Tag: All Case Types

2019 RLLR 34

Citation: 2019 RLLR 34
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 5, 2019
Panel: Elise Escaravage
Country: Haiti
RPD Number: VB8-03742
ATIP Number: A-2021-01124
ATIP Pages: 000191-000195

— PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED

[1] PRESIDING MEMBER: Reasons for decision.

INTRODUCTION

[2] I have considered your testimony and the other evidence in the case and I am ready to render my decision orally. These are the reasons for the decision in the claim of Madam [XXX] a citizen of Haiti who is claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration Protection Act.

[3] In rendering my reasons I have considered and applied the Chairperson’s Guidelines on women refugee claimants fearing gender related persecution throughout the hearing and in my decision as this is a case of domestic violence.

ALLEGATIONS

[4] The Claimant detailed her allegations in her Basis of Claim form which can be summarized as follows. The Claimant is 69 years old from Haiti fearing domestic violence at the hand of her ex-partner [XXX] (phonetic) who is 15 younger than her. The Claimant endured close to 10 years of domestic violence which included armed death threats, even after she left him in [XXX] 2013.

DETERMINATION

[5] I find that you are a Convention refugee as you have established a serious possibility of persecution on account of your membership in a particular social group as a woman facing domestic violence.

ANALYSIS

IDENTITY

[6] I find that your identity as a national of Haiti has been established by your testimony and the supporting documentation in file including a certified copy of your passport at Exhibit 1.

CREDIBILITY

[7] I find you to be a credible witness and therefore believe what you said in support of your claim. You testified in a straightforward manner and there were no relevant inconsistencies between your testimony and the other evidence before me which have not been satisfactorily explained.

NEXUS

[8] Given your history of domestic violence I find that your fear of persecution in Haiti has a nexus to the Convention ground of membership in a particular social group as a woman facing gender based persecution. For this reason your claim will be assessed under Section 96 of The Act.

WELL-FOUNDED FEAR OF GENDER BASED PERSECUTION

[9] I find that you have established an objectively well-founded fear of gender based persecution for the reasons that will follow. You testified that you entered a romantic relationship with a friend and former customer of yours in 2009, named [XXX] (phonetic). Your house was affected by the 2010 earthquake to the point where you had to move out. You moved in with him. At the beginning he was not aggressive to you as you helped him financially through the small business you had where you sold [XXX]. However when you started telling him that you no longer had money to give him he became violent to you. He assaulted you physically to the point of breaking your left arm. You submitted a photograph of yourself with a cast at Exhibit 4 and brought the original picture at the hearing.

[10] It was difficult for you to talk about the domestic violence as you were so embarrassed and ashamed that you were dating a younger man which is stigmatized in Haiti. As such you kept the violence to yourself and did not talk about it with your children until it went too far. In [XXX] 2013 you decided to finally leave [XXX] (phonetic) thinking that your struggles would be over. You moved in with your niece, [XXX] (phonetic) who submitted a support letter to that effect at Exhibit 4.

[11] Over a year later in [XXX] 2014 [XXX] (phonetic) found you at work at the [XXX] (phonetic). He assaulted you physically once more, hitting you in the face and breaking your teeth. You submitted documentary evidence of your consultation at the dentist you had following the assault at Exhibit 4.

[12] [XXX] (phonetic) continued to threaten, harass and assault you up until [XXX] 2017 even if you had separated in 2013. He attacked you once when you were at the [XXX] on your way home and left you lying in the streets.

[13] In [XXX] 2017 you received the last threat from him. He showed up at your house when your daughter [XXX] (phonetic) was there and squeezed your hand while threatening you. [XXX] (phonetic) witnessed the assault and she reported it to the police. Given the numerous instances of gender based violence you suffered at the hands of [XXX] (phonetic), despite the fact that you separated in 2013, you are afraid that he may locate and harm you if you return to Haiti.

[14] Objective evidence included in the National Documentation Package overwhelmingly points to alarming rates of domestic violence throughout Haiti and inadequate protection available to victims of domestic abuse. Items 5.13, 5.3 and 2.4 are examples of such.

[15] For instance a research from the IRB’s research unit states that “sources report that domestic or family violence is widespread in Haiti. According to a Haiti mission report in 2017 domestic violence is a real societal problem. It is recorded in all social strata and is particularly prevalent in the impoverished areas of Port aux Prince as well as in remote rural areas.” Item 5.3.

