]. He made arrangement for the claimant to make a report on [XXX] 2017 with the Attorney General’s Office (PGR, Procuraduria General de la Republica), State of Hidalgo.^[24]

[20] Subsequent to filing the report, the claimant received harassing telephone texts from one of the police officers who was present at the PGR when she initiated her complaint.^[25] She stated that she also received “many obscene messages on my cell phone as well as on social media.”^[26]

[21] The claimant feared for her safety and asked [XXX] if he could provide a bodyguard to protect her but he said it was unnecessary.^[27]

[22] In [XXX] 2018, the claimant was followed by a black SUV. The claimant accelerated her vehicle and entered her gated neighbourhood where she resided. She promptly contacted her lawyer, [XXX], to report the incident and obtain an update on the PGR investigation.^[28]

[23] Her lawyer asked the claimant to attend at his office and informed her that senior government officials at both the federal and state levels were instrumental in harassing, defaming, and threatening her. He advised the claimant not to pursue her complaint with the PGR any further.^[29] Her lawyer reimbursed all legal fees she had paid to his law firm.^[30]

[24] The claimant suspects that the assailants are retained and their actions are orchestrated by either by [XXX] or [XXX] who are attempting to muzzle her from revealing information she is privy to such as the embezzlement of public federal funds by [XXX] for personal gain and advancement, the sexual orientation of [XXX] (bisexual), his drug use, and his relentless sexual advances towards the claimant, and his belief in “santeria”(witchcraft). The claimant believes that both men are capable of violence and will be vindictive towards her if they suspect the claimant of divulging incriminating information. She explained that they want to maintain their political career and public image since they are both very ambitious and continue to maintain their reign within the PRI apparatus and advance further within the government of Mexico.

[25] A media report indicates that [XXX] is one of the candidates for mayor of Pachuca in the 2020 elections. The article states that he is the brother of [XXX], the [XXX] of the [XXX] and [XXX].^[31]

[26] The media report dated [XXX] 2019 indicates that [XXX] the right hand man to the [XXX] of Hidalgo, [XXX], is “situated as the likely successor of the [XXX] for the state office”^[32] since he has “marketed himself throughout the entire state.”^[33] He is poised to run for [XXX] in 2022.^[34]

[27] The panel has carefully reviewed objective, reliable, and current documentary evidence to assess the objective basis for this claim. Both counsel’s country conditions package on Mexico^[35] as well as the NDP indicates that the Mexican political arena is seeped in corruption, impunity, and sexism.

[28] The US Department of State (DOS) Mexico Country Report on Human Rights 2019 states as follows:

There were several reports government entities or their agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings, often with impunity. Organized criminal groups were implicated in numerous killings, acting with impunity and at times in league with corrupt federal, state, local, and security officials.^[36]

[29] An article titled, “Mexican women in politics: no glittering careers and no power”, states as follows:

Mexican women are also barred from politics through pressure that can include political violence (causing damage to their public image), double workloads that prevent them from achieving a work-life balance and even sexual harassment.^[37]

[30] An article dated September 2019, indicates that “rampant impunity continues to plague Mexico according to a study that shows there has been negligible improvements in prosecution rates over the past year.”^[38]

[31] International Human Rights Program and Pen Canada for freedom of expression has authored an article titled, “Corruption, Impunity, Silence: The War on Mexico’s Journalists.”^[39] The article attributes impunity to the failure by the Mexican authorities to “successfully prosecute over 90 percent of the cases brought before them.”^[40]

[32] An article titled, “Unprecedented wave of political violence rocks Mexico”,^[41] indicates the following:

In less than 24 hours this month, three women running for office in Mexico were murdered bringing the total number of female candidates assassinated to 17.”^[42]

According to Senator Martha Tagle, “these facts revel a serious situation that women in politics are experiencing, and that it is political violence based on gender.”^[43]

[33] The above article sheds light on the role gender violence plays in elections and the specific ways in which women are silenced.^[44]

[34] The panel finds the claimant has established a serious risk of persecution based on her imputed and real political opinion, and her membership in a particular social group, a woman.

STATE PROTECTION

[35] There is a presumption that except in situations where the state is in complete breakdown, the state is capable of protecting its citizens.^[45]To rebut the presumption of state protection, a claimant must provide clear and convincing evidence of the state’s inability to protect its citizens.^[46]

[36] The claimant testified that she was defamed,^[47] but the police failed to investigate and prosecute the matter since they are in collusion with politicians. She stated that both entities are corrupt.

[37] The US Department of State (DOS) Mexico Country Report on Human Rights 2019 states as follows:

Significant human rights issues included reports of the involvement by police, military, and other government officials and illegal armed groups in unlawful or arbitrary killings, forced disappearance, and torture; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions in some prisons; impunity for violence against human rights defenders and journalists; violence targeting persons with disabilities and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex persons.

Impunity for human rights abuses remained a problem, with extremely low rates of prosecution for all crimes. The government’s federal statistics agency (INEGI) estimated 94 percent of crimes were either unreported or not investigated.^[48]

[38] An Article titled, “Corruption at a Level of Audacity Never Seen in Mexico”^[49] details a scenario similar that of the claimant. It states as follows:

Empowered citizens, transparency laws and a freer media are now exposing the schemes that governors have used to siphon public fonds for their private use. But though the scrutiny has produced mounting evidence of misdeeds, the governors have rarely faced justice.

Governors who like Presidents serve one six-year term, control state legislatures, state auditors and state prosecutors – a dominance that gives them the poser of a modern potentate.

That leaves it to federal prosecutors to pursue wrong-doing but the response has been tepid.

During the more than 70 years that the party (PRI) governed Mexico without interruption, it became synonymous with corruption.

[39] The panel finds that the claimant fears persecution or serious harm at the hands of the state and federal high ranking and influential politicians; therefore, based on objective and current documentary evidence,^[50] and her sworn viva voce evidence, she cannot avail herself of the protection of the authorities. The security forces have failed to protect the claimant.

INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE (IFA)

[40] The Federal Court of Appeal established a two-part test for assessing an IFA in

Rasaratnam and Thirunavukkarasu:

(1) As per Rasaratnam, “the Board must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that there is no serious possibility of the claimant being persecuted in the part of the country to which it finds an IFA exists”^[51]and/or the claimant would not be personally subject to a risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of torture in the IFA.

(2) Moreover, the conditions in the part of the country considered to be an IFA must be such that it would not be unreasonable in all the circumstances including those particular to the claim, for him to seek refuge there.^[52]

[41] The claimant bears the burden of proof to demonstrate that she would be persecuted on a Convention ground, or subject personally, on a balance of probabilities, to a risk to life, or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in all of Mexico.