[16] The same report indicates that domestic violence is tolerated and considered normal by society and that violence against women and girls is trivialized in Haitian society. Human Rights Watch emphasises that Haiti has no specific legislation against domestic violence, sexual harassment or other forms of violence targeted at women and girls.

[17] Based on all of the evidence before me, including the sources cited in your testimony, I find that you have established a serious possibility of gender based persecution in Haiti.

STATE PROTECTION

[18] I find that there is clear and convincing evidence before me that the state is unable or unwilling to provide you with adequate protection. You testified that you went to the police station in order to file a police complaint for domestic violence in 2016. The police response was humiliating as they referred to you as a desraee (phonetic) which in Creole means a woman without morals. They told you that you were simply an old woman looking for attention from younger men and that they had bigger issues to deal with than your family affairs.

[19] The Immigration and Refugee Board’s research on violence against women at Item 5.3 corroborates the experience you described and lack of adequate state protection for women like you who are victims of gender based violence such as domestic violence. The sources point to a lack of means and education of police as well as their lack of sensitivity. Furthermore it describes the number of obstacles in seeking justice for women victims of violence in Haiti. Notably corruption and disfunction of the legal system, impunity of aggressors and victims’ lack of confidence in the legal system.

[20] As an elderly woman with no education I find that you are particularly vulnerable and may face additional barriers in seeking state protection. For these reasons I find that the presumption of state protection has been rebutted in your case.

INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE

[21] Based on the totality of the evidence before me I find that it is not objectively reasonable in all of the circumstances, including those particular to you, for you to seek refuge in Haiti for the following reasons.

[22] You are currently 69 years old and will tum 70 years old by the end of this month. You do not have access to pension in Haiti nor to health care. You have never been to school, in fact not even a day so you cannot read or write. Even through you have proven to be quite resourceful in raising three of your four children by yourself, by running a small [XXX] business it would be unreasonable to expect you to relocate to another city within Haiti considering your personal circumstances such as your age, your lack of access to employment, your lack of access to pension or any revenue and by your limited capacity to seek housing as an elderly single woman. While I note that you have three children living in Port aux Prince at the moment, I do not find it reasonable for you to relocate there in light of your personal circumstances. I find — for this reason I find that it would be objectively unreasonable to expect you to relocate anywhere in Haiti. As the internal flight alternative test fails on the second prong of the test I find that there is no viable internal flight alternative available to you in Haiti.

CONCLUSION

[23] Based on the analysis above I conclude that you are a Convention refugee, accordingly I accept your claim.

— PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED

All Countries Turkey

2019 RLLR 33

Citation: 2019 RLLR 33
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 20, 2019
Panel: O. Adeoye
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Amedeo Clivio
Country: Turkey
RPD Number: TB9-19724
ATIP Number: A-2021-01124
ATIP Pages: 000186-000190

[1] MEMBER: I’ve considered your testimony and your other evidence before me today, which includes your documentary evidence, and I’m ready to render my decision orally.

[2] This is a claim for refugee protection made by [XXX], who claims to be a citizen of Turkey and is seeking refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Allegations

[3] The summary of the claimant’s allegations are contained his Basis of Claim form and I will not repeat them all here.

[4] In summary, the claimant alleges that he fears to return to Turkey because he’s involved in the Hizmet Movement, which is also known as the Gülen Movement.

[5] He alleges that he supports the ideas of the movement’s leader or founder, Fetullah Gülen, and that these ideas deal with, among other things, religion, society, charity, and education.

[6] He further alleges that due to his Kurdish ethnicity and his family’s longstanding history of being involvement with pro-Kurdish politics, he may be imputed to be a separatist Kurd or HDP supporter.

Determination

[7] The Panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee because he faces a serious possibility of persecution on the Convention ground of his imputed political opinion in Turkey as a Hizmet follower.

Identity

[8] The claimant’s identity as a national of Turkey is established by his testimony and certified true copy of his Turkish passport attached to Exhibit 1.

[9] Also, the Panel finds that the claimant has established his Hizmet identity based on his affiliation with the Hizmet Movement, again through his testimony and supporting documentation attached to Exhibit 5.

Credibility

[10] Overall, the Panel has found the claimant to be a credible witness on a balance of probabilities on what is core to his claim. In this case, his imputed political opinion as a follower of the Hizmet Movement.

[11] The Panel therefore believes what he has alleged in support of his claim.

[12] He testified in a straightforward manner and there were no relevant inconsistencies in his testimony or contradictions between his testimony and other evidence before the Panel that were not satisfactorily explained.

[13] The claimant testified generally in a straightforward manner regarding his involvement in the Hizmet Movement, his reasons for becoming involved in the movement, his actions, his roles in support of the movement and affiliated institutions, and also he provided credible testimony regarding the movement as a whole, as well as providing information about members of the movement being mistreated by the Turkish authorities, which includes his family members.

[14] Therefore the Panel finds on a balance of probabilities that the claimant has been able to - that the claimant was involved in the Hizmet Movement since he was a child and in 2003 when he attended — was a child when he attended meetings with his uncle, and 2003 when he attended Hizmet affiliated prep school, and finds on a balance of probabilities — also finds on a balance of probabilities that he volunteered with Hizmet affiliated charities, purchased Hizmet affiliated, and subscribed to Hizmet affiliated publications.

[15] So the Panel therefore finds on a balance of probabilities that the claimant is credible, accepts his allegations as credible, and that he has established his subjective fear.

Well-Founded Fear of Persecution

[16] As it relates to the well-foundedness of the claimant’s fear of persecution, the Panel finds that the claimant’s subjective fear has an objective basis based on the objective documentary evidence before the Panel.

[17] There is ample corroborating evidence in the country condition documents about the Turkish authority’s harsh treatment of members of the Hizmet Movement, which was worsened after the attempted coup in July 2016, for which the Turkish regime held the Gillen Movement responsible.

[18] Item 2.3 in the National Documentation Package titled, “Freedom in the World 2017” states that:

[19] “Turkey has a large number of active non-governmental organizations. However, authorities have mentioned and harassed many NGOs in recent years. In particular, those affiliated with the Gillen Hizmet Movement.

[20] In the aftermath of the coup, 1,229 foundations and associations and 19 trade unions were shut down without judicial proceedings.”

[21] Also:

“375 more associations and NGOs were closed for alleged links to terrorists and their assets were seized by the government.”

[22] The National Documentation Package also reports that:

“There are significant problems with arbitrary and indefinite detention and mistreatment of those arrested or suspected to be Hizmet Movement and increasing lack of judicial independence, especially after the dismissal of more than 3,000 judges following the attempted coup, relaxation on restrictions on the use of torture, and widespread impunity for officials who commit human rights abuses persist in Turkey.”

[23] There is also considerable evidence that:

“The authorities in Turkey have targeted family members of suspected Hizmet sympathizers or those who are wanted for arrest and cancelled their passports or even detained them.”

[24] Furthermore, the evidence in the National Documentation Package notes the:

“Closing of Hizmet affiliated universities in Turkey and the broader negative effects on academic freedom and freedom of speech in Turkey that have resulted from Turkish authority’s crackdown on Hizmet followers, affiliated educational institutions, and other academics who have voiced criticism of the regime and its actions.”

[25] After reviewing all this evidence which the Panel finds — after reviewing all this evidence, the Panel finds that the claimant’s allegations are consistent with the objective country condition documents with regards to the harsh treatment currently being made out against Hizmet supporters in Turkey, including dismissal from employment, increased closing down Hizmet affiliated education institutions, seizure of assets, detention, and mistreatment.

[26] Therefore, based on this country documentary evidence and the credible allegations, the Panel finds that the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution in Turkey by reason of his imputed political opinion.

State Protection

[27] As the state is the agent of persecution — as the agent of persecution is the Government of Turkey, the Panel finds that it would be objectively unreasonable for the claimant to seek protection of the Turkish Government in light of the claimant’s particular circumstances.

Internal Flight Alternative

[28] The Panel also finds that the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution throughout Turkey, especially given the objective documentary evidence that the Turkish authorities operates similarly throughout Turkey.

[29] Therefore the Panel finds that there is no viable internal flight alternative available to the claimant.