[42] The panel identified the Yucatan region as a potential place for internal relocation because the Mexico Peace Index 2019 identified this region as being the least impacted by crime.^[53]

[43] The claimant testified that the [XXX] brothers own property in the Yucatan region and their influence and power reaches throughout Mexico.

[44] The panel finds that an IFA is not reasonable given the particular profile of the claimant who is a young single woman being pursued by high level state and federal PRI politicians specifically [XXX] and [XXX] who yield enormous power and influence nationally. Since the claimant fears persecution or serious harm at the hands of individuals who are synonymous with corruption and the state, she will not be able to internally relocate to escape that risk.

CONCLUSION

[45] For the above mentioned reasons, the panel finds [XXX] to be a Convention refugee. The claimant has established that there is a reasonable chance of persecution, if she were to return to her country of nationality, Mexico, today.

^[1] The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), S.C. 2001, c.27, as amended, sections 96 and 97(1).

^[2] Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution: Update, Guideline Issued by the Chairperson Pursuant to section 65(3) of the Immigration Act, IRB, Ottawa, November 25, 1996, as continued in effect by the Chairperson on June 28, 2002, under the authority found in section 159(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

^[3] Exhibit 2, Basis of Claim (BOC) Form, Narrative, received March 27, 2019; Exhibit 5, BOC Narrative Amendments, received February 4, 2020.

^[4] Exhibit 5, BOC Narrative Amendments, received February 4, 2020, lines 16 – 17.

^[5] Exhibit 7, Personal Documents, received March 13, 2020, item 2, at pp. 3 – 4.

^[6] Exhibit 5, BOC Narrative Amendments, received February 4, 2020, lines 22 – 25.

^[7] Ibid., lines 41 – 44.

^[8] Exhibit 7, Personal Documents, received March 13, 2020, item 3, at pp. 5 – 7.

^[9] Exhibit 5, BOC Narrative Amendments, received February 4, 2020, lines 57 – 61.

^[10] Ibid., lines 33 – 35.

^[11] Ibid., lines 96 – 102.

^[12] Ibid., at pp. 114 – 116.

^[13] Exhibit 1, Package of information from the referring CBSA/CIC.

^[14] Exhibit 7, Personal Documents, received March 13, 2020, item 1, at pp.1 – 2.

^[15] Ibid., at pp. 3 – 4.

^[16] Ibid., items, 4 – 11, at pp. 8 – 47.

^[17] Maldonado, Pedro Enrique Juarez v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-450-79), Heald, Ryan, MacKay, November 19, 1979. Reported: Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1980] 2 F.C. 302 (C.A.); 31 N.R. 34 (F.C.A.).

^[18] Exhibit 2, BOC Form, Narrative, received March 27, 2019.

^[19] Exhibit 5, BOC Narrative Amendments, received February 4, 2020.

^[20] Exhibit 7, Personal Documents, received March 13, 2020, 45 items, 230 pages.

^[21] Exhibit 6, Mexico Country Condition, received March 13, 2020, 27 items, 88 pages.

^[22] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Mexico (March 31, 2020).

^[23] Exhibit 7, Personal Documents, received March 13, 2020, item 30, at p. 176.

^[24] Ibid., items 12 – 14, at pp. 48 – 64.

^[25] Exhibit 5, BOC Narrative Amendments, received February 4, 2020, lines 205 – 209.

^[26] Ibid., lines 210 – 211.

^[27] Ibid., lines 214 – 216.

^[28] Ibid., lines 234 – 237.

^[29] Ibid., lines 245 – 250.

^[30] Exhibit 7, Personal Documents, received March 13, 2020, items 19 – 20, at pp. 106 – 117.

^[31] Ibid., item 39, at p. 202; item 41, at p. 208; item 42, at p. 215.

^[32] Ibid., item 29, at p. 172.

^[33] Ibid., item 42, at p. 213.

^[34] Ibid., item 45, at p. 230.

^[35] Exhibit 6, Mexico Country Condition, received March 13, 2020, 27 items, 88 pages.

^[36] Ibid., item 2.1. s. Executive Summary.

^[37] Exhibit 6, Mexico Country Condition, received March 13, 2020, 27 item 12, at pp. 40 – 41.

^[38] Ibid., item 22, at p. 72.

^[39] Ibid., item 8, at p. 28.

^[40] Ibid., at p. 31.

^[41] Ibid., item 27, at p. 87.

^[42] Ibid.

^[43] Ibid.

^[44] Ibid.

^[45] Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, 103 D.L.R. (4th) 1, 20 Imm. L.R. (2d) 85.

^[46] Flores Carrillo, Maria Del Rosario v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-225-07), Letourneau, Nadon, Sharlow, March 12, 2008, 2008 FCA 94. Reported: Flores Carillo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2008] 4 F.C.R. 636 (F.C.A.), at para 38.

^[47] Exhibit 7, Personal Documents, received March 13, 2020, item 30, at pp. 173 – 177.

^[48] Exhibit 3, NDP for Mexico (March 31, 2020), item 2.1., s. Executive Summary.

^[49] Exhibit 6, Mexico Country Condition, received March 13, 2020, item 26, at p. 83.

^[50] Exhibit 3, NDP for Mexico (March 31, 2020); Exhibit 6, Mexico Country Condition, received March 13, 2020.

^[51] Rasaratnam, Sivaganthan v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-232-91), Mahoney, Stone, Linden, December 5, 1991. Reported: Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (C.A.), at para 9.

^[52] Thirunavukkarasu, Sathiyanathan v. M.E.I (F.C.A., no. A-81-92), Heald, Linden, Holland, November 10, 1993. Reported: Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (C.A.); (1993), 22 Imm. L.R. (2d) 241 (F.C.A.).

^[53] Exhibit 3, NDP for Mexico (March 31, 2020), item 1.5, at pp. 9 – 11.

Albania All Countries

2020 RLLR 130

Citation: 2020 RLLR 130
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 5 2020
Panel: N. Stocks
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Jeffrey L. Goldman
Country: Albania
RPD Number: TB9-05661
Associated RPD Number(s):
ATIP Number: A-2021-01106
ATIP Pages: 000088-000092

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] [XXX] (claimant) is a citizen of Albania. He claims refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).

ALLEGATIONS

[2] The particulars of his claim are detailed in his Basis of Claim Form (BOC)^[1] and were explained further in his oral testimony. In summary, the claimant alleged he is a bisexual male. He had a boyfriend in his hometown. The relationship became known after the sister of his boyfriend, [XXX] found text messages on his phone. The claimant was assaulted with a bat by [XXX] uncles. The claimant was taken to the hospital where he was treated by hospital staff. When they discovered why he was attacked, the doctor and nurse stated this is what happens when people try to pervert/corrupt men. The hospital staff refused to treat him.

[3] The claimant also alleged that after his father died, his uncle took care of the family. His uncle, [XXX] is a policeman. When he learned that the claimant was in a same sex relationship, he was outraged. He blamed the claimant’s mother for giving him “the gay disease”. [XXX] beat the claimant’s mother and brother. Later, [XXX] with other police officers found the claimant who had been in hiding; he was beaten by [XXX] and the other officers.

[4] The claimant fears returning to Albania. He asserts that he cannot seek protection in Albania. The people of Albania are homophobia. The police will not protect him. His uncle is a member of the police and has influence. He cannot live safely anywhere in Albania.

[5] The panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee for the reasons that follow.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[6] The panel finds that the claimant has established his identity as a national of Albania, based on a certified copy of his Albanian passport on file.^[2]

Credibility

[7] When a claimant swears that certain facts are true, this creates a presumption that they are true unless there is valid reason to doubt their veracity. The determination as to whether a claimant’s evidence is credible is made on a balance of probabilities. Having considered the claimant’s testimony, the panel found the claimant testified in a spontaneous and forthright manner. There were no material inconsistencies or omissions.

[8] The claimant provided satisfactory evidence to establish on a balance of probabilities that he is at risk in Albania. This includes but is not limited to the profile of the claimant’s uncle who is a police officer. While same sex relationships are not illegal in Albania, there are strong homophobic sentiments. This in itself would be insufficient to grant protection; however, in the case of the claimant, taking into account his personal circumstances, the panel finds that there is more than a mere possibility of persecution owing to his sexual orientation.

[9] The Constitution of Albania provides protection from discrimination in general, but does not specifically refer to the grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity. Hate crimes and hate speech on the grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity are prohibited in the Penal Code; however, the legislation only created a contradictory situation in Albania, combining an outward appearance of legal protection with hostility and discrimination still present within key institutions.^[3]

[10] A state is presumed to be capable of protecting its citizens, except in cases where the state is in complete breakdown. Albania is a functioning democracy.^[4] The panel has assessed state protection in Albania in the claimant’s particular circumstances. As indicated in item 2.1 of the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Albania, “[p]olice did not always enforce the law equitably. Personal associations, political or criminal connections, poor infrastructure, lack of equipment, or inadequate supervision often influenced law enforcement. Poor leadership and a lack of diversity in the workforce contributed to continued corruption and unprofessional behavior. Authorities continued to make efforts to address these problems by renovating police facilities, upgrading vehicles, and publicly highlighting anticorruption measures.”^[5]

[11] As previously noted, the claimant’s uncle, a police officer and the head of the family is included as an agent of persecution. The panel notes that his uncle is well-connected amongst his peers. The panel finds that the claimant has rebutted presumption of state protection.

[12] The panel notes that the documentary evidence consistently indicates that police did not always enforce the laws equitably and that personal associations, political or criminal connections, poor infrastructure, lack of equipment or inadequate supervision often influenced law enforcement.^[6] [emphasis added]

[13] In light of the panel’s findings regarding state protection for the claimant in his particular circumstances, and the claimant’s testimony, the panel finds, in these particular circumstances, there is no viable internal flight alternative.

CONCLUSION

[14] The panel finds that the claimant has established a serious possibility of persecution owing to his sexual orientation.

[15] The panel accepts this claim.

^[1] Exhibit 2

^[2] Exhibit 1

^[3] Exhibit 3, NDP for Albania (30 September 2019), item 6.3.

^[4] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Albania — September 30, 2019 Version.

^[5] Exhibit 3, item 2.1.

^[6] National Documentation Package, Albania, 30 September 2019, tab 6.5: Country Policy and Information Note. Albania: Sexual orientation and gender identity. Version 5.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. April 2019.

All Countries Mexico

2020 RLLR 129

Citation: 2020 RLLR 129
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: October 30, 2020
Panel: Lesley Mason
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Pablo Andres Irribarra Valdes
Country: Mexico
RPD Number: TB9-04265
Associated RPD Number(s):
ATIP Number: A-2021-01106
ATIP Pages: 000084-000087

DECISION

On October 30, 2020 the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) heard the claim of [XXX] and [XXX], who claim refugee protection under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). On that same day, the panel rendered its oral positive decision and Reasons for decision. This is the written version of the oral decision and Reasons that have been edited for clarity, spelling, grammar and syntax with added references to the documentary evidence and relevant case law where appropriate.

[1] MEMBER: [XXX] and [XXX], I have considered your testimonies and the other evidence in your case, and I am ready to now give you my decision orally. You will receive a written copy of this decision, but it will be edited for any spelling, syntax and grammar before it is sent out to you.

[2] This is the decision of the claims of [XXX] and [XXX], who claim to be citizens of Mexico, and who seek refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.^[1]

[3] The allegations that you make are fully set out in each of your basis of claim forms and amendments.^[2] In summary, you each fear persecution in Mexico because you are gay men. You suffered physical, verbal, sexual abuse and discrimination. You allege that there is no location in Mexico where you could relocate and live safely.

[4] Your claims were joined as per Rule 55 of the Refugee Protection Division. Chairperson’s Guideline 9 was followed throughout this hearing.^[3]

[5] The issues in your hearing were credibility, delay in claim, and internal flight alternative.

[6] Regarding your identities, I find on a balance of probabilities that you are who you say you are, and that you are citizens of Mexico. I base this finding on the passports you provided Canadian authorities,^[4] and the voter identity cards you submitted as evidence.

[7] With regards to your credibility, your testimonies as to the circumstances of the problems you experienced in Mexico as a result of your sexual orientation were straightforward and spontaneous. Neither of you made any apparent attempts to embellish your claims.

[8] However, there were some obvious inconsistencies in the evidence provided by each of you between your narratives and your oral testimony this morning. I do have concerns about the omissions in your testimonies regarding dealings with the police and discrimination at work.

[9] Nevertheless, the information each of you provided in your testimonies is consistent with information you have given in your basis of claim forms. Some of these allegations are confirmed by the multitude of original documentation that you have provided to me.

[10] The personal documents include reference letters from friends and family, medical records, employment records, correspondence regarding human rights complaints in Mexico and in Canada, as well as photographs of various events that you have attended here in Toronto.