Conclusion

[30] The Panel finds that the claimant has established that he will face a serious possibility of persecution upon his return to Turkey on the Convention ground of his political opinion.

[31] And based on the foregoing analysis, the Panel has determined that the claimant is a Convention refugee as per section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and therefore accepts his claim.

– – – DECISION CONCLUDED – – –

All Countries Turkey

2019 RLLR 32

Citation: 2019 RLLR 32
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 19, 2019
Panel: D. McKeown
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Nasser Hashemi
Country: Turkey
RPD Number: TB9-15470
Associated RPD Number(s): TB9-15505
ATIP Number: A-2021-01124
ATIP Pages: 000183-000185

[1] MEMBER: I have considered the testimony and other evidence in this claim, and I am now prepared to render a decision.

[2] The Claimants are [XXX] and [XXX]. They seek refugee protection against Iran pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. For the following reasons, the Panel finds that the Claimants are Convention refugees, and this claim is accepted:

[3] This claim is based on the following allegations:

[4] The Claimants are citizens of Iran but have lived in Turkey on work permits since 2013. The Claimants started attending church in Turkey in December of 2017 and have continued attending church ever since that time. The Claimants arrived in Canada on [XXX] — excuse me — in [XXX] of 2018 as visitors. While they were here, they continued to develop their faith as Christians and they decided to seek protection here. They signed their Basis of Claims on June 12th, 2019.

[5] The identities of the Claimants were established on the basis of their Iranian passports, the originals of which were seized by the Minister.

[6] The Panel’s primary concern about this claim was the appearance on the face of the allegations that the Claimants were misrepresenting themselves as genuine Christian followers in order to gain immigration status in Canada. That possibility was suggested on the face of these facts, wherein the Claimants only sought protection in Canada in June 2019, despite having been here as Christians since [XXX] 2019. The Claimant explained that they came to Canada initially simply as tourists and had no intention to seek protection here when they initially arrived. It was not an easy decision to make to leave their country and families behind, so it was not until April 2019 that they finally decided they could never return to Iran again.

[7] The Panel was concerned about why the Claimants were still in Canada in April 2019 if it was only their intention to come here as tourists. The Claimant explained that originally they had a round-trip return ticket to leave Canada after one month, but they extended their stay simply because they enjoyed being here. The Claimants then sought advice from immigration consultants about trying to remain in Canada on student visas.

[8] The Panel is very concerned about this testimony. It does appear to the Panel on its face that the Claimants were not simply in Canada with the intention of visiting, but rather, that they did have the intent to immigrate. However, while the Panel is significantly concerned, the Panel cannot at this time unequivocally conclude on a balance of probabilities that immigration was their actual underlying intention. The Panel is not prepared to conclude that this concern over their delay undermines their presumption of truthfulness nor the ultimate threshold that they must meet which is a serious possibility of persecution. Despite the Panel’s concerns, in all other respects the Panel found that this claim was credible.

[9] The Claimant spoke about his life — their life in Iran and then in Turkey. He spoke about how they became interested in Christianity and how their conversion was a slow and drawn out process, occurring over many months. The Claimant also spoke about how his education in Christianity developed so fast and so early that he was even considering becoming a pastor.

[10] The Panel find this testimony was compelling. The Claimant was consistent, straightforward, and spontaneous, and there did not appear to be any attempt to embellish this part of the Claimant’s testimony. Where the Panel did have any other concerns, they were either reasonably explained or minimal in nature, and did not ultimately impact on the credibility of this claim. While the Panel has its concerns, therefore, on a balance of probabilities the Panel is prepared to accept the Claimants’ conversion to Christianity as genuine.

[11] The Panel has access to credible and reliable sources in the National Documentation Package, such as the U.S. Department of State Report, which makes clear that apostasy is punishable by death in Iran. The Panel is satisfied that the Claimants fit the profile of persons at a high risk of persecution. Whereas the state is the agent of persecution, the Claimants have rebutted the presumption that state protection would be adequate and forthcoming to them. Likewise, there is no location in Iran the Claimants could go where they would not face a serious possibility of persecution. For all these reasons, the Panel finds that this claim is credible. The Claimants’ fear is well-founded. The Claimants face a serious possibility of persecution in Iran on account of their religion. The Claimants are Convention refugees, and this claim is accepted.