[11] Your personal documentary evidence is overwhelming, and I give it significant evidentiary weight.

[12] Regarding your delay in making claims for protection, you explained that it took a considerable time to gather useful information that finally led you to make claims for protection.

[13] I accept this explanation for the delay, and I make no adverse credibility findings against you.

[14] I therefore have considered the objective evidence in your case. Having considered the country condition documents, I find that the situation for you in Mexico is dangerous. Conservative attitudes prevail in Mexico. Public displays of affection are not considered socially acceptable.

[15] I rely specifically on three documents; 6.1, 6.2 and 6.4 in the national documentary package.^[5]I also will mention that the United States Department of State report for 2020 indicates, and I quote, “Discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity was prevalent, despite a gradual increase in public tolerance of LGBTI individuals.”

[16] In 2016, Letra S, L-E-T-R-A and then “S,” which is an LGBTQ non-governmental organization, published information according to which 1,310 cases of killings of LGBT persons motivated by homophobia were committed in Mexico between 1995 and 2016. Over the past 10 years, there have been 71 homicides a year on average.

[17] A report from the UN noted the alarming pattern of grotesque homicides of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals, and the broad impunity for these crimes, sometimes with the suspected complicity of investigative authorities.

[18] According to one report, trans women and homosexuals represent the group most affected by motivated physical assaults. There is considerable evidence about the number of people who belong to the LGBT community that have been killed over these last many years.

[19] Mexico City, where you’ve indicated that you lived for a short period of time, is regarded by some to be the safest place in Mexico to members of the LGBTQ community. The response to information request at 6.4 indicates that violence against LBGTQ (sic) persons in Mexico City is virtually unheard of. However, civil society groups claim that police routinely subjected LGBTI persons to mistreatment while in custody, and this information can also be found in the Department of State report.

[20] Your counsel has also provided considerable evidence with regards to the treatment of homosexuals in Mexico.

[21] I therefore find that there is a strong objective basis for the fear you have of being persecuted in Mexico. find that you have subjective fear of persecution, violence, and death in Mexico on the basis of your sexual orientation, and the objective evidence supports that subjective fear.

[22] I proposed Guadalajara as an internal flight alternative city in which you could potentially live openly as gay men. The response to information request I have mentioned earlier indicates that the members of the LGBT community in Guadalajara report feeling safe.

[23] However, you have made it clear that you do not feel safe anywhere in Mexico, and this is in part due to the discrimination against sexual minorities that is pervasive throughout the country.

[24] I note that the response to information request I’ve referred to provides information about the role of the Catholic church in exacerbating homophobia and transphobia in Mexico. It is the influence of the church that has stubbornly impeded the efforts of the government in Mexico to protect and guarantee equality and protection for the LGBTQ community. While the response lists Guadalajara from one source as being a safe place for sexual minorities, I find there is more overwhelming evidence that gay men are frequently targeted everywhere in Mexico by state and civilian actors alike.

[25] I also note that you testified that you would be discriminated against by the medical community when dealing with your HIV status, as you’ve experienced in the past.

[26] Relying on the documentary evidence I’ve referred to, I find that there is no viable internal flight alternative in Mexico that is both safe and reasonable for you in all circumstances. The serious possibility of persecution that you face is endemic throughout Mexico, and I therefore find that there is no place in the country that you could live openly as gay men and be safe.

[27] I have considered your testimonies, your documentary evidence, and the country conditions, and I find that there is a serious possibility of persecution on a convention ground, if you were to return to Mexico.

[28] I therefore find that you, [XXX] and you, [XXX], are convention refugees, and I accept your claims. I wish you well.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

^[1] The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), S.C. 2001, c.27, as amended, sections 96 and 97(1).

^[2] Exhibits 2.1, 2.1, and 13.

^[3] Chairperson’s Guideline 9: Proceedings Before the IRE Involving Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression, Guidelines issued by the Chairperson pursuant to paragraph 159(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, Effective date: May 1, 2017.

^[4] Exhibit 1, Package of information from the referring CBSA/IRCC.

^[5] Exhibit 3, National Document Package (NDP) for Mexico – September 30, 2020 Version.

All Countries China

2020 RLLR 128

Citation: 2020 RLLR 128
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 16, 2020
Panel: A. Casimiro
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Stacey Margaret Duong
Country: China
RPD Number: TB8-33095
Associated RPD Number(s):
ATIP Number: A-2021-01106
ATIP Pages: 000077-000083

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] [XXX] (“the Claimant’) makes a claim for refugee protection pursuant to s. 96 and s. 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“IRPA”).

ALLEGATIONS

[2] The Claimant’s allegations are fully set out in his Basis of Claim form^[1] and in his testimony. He alleges that he is a citizen of the People’s Republic of China and that he fears persecution by the Chinese government because he is a Falun Gong practitioner.

[3] One of the Claimant’s co-workers died as a result of a workplace accident. The Claimant became very sad and started to develop sleeping problems. He had nightmares and dreamed about his co-worker. As a result, the Claimant woke up feeling very exhausted and depressed. He was suffering from right arm pain and was diagnosed with a shoulder muscle spasm. A friend learned about his health situation and introduced him to Falun Gong.

[4] His friend told him that Falun Gong could help him. He explained to him the basic principles of Falun Gong, and he urged him to give it a try.

[5] His friend agreed to teach him privately and he began to learn from him on [XXX] 2017. He experienced improvements for his condition after about two months of practicing Falun Gong with his friend.

[6] The Claimant then decided to join the group practice with his friend on [XXX] 2017. He went to practice with the group once a week. However, the group experienced a problem on [XXX] 2018.

[7] They found out that two members from another group of practitioners in their town were arrested by the police (“PSB”). As a result, the group suspended their practice. All the members were advised to go into hiding.

[8] The Claimant went to hide at his wife’s cousin’s place. While in hiding, the Claimant discussed the situation with his family. The family decided that the Claimant should leave China for safety. The Claimant then used the services of a smuggler to help him get out of China.

[9] The smuggler flew with the Claimant from Beijing to Toronto on [XXX] 2018.

[10] After arriving in Canada, the Claimant hoped to return back to China, if the situation improved. However, he learned from his wife that the PSB came to his home to look for him. They asked his wife for his whereabouts.

[11] His wife also learned that the group’s leader was arrested. The PSB returned to their home and left a summons for the Claimant. The PSB also went to the homes of his close relatives to look for him.

[12] As a result, the Claimant made a claim for refugee protection. Since arriving in Canada, he also joined a Falun Gong group.

[13] The PSB continues to look for the Claimant in China. He fears arrest, detention and abuse if he is to return to China on account of his Falun Gong practice. The Claimant also wishes to continue practicing Falun Gong freely, which is something he could not do in China.

DETERMINATION

[14] The panel finds that the Claimant is a Convention refugee, as he has a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of his membership in a particular social group as a Falun Gong practitioner.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[15] The Claimant explained that the smuggler took his passport upon arriving in Canada as he still owed money at that time. The Claimant to this date, had failed to pay the remaining balance owing to the smuggler. He did attempt to recover his passport by trying to contact the smuggler through a relative, however they had lost contact with the smuggler. To date, he had not secured the return of his passport. However, based on his original Resident Identity card and Hukou, which were presented at the hearing and which are contained in Exhibit 6, the panel finds that the Claimant is a citizen of China and he is who he says he is on a balance of probabilities.

Credibility

[16] The Claimant’s testimony regarding his introduction to Falun Gong, his Falun Gong practice in China, as well as his Falun Gong practice in Canada were consistent with his other evidence.

[17] He testified that his initial hope was to return to China but after he found out from his wife that the PSB came to his home to look for him, he knew that he can no longer return to China. He testified that the PSB left a summons for him as per Exhibit 6. He also testified about the continued interest of the authorities in him back in China.

[18] The panel notes that the Claimant claims to be a Falun Gong practitioner since [XXX] 2017. The Claimant testified that Falun Gong is a dual cultivation system. He testified about how Karma in our body creates illness and how Falun Gong could help transform Karma into Virtue (black substance transformed into white substance).

[19] He testified about the concept of attachments and getting rid of personal attachments. He described how his friend showed him the Falun Gong exercises. He testified about some of the challenges he faced when learning the exercises. He testified that there is a total of five exercises. In the course of his testimony, he identified the first and second exercises.

[20] He elaborated on how Karma is accumulated and how to get rid of its effects. He testified about the principles of Truthfulness, Compassion and Forbearance and how he applies these to his daily life. He talked about increasing one’s mind/nature.

[21] He talked about Master Li Hongzhi and the Zhuan Falun. He testified about how his group in China had no access to the Zhuan Falun but instead utilized photocopies as part of their study. He also identified other books that are important to Falun Gong practitioners.

[22] The Claimant also testified about his Falun Gong practice here in Canada. He testified about how he was introduced to a group of practitioners in Canada. The Claimant continues to practice the exercises at the park, he also attends a group to study the Zhuan Falun and he also distributes Falun Gong materials.

[23] The Claimant’s profile as a Falun Gong practitioner was also supported by a number of photos depicting his practice in Canada and two letters from fellow practitioners.^[2] The panel notes that the photographs appear to have been taken at numerous locations and times.

[24] Similarly, the panel asked him why he continues to practice Falun Gong despite recovering from his health issues. He testified that practicing Falun Gong is a lifelong commitment and that one doesn’t stop practicing just because one gets/feels better.

[25] The panel finds on a balance of probabilities that the Claimant is a genuine Falun Gong practitioner. He has a genuine desire and plans to continue his practice of Falun Gong into the future.

Well-Founded Fear of Persecution

[26] The documentary evidence is clear that Falun Gong practitioners face persecution in China. Falun Gong is banned as an illegal group in China and the country conditions evidence is consistent in its reports that Falun Gong practitioners face arrest and even torture, according to several credible sources.^[3]

[27] Exhibit 3, Item 1.7 which is the United Kingdom’s Operational Guidance Note, discusses that Falun Gong practitioners over the years have been tortured, harassed, arbitrarily detained, imprisoned, and have faced other serious restrictions on their right to freedom of expression.

[28] It explains that the Falun Gong movement has been outlawed in China, and the State regards it as an evil cult. Falun Gong practitioners have reportedly been subjected to detention, ill treatment, and it states that the risk of ill-treatment escalates significantly when a practitioner engages in activities that are reasonably likely to bring them to the notice of authorities. This includes the public practice of Falun Gong exercises, recruitment of new members, and dissemination of Falun Gong information. The risk of ill-treatment also increases when a person ignores a warning against continuing Falun Gong activity.

[29] Exhibit 3, Item 2.1 the United States Department of State Report indicates that practitioners of Falun Gong reported systematic torture.

[30] Exhibit 3, Item 12.2, indicates that the Chinese government has banned Falun Gong and labelled it an “evil cult”. Authorities regularly target Falun Gong practitioners and force them into labour camps. In detention, they suffer sexual assault, torture, violence and organ harvesting.

[31] Therefore, the Panel finds that the Claimant’s fear is a well-founded one supported by personal and objective evidence.

[32] The panel finds that the Claimant is a genuine Falun Gong practitioner on a balance of probabilities, and so he would face a serious possibility of persecution if he were to return to China.

State Protection

[33] As the state is the agent of persecution, adequate state protection would not be available to the Claimant.

Internal Flight Alternative

[34] Given that the Claimant is a genuine and ongoing Falun Gong practitioner, even if he were to relocate, his risk remains the same as the State’s control exists all over China. Since the agent of persecution is the state, there is no internal flight alternative for the Claimant, as there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout the country.

CONCLUSION

[35] For the above reasons, the panel finds that the Claimant is a Convention refugee, as he holds a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of his membership in a particular social group, as a practitioner of Falun Gong. His claim is therefore accepted.

^[1] Exhibit 2.

^[2] Exhibit 6.

^[3] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package for China (20 December 2019) Items 2.1, 12.22 and 12.23.

All Countries Turkey

2020 RLLR 127

Citation: 2020 RLLR 127
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 16, 2020
Panel: Josée Bouchard
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Rebeka Lauks
Country: Turkey
RPD Number: TB8-30121
Associated RPD Number(s):
ATIP Number: A-2021-01106
ATIP Pages: 000071-000076

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: This is the decision for following Claimant, [XXX], File Number TB8-30121. You are claiming to be a citizen of Turkey and are claiming refuge protection pursuant to section 96 and 97 (1) one of the Immigration and Refuge Protection Act. I have considered your testimony and the other evidence in the case. And I am ready to render my decision orally. I find that you have established a serious possibility of persecution in Turkey by virtue of your imputed political opinion and your membership in a particular social group namely because of your familiar relationship to your father. The specifics of your claim are said out in the narrative of your Basis of Claim Form filed as Exhibit 2. The following is a summary your allegations.