[12] Just for one more point of clarity. Where this Panel has referred to the Claimant in the singular throughout this — these reasons, that refers to the male Claimant, although these reasons apply to both Claimants equally.

[13] Thank you both very much for being here. Thank you very much, Mr. Interpreter, thank you.

[14] INTERPRETER: You’re welcome.

[15] MEMBER: Everyone have a good afternoon.

— HEARING ADJOURNED

All Countries Iran

2019 RLLR 31

Citation: 2019 RLLR 31
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 21, 2019
Panel: M. Hayes
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Olha Senyshyn
Country: Iran
RPD Number: TB9-11210
Associated RPD Number(s): TB9-11276, TB9-11290, TB9-11291
ATIP Number: A-2021-01124
ATIP Pages: 000179-000182

REASONS FOR DECISION

On November 21, 2019, the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) heard the claims of [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.

INTRODUCTION

[1] I have considered your testimony, and the other evidence in the case, and I am ready to render my decision orally.

[2] These are the reasons for the decision in the claims of [XXX] (the Principal Claimant or PC), [XXX] (the male claimant), [XXX] and [XXX], who claim to be citizens of Iran, and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

ALLEGATIONS

[3] The allegations of your claims are fully set out in your Basis of Claim (BOC) forms. In short, you allege that you, the PC, practiced Christianity in secret in Iran, and your home was raided by intelligence officers who searched the house and arrested and detained you overnight. You were released on bail and called to court later that month. You, the male claimant, were suspended from your job as a [XXX] and [XXX] as a result of the charges of apostasy against your wife. Fearing further detention and mistreatment at the hands of the Iranian authorities because of the PC’s conversion from Islam to Christianity, you fled to Canada to make refugee claims.

DETERMINATION

[4] I find that you are Convention refugees as you have established a serious possibility of persecution.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[5] I find that your identities as nationals of Iran are established by the documents provided, including certified true copies of your Iranian passports, and the testimony of the PC.

Nexus

[6] I find that you have established a nexus to section 96 by reason of your religion.

Credibility

[7] I found you, the PC, to be a credible witness. There were no material inconsistencies between your testimony and your BOC, and other documents before me. Your testimony about your Christian faith appeared to be heartfelt. Based on your testimony, the documents you have provided, and the information in your BOC forms and narrative, I note no serious credibility issues. You submitted two letters from the Pastor of your church in Toronto that corroborate that the four claimants attend church regularly and have done so for the past eight months, and the three adult claimants are on a waiting list to be baptized. You also submitted the court summons that you received by mail in Iran, the letter suspending the male claimant from work, as well as a support letter from a friend who is a Pastor at an Iranian Christian Church in California. I have no reasons to doubt the authenticity of the evidence, and accept, on a balance of probabilities, that you are practicing Christians, and that the PC was accused of apostasy in Iran.

Well Founded Fear of Persecution

[8] Your subjective fear of persecution as Christian converts is objectively well founded. Based on the country condition evidence in the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Iran, March 2019, the country condition documents submitted by you, and your credible allegations, I find that you have a well-founded fear of persecution in Iran by reason of your conversion to Christianity.

[9] The preponderance of the documentary evidence corroborates that one of the most significant human rights problems in Iran is the severe restriction on civil liberties such as freedom of religion.¹ Iranian law prohibits citizens from converting from Islam to another religion and Christian converts are not recognized as Christian under the law. Christians who convert from Islam experience arrest, detention, and high levels of harassment and surveillance. Many Christian converts are forced to practice their religion in secret.² Severe human rights violations targeting religious minorities, especially Christian converts, continue.³

Nature of the harm

[10] The harm you would face upon return to Iran, detention and mistreatment by the authorities, clearly amounts to persecution.

State protection

[11] Since the state is the agent of persecution in your case, I find that it would be objectively unreasonable for you to seek the protection of the state and, therefore, you have rebutted the presumption of state protection.

Internal flight alternative

[12] I find that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Iran, given the documentary evidence that the authorities operate similarly throughout the country. Therefore, I find there is no viable internal flight alternative.

CONCLUSION

[13] Based on the analysis above, I conclude that you are Convention refugees and accept your claims.

¹ Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Iran (March 29, 2019), Item 2.1.
² Ibid., Item 12.1.
³ Ibid., Item 12.2.