[2] You are a citizen of Turkey. You fear persecution at the hands of Turkish authorities and members of the Justice and Development Party or AKP… AKP. Because of your imputed political opinion as a former [XXX] who is perceived to be a member or supporter of Gulenist Movement and oppose to the government and AKP… AKP. You also allege a fear of persecution at the hands of Turkish Authorities and Members of the AKP because of your membership with the particular social group namely your familiar relationship to your father who is under investigation for his imputed membership in the Gulenist Movement. You allege that there is no state protection for you or an Internal Flight Alternative. Your personal identity as a citizen of Turkey has been established by your testimony and the supporting documents filed as Exhibit 1, namely your passport issued by the government of Turkey and your Turkish Identity Card. I find that on the balance of probabilities, identity and country of reference have been established. I find that there is a link between what you fear in one of grounds under section 96 of the Immigration and Refuge Protection Act, namely political opinion and membership in a particular social group. Therefore, I assessed your claim under section 96 of that act. The test under section 96, is whether there is a serious possibility of persecution should you return to Turkey and I have found that you have met that test.

[3] In terms of your general credibility, I found you to be a credible witness and I therefore believe what you have alleged in your total… oral testimony in your Basis of Claim Form. Your evidence was detailed and consistent both internally and with your documentation. Throughout the hearing you were articulate, responsive and forthright. You are able to elaborate on your narrative and gave detailed explanations to the questions. Your claim was well supported and I know that no material inconsistencies or omissions searched at presumption of truthfulness could be rebutted.

[4] Specifically you have established on a balance of probabilities of following. In [XXX] 2012, you joined Turkish Armed Forces as a [XXX]. You were also chosen to attend in [XXX] 2016, training at the [XXX] (phonetics) second main [XXX]. You filed documents in support of this claim. You heard about the July 15, 2016 coup attempt which according to the authorities, more specifically the Justice And Development Party or AKP was conducted by the Gulenist Movement. You heard about the attempt that day while visiting your parents. Your [XXX] ordered you to return to the [XXX] which you did that day. You were ordered to stay at the [XXX] until [XXX] 2016. On July 31, 2016, Decree 669 ordered the closer of ail military schools and aca… academies. All cadets of military academies and military high schools including [XXX] were dismissed from the military. You filed excerpts of Decree 669 in support of your claim. The stated aim of the decree was to take the necessary measures to fight against terrorism. The AKP in power during attempted coup blamed the Gulenist Movement and labelled it a terrorist movement. You justified that the dismissed [XXX] were perceived as affiliated to a terrorist organisation the Gulenist Movement. Decree 669 provided that senior [XXX] up to graduate would still receive Diplomas from different Universities.

[5] You received your Diploma from [XXX] University in [XXX]. The Diploma states that it is issued pursuant to Decree 669. You filed the Diploma as an exhibit. You believe that, this confirms that you have been a permanently blacklisted by the regime as a terrorist. You had several former [XXX] classmates who have had to flee Turkey and become refugees elsewhere who have been killed by lynching and who have been sentenced to life imprison for their imputed affiliation with the Gulenist Movement. In [XXX] 2017, you filed a petition to the Ankara 6th administrative court to get reinstated into the military. You filed as an exhibit the decision of the court rejecting your petition. On [XXX] 2018, the police raided the house of your closest friend and former [XXX] classmate. He had to flee to Germany, where he is now a refugee. That is when you realize that you would also be targeted. On [XXX] 2018, arrest warrants were released for 120 [XXX]. You hid until you had the means to leave for Canada on [XXX] 2018.

[6] In [XXX] 2020, your uncle and father informed you that there is a warrant for your arrest. Your father tried to get further information about the charges, but was not provided with such information. You filed statements from your uncle and father and supported this claim along with an official document informing your father that the charges against you are confidential, but providing a file number for the case against you.

[7] Before the coup attempt, your father was a [XXX] in the General Directorate of [XXX]. He was dismissed on [XXX] 2017 by decree 679. He later learned that… that he was named as Gulenist Movement follower. Your father filed a petition to the Ankara 16th administrative court to be reinstated into the [XXX]. You filed as an exhibit the decision of the Ankara 16th administrative court, rejecting your father’s petition. You filed the decision of the Ankara 25th administrative court supporting your claim that there is an on-going investigation into your father’s imputed involvement with the Gulenist Movement. You testified that one of your former [XXX] classmates was arrested just last week by the Turkish authorities.

[8] You also produced a significant amount of documentation in support of your claim. These documents include the following filed as Exhibit 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3, your [XXX] identification card supporting the claim that you were a [XXX] in the [XXX]. The authorities in Turkey announced that 95 percent of [XXX] were followers of the Gulenist Movement. Your [XXX] and [XXX] indicating that they were issued in accordance with decree 669. Your Turkish [XXX] student vacation document confirming that you stayed at the [XXX] (phonetics) second main [XXX] for two weeks following the coup attempt.

[9] Record document from the Ankara 16th administrative court, supporting the claim that your father petitioned to reverse your dismissal as a [XXX]. A letter of support from a close friend and former [XXX] supporting the claim that he was targeted by the authorities and is now a refugee in Germany. It also supports that the claim that some of your former [XXX] colleagues were sentenced to life imprisonment after the coup attempt.

[10] Letters from your and uncles supporting the claim that in [XXX] 2020, the authorities approached your uncle looking for you and told your uncle that there was an arrest warrant against you. A petition made by your father in [XXX] 2020, requesting to know the crime for which you are sought by police, the authorities released the number of the case against you, but no further information. Documents supporting your claim that your father was [XXX] with the General Directorate of [XXX] that he was suspended after the attempted coup and eventually dismissed. A decision from the 25th administrative court of Ankara from the summer of 2020 supporting a claim that there is an on-going investigation against your father. There is no reason for me to cast any doubt on the voracity of these documents and as such, I pla… place great weight on these documents to support the allegation and overall claim.

[11] I find that your subjective fear is established by your credible testimony and I believe what you have alleged on a balance of probabilities. The objective country reports are consistent with your evidence about the plight of former [XXX] who are imputed to be followers of the Gulenist Movement. The National Documentation package for Turkey dated March 31st, 2020 at exhibit 3 item 1.7 states that the Gulenist Movement is a term used to describe those who follow the US based Islamic Cleric Fethullah Gulen. The movement is not a political party neither is it a religion. The Gulenist Movement is believed to have a large number of sympathizers in Turkey, some estimate the number to be in millions.

[12] In May 2016, the Turkish government declared that the Gulenist Movement was an illegal terrorist organisation and in June 2017, the Supreme Court appeal ruled that the Gulenist Movement is an armed terrorist organisation. The coup attempt of the 15th July, 2016 was attributed by the Turkish Government to members of Gulenist Movement. A state of emergency was put in place in Turkey a few days after the coup. And this has been renewed since then. By September 2017, 21 emergency decrees had been issued and the scope of the emergency law had been broadened to include those who belong to, connect to or have contact with the Gulenist Movement. One of the emergency decrees provided that, officials involving… involved in putting down the coup, tackling-related threats and implementing state of emergency measures would not face prosecution. Since the 2016 coup attempt, authorities have dismissed or suspended more than 45,000 police and military personnel, and more than 130,000 civil servants, dismissed one-third of the judiciary, arrested or imprisoned more than 80,000 citizens and closed more than 1,500 non-governmental organisations on terrorism-related grounds primarily for alleged ties to the movement of cleric Fethullah Gulen whom the government accuses of masterminding the coup attempt and designated by the government as the leader of the Fethullah terrorist organisation.

[13] Exhibit 3, item 8.7 states that in the period between the unsuccessful coup in 2016 and March 2017, the Turkish government fired more than 22,000 sol… officers, soldiers, and cadets for alleged links with the Gulen Movement. In March 2017, the then Turkish Minister for National Defense announced that those fired consisted of 6,511 officers and 16,409 soldiers and military cadets. The latter group consisted of 4090 cadets at military colleges, 6,148 training centres for non-commissioned officers including privates and corporals and 6,179 at University Military Training Institutions.

[14] In January 2019, the Turkish authorities reported that at least 58 Generals and 629 Senior Officers have been sentenced to life imprisonment for involvement in the failed coup and for links with the Gulenist Movement. In January 2019, the Turkish authority also arrested 63 people on charges of involvement with the Gulenist Movement including 46 helicopter pilots in active service. Earlier that month, more than 100 soldiers and former cadets at Military Training Institutions were arrested throughout Turkey.

[15] The claimant filed at Exhibits 5.1 and 5.2, several recent articles about the continued persecution of former military cadets. For instance in September 2017, internet news reported that arrest warrants have been released for 69 former cadets. In November 2017, Turkish media Memurlar reported that 30 cadets were among the 240 taken into custody. In December 2017, Memurlar reported that dismissed cadets were among 62 suspects taken into custody. In March 2018, the Turkish states news agency Anadolu agency reported that former cadets were among the 19 suspects arrested in Manisa and Usak. In March 2018, Anadolu reported that among 35 suspects apprehended for their imputed support of the Gulenist Movement were dismissed soldiers and military school students. In March 2018, The World Bulletin reported among 20 suspects arrested in the northern Kastamonu province were on duty soldiers and former cadets. In June 2018, a pro-Turkish news agency The Daily Sabah, reported that former military cadets were among the 102 suspects for which arrests warrants were issued. On July 3rd, 2018, Anadolu reported that a dismiss cadet was among the 13 suspects arrested in Eastern Turkey.

[16] You feel being targeted by the Turkish authorities for imputed political opinion, but also for your relationship with your father who is targeted for his imputed membership into the Gulenist Movement.

[17] The NDP or National Documentation Package for Turkey and Exhibit 3 at item 2.1 provides a basis for that fear. United States Department of State report notes that family members of targeted individuals are also at risk of persecution. It states that, using anti-terror legislation, the government targeted family members to exert pressure on wanted suspects. Government measures included cancelling the passports of family members of civil servants suspended or dismissed from state institutions as well as those who had fled authorities.

[18] Exhibit 3 item 13.6, the United Kingdom’s Home Office reports that members of families of people who are critical of the government will be targeted. If the police cannot find the person they are looking for, they will take another family member. This was very common during the emergency. Families were threatened by phone and their houses were raided. A report of the Asylum Research Consultancy found at Exhibit 3 item 1.4 also notes following his visit to Turkey in September 2016, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights found that a series of measures of particular concern to the commissioner are those which target directly or are liable to affect family members of suspects in an automatic fashion.

[19] In addition to the evictions termination of lease agreement and freezing up assets of the said suspects, which are likely to create unnecessary hardship and victimisation for family members. The commissioner notes other measures of an administrative nature such as a possibility of annulling passports of spouses of suspects who are themselves not under investigation and the unlimited access by administrative authorities to the personal data of family members of suspects. This approach raises extremely serious concerns. The commissioner is worried that such measures will inevitably fuel the impression of guilt by association already voiced by many of their interlocutors. In the opinion of the commissioner, any measure treating family members of a suspect also as potential suspect should not exist in democratic society even during a state of emergency.

[20] As you have established, your subjective fear and an objective basis for that fear, I find you will have established of well-founded fear of persecution.

[21] I turn now to state protection. When making a refugee claim, the claimant must establish on a balance of probabilities that adequate state protection is not available. There is a presumption that state protection is available and the onus is on the claimant to provide and clear and convincing evidence to be part of such… such protection.

[22] In this case, the agent of persecution is the state that is the persecution you would face should you return to Turkey as at the hand of authorities. This is supported in part by the investigation conducted by the authorities against the claimant’s father for his imputed political opinion as a supporter of the Gulenist Movement and also the evidence said that there is an arrest warrant against you for your imputed political opinion as a supporter of the Gulenist Movement. The country condition documents outlined in this decision also support the claim that the authorities are the perpetrators and persecutors of those involved or perceived to be involved in the Gulenist Movement.

[23] Accordingly, I find that there is no state protection available for you. I have also considered whether a viable Internal Flight Alternative exists for you, the agent of persecution is the Turkish government. The evidence reviewed above confirms that oppressive treatment of those suspected of supporting the Gulen Movement is nationwide. I find that there is a serious possibility of persecution for you throughout tricky and therefore find that there is no viable Internal Flight Alternative.

[24] In conclusion, based on the totality of the evidence, I find you to be a convention refugee because you have demonstrated a serious possibility of persecution in Turkey by virtue of your imputed political opinion and membership in a particular social group, namely your familial relationship with your father who is imputed to be a supporter of the Gulenist Movement. I accept your claim.

[25] CLAIMANT: Thank you very much.

[26] COUNSEL: Thank you Madam Member.

[27] MEMBER: Welcome to Canada.

[28] CLAIMANT: Thank you so much.

[29] MEMBER: Thank you very much for your detailed testimony. (voice overlapping). Thank you Mr. Interpreter for coming at the last minute and doing such a good job on the interpretation.

[30] INTERPRETER: Thank you Madam.

[31] MEMBER: And thank you Counsel, this was a very well documented file. And 1. 1 thank you for your work.

[32] COUNSEL: Thank you.