All Countries Turkey

2019 RLLR 30

Citation: 2019 RLLR 30
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: October 28, 2019
Panel: Zahra Kaderali
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Brian Ibrahim Cintosun
Country: Turkey
RPD Number: TB9-06422
ATIP Number: A-2021-01124
ATIP Pages: 000175-000178

[1] MEMBER: I’ve considered your testimony and the other evidence in the case and I’m ready to render my decision orally.

[2] The claimant, [XXX], claims refugee protection pursuant to s. 96 ands. 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Allegations

[3] The claimant fears return to Turkey on the grounds of his involvement with the Hizmet or Gulen Movement. He indicates that his family, including his mother and father, are Hizmet members and that his brother and nephew have been granted protection in Canada.

[4] The claimant indicates that after the coup attempt took place in July 2016, Hizmet media was closed, Hizmet schools were closed and Hizmet-affiliated business were seized. He indicates that he and his family were concerned, as people affiliated with the Hizmet Movement were being arrested for being members of the FETO terrorist organisation.

[5] The claimant alleges that at the end of December 2018, he was advised by a lawyer that his name was being mentioned in a Hizmet case by the authorities, and the claimant made an application for a US visa and departed Turkey for the United States on the [XXX] 2019, and travelled to Canada on the [XXX] 2019.

Determination

[6] The panel finds the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to s. 96 of the IRPA.

[7] Should the claimant return to Turkey, the panel finds he has established a serious possibility that he would be persecuted on the ground of his perceived or imputed political opinion.

Analysis

Identity

[8] The claimant’s personal and national identity- of Turkey has been established through a copy of his passport, found in Exhibit 1.

[9] I am satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant is who he says he is and is a citizen of Turkey.

[10] The panel notes that while the claimant’s parents were born in Bulgaria, they do not hold citizenship in Bulgaria.

[11] The panel further notes that the claimant provided an excerpt from his father’s passport, which includes a visa for Bulgaria, and has further reviewed Item 3.1 of the National Documentation Package for Bulgaria.

[12] The panel is satisfied that Bulgaria is not a country of reference in these particular circumstances.

Credibility

[13] The panel found the claimant to be a credible witness, who provided detailed testimony consistent with his BoC narrative and forms.

[14] While the panel has concerns with the claimant’s failure to claim for protection in the United States, the test is forward-looking, and the panel finds a serious possibility of persecution, should the claimant return to Turkey.

[15] The claimant explained in detail his involvement with the Hizmet Movement, his family’s history with the movement and the basic principles of the movement as examples.

[16] Several corroborative documents are found in Exhibits 6 and 8, including, but not limited to: the investigation letter from the Office of the Prosecutor, dated 25^th December 2018, in regards to the claimant; and the Notice of Decision and Reasons for the claims for protection in Canada for both his brother, who was here today but did not testify, and his nephew, both of whom were granted protection; the hearing record for the claimant’s fellow shareholder in his coffee business, who was sentenced to six years and three months of imprisonment for what the claimant indicates was his involvement in the Hizmet Movement.

[17] While the claimant did not provide the original documents to the panel today, the claimant was credible and explained that these documents were sent via the application WhatsApp and via e mail through his brother and his nephew and through himself. Counsel was able to show the panel on his e-mail some of the documents sent to his e-mail by the claimant’s nephew, [XXX] (ph.).

[18] Counsel also indicated that the claimant’s brother was available this morning to testify. As the claimant indicated, he had assisted the claimant in e-mailing some of the documents. The panel accepts the claimant’s allegations as credible and his brother [XXX] (ph.) was not called upon to testify.

[19] As indicated in Item 4.6 of the National Document Package for Turkey, Turkish authorities blame the failed coup attempt in July 2016 on Gulen and the Turkish government has characterised the Gulen Movement as a terrorist organisation.”

[20] As indicated in Item 2.1 of the NDP for Turkey, the government engaged in a worldwide effort to apprehend suspected members of FETO, a term the government applied to followers of Fetullah Gulen, also known as members of the Gulen Movement.”

[21] Item I.7 indicates that,

“Following the coup attempt, there was a large number of arrests, detentions and dismissals from jobs, as the government took measures against those suspected of involvement in the Gulenist Movement.”