[33] MEMBER: And this concludes our hearing.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

All Countries Sri Lanka

2020 RLLR 126

Citation: 2020 RLLR 126
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 30, 2020
Panel: L. Hartslief
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Maureen Silcoff
Country: Sri Lanka
RPD Number: TB8-29465
Associated RPD Number(s): TB8-29491, TB8-29494 TB8-29495, TB8-29496
ATIP Number: A-2021-01106
ATIP Pages: 000066-000070

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: I have had an opportunity to review the evidence before me and I have decided to give an oral decision today. You will receive an unedited transcript of this oral decision in the mail in approximately three weeks and your counsel will also receive a copy and she can answer any related questions you may have at that time.

[2] This is the decision for [XXX] File number TB8-29465. You are all claiming to be citizens of Sri Lanka and you are claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[3] I have considered your testimony and the other evidence in the case as well as oral submissions from counsel.

[4] I find that you are all Convention refugees for the reason that you have established there is a serious possibility of persecution in Sri Lanka based on your imputed antigovernment political opinion as suspected LTTE supporters.

[5] By way of background you allege the following; you sir are a Sinhalese [XXX] and you met with several potential customers who are all young Tamil men. While these men were in your vehicle you were stopped at a police check point where the police found problems with your passengers identity documents.

[6] You say the police then detained you and the Tamil men in your vehicle. During your ten day detention you were physically assaulted by six police officers and you were forced to attend multiple police stations to look at line ups of photographs and prisoners in an effort to identify alleged LTTE suspects.

[7] After ten days of detainment you say you were released on the condition that you would report to the police station every month. However you did not obey those instructions and instead you and your family went into hiding and then you made your way to Canada within a few weeks.

[8] After you left Sri Lanka and when you failed to report to the police station as instructed, you say the police visited your mother in law, searched the house and threatened to arrest you because of your disobedience if you were to return to Sri Lanka.

[9] Your personal identities as citizens of Sri Lanka have been established by your testimony and the supporting documentation namely copies of your birth certificates, national identity cards and passports. While your name does appear slightly differently on your birth certificate you provided a reasonable explanation that your name has changed shortly after your birth and the evidence of this can clearly be seen on Paragraph 13 of your birth certificate.

[10] I therefore find on a balance of probabilities that identity and country of reference have been established for all of you.

[11] I find that there is a link between what you fear and one of the five convention grounds, specifically your imputed antigovernment political opinion as suspected LTTE supporters. This claim is therefore assessed under Section 96 of the act.

[12] In terms of your general credibility I found you to be a credible witness and I therefore believe what you have alleged in your oral testimony and in your basis of claim form. You described in extensive detail the circumstances surrounding your meeting with the three potential customers your ride to drop off the customers and your eventual detention at the police station.

[13] Not only were you able to provide a step by step description of what happened but your provided spontaneous details and additional aspects of the environment, clothing and emotions involved during these events.

[14] You described your time at the police station and the punishment you received at the hands of the police. You described the weapons involved, the surrounding environment, the ill-treatment you received and the officers involved.

[15] Finally you described the ongoing circumstances of your ten day detention including the cell conditions, the various trips to the police stations and your emotions during that time. Your description of events was provided in a detailed and straightforward manner and I have no reason to disbelieve your testimony.

[16] You presented your testimony in a clear and consistent manner and you responded spontaneously to questioning.

[17] In support of your testimony your provided medical documents describing your injuries as well as sworn affidavits from your parents regarding the difficulties your family has experienced.

[18] In particular you provided a sworn affidavit from your mother in law which confirms that the police came to her house looking for you and when it was clear you and your family had left the country the police became angry and threatened to arrest you if you return.

[19] Based on the evidence before me I’m satisfied that there is a serious possibility of persecution for you and your family members should you return to Sri Lanka. I’m satisfied that you have experienced past persecution at the hands of the police, I’m also satisfied that the Sri Lankan authorities have a record of your detention and once you enter the Sri Lankan airport you and your family will be flagged for disobeying police instructions.

[20] The objective evidence regarding the country conditions in Sri Lanka is consistent with you allegations that there is a serious possibility of persecution if you return to Sri Lanka. I looked at a number of documents in the national documentation package dated March 29th 2019 as well as counsel’s country conditions documents which are in Exhibit 13.

[21] The objective evidence at items 1.5, 2.1 and 10.9 are ail consistent with your allegation that perceived LTTE supporters are targeted by the state and there is continued monitoring and surveillance by Sri Lankan authorities as well as ongoing harassment of those who are suspected of supporting the LTTE regardless of their ethnicity.

[22] In addition the objective evidence at Article, sorry at Item 14.1 supports your allegation that as you have been accused of violating Sri Lankan law by allegedly lying to the police and failing to report monthly as instructed you are now considered a person of interest to the Sri Lankan authorities and you and your family will likely be flagged at the airport and sent to the police directly from the airport.

[23] In light of the fact that you are a Sinhalese family I have also considered the implications of the recent elections, specifically on you and your family members. The media articles that were submitted to me by counsel confirm that the new Gotabaya Rajapaksa government has not hesitated to arrest or detain any person regardless of their ethnicity if they are perceived to hold antigovernment political opinions.

[24] For example according to an article found at Exhibit 13 the new president illegally detained an employee at the Swiss Embassy and acquired a list of names from her of Sri Lankan citizens who had fled the country as well as the names of people who had assisted them.

[25] The new president has also imposed a travel ban on over seven hundred police officers and members of the Criminal Investigations Division for the mere fact that they were investigating him for human rights abuses.

[26] The Centre for Policy Alternatives is quoted in this article as saying Sri Lanka is beginning a slow decent into something very frightening.

[27] For these reasons based on consistent and credible evidence including the country condition documents I find your fear of persecution to be well founded.

[28] For the reasons already stated I am satisfied that there is a serious possibility of persecution at the hands of the state should your return to Sri Lanka. As the state is the agent of persecution in your situation I am satisfied that you have rebutted the presumption of state protection because the state is unwilling to protect you and you cannot access or otherwise expect to receive adequate state protection throughout Sri Lanka.

[29] Furthermore as the state is the agent of persecution I’m satisfied that it would be unsafe for you to seek refuge anywhere else in Sri Lanka. Therefore there is no viable internal flight alternative.

[30] Based on the forgoing analysis l find that you have established there is a serious possibility of persecution on a convention ground namely your imputed antigovernment political opinion as suspected LTTE supporters.

[31] I therefore find that you are all Convention refugees and I accept all of your claims. Thank you very much, have a wonderful afternoon.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-