[22] Item 2.1 further indicates that the authorities used anti-terror laws broadly against alleged Gulen Movement members, resulting in the detention of the member.

[23] The claimant in these particular circumstances indicates he has come to the attention of the Turkish authorities, as indicated by the documentation found in Exhibit 8 from the Office of the Prosecutor.

[24] The panel finds an objective and subjective basis to the claimant’s fears on a balance of probability.

State Protection

[25] I find that State protection would not be reasonably forthcoming since the authorities themselves are the agents of persecution.

Internal Flight Alternative

[26] Given that the State is the agent of persecution, the panel finds no internal flight alternative in your particular circumstances. There is a serious possibility of persecution throughout the country.

Conclusion

[27] The panel concludes that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to s. 96 of the IRPA and accepts his claim.

DECISION CONCLUDED

All Countries China

2019 RLLR 29

Citation: 2019 RLLR 29
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 18, 2019
Panel: Mary Lipton
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Doy Maierovitz
Country: China
RPD Number: TB9-04529
Associated RPD Number(s): TB9-04596
ATIP Number: A-2021-01124
ATIP Pages: 000170-000174

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: This is the decision for 45-year-old claimant, [XXX], file number TB9-04529, and her 19-year-old daughter, claimant [XXX], file number TB9-04596. I have carefully considered the evidence in this case and have decided to render my decision today orally. You will receive your notice of decision in the mail and your council will also received a copy.

[2] The claimants, [XXX] and [XXX], claim to be citizens of China and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I find that you are Convention refugees for the reason that you have established that you face a serious possibility of persecution in China base on your Falun Gong practice and spiritual beliefs.

[3] The allegations are fully set out in your Basis of Claim Form, sign on January 16, 2019. To summarize, you a mother and daughter from China, alleged that your fear persecution in China because of your Falun Gong beliefs and involvement in the practice of Falun Gong. Your mother introduced you to Master Lee’s book Zhuan Falun in [XXX], 1997, while you were a senior at the [XXX], and before the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners started in July 1999. At that time, people were already talking about the book and you were curious, so you began to read it during your winter holidays. You were profoundly impacted by the theory and principals described in the book as they reverberated with your own thinking about the universe, time, space and the human body. You have been studying and practicing Falun Gong since then.

[4] After the persecution in 1999, you and your family were constantly harassed by the PSB. You were arrested and detained eight times from October 1999 to September 2008. The last being for four years during which you suffered abuse and torture and went on hunger strikes. Upon release since September 2008, you continued practicing Falun Gong in secret and your health improved quickly. Although the psychological scar of your experiences in prison remained.

[5] You introduced your daughter to Falun Gong and by 2016, she was reading the Zhuan Falun on her own. Although you were busy with your career, you continued to be monitored by the PSB who would harass your husband. Fearing persecution for your daughter and yourself by Chinese authorities who have banned Falun Gong everywhere in China, you decided that you and your daughter would leave the country. You planned to leave China after your daughter had arrived safely in Canada in [XXX] 2018 and after the [XXX] 2018 was over. You applied for a passport in [XXX] 2018 and for a visa to Canada in [XXX] 2018.

[6] After repeating attempts by the PSB to locate you, you went into hiding until the end of the summit and waited until [XXX] 2018 to move forward with your plan to come to Canada to rejoin your daughter. You left China for Canada on [XXX], 2018, from the [XXX] city airport and you wanted to avoid the [XXX] and [XXX] airports for fear of detection. Once in Canada, you immediately got involved with the Falun Gong community along with your daughter who had already been in contact with the community. You both filed for refugee protection on January 16, 2019.

[7] I find that you have established your identities as nationals of China, on a balance of probabilities, through your testimony and the supporting documentation you presented including your Chinese resident identity cards in Hukou and copies of your passports issued by the People’s Republic of China which you provided to authorities at the time you formalized your claim.

[8] You have also presented today at the hearing, your original resident identity cards, your Hukou and your marriage certificate. You testified in a straightforward, spontaneous and unhesitating manner and you answers to the questions, the Panel posed about the central aspects of your claim were detailed and unrehearsed. There were no material inconsistencies in your testimony or contradictions between your testimony and the other evidence before the Panel.

[9] Your testimony was consistent in content and chronology with this and the other documents you provided. In particular, your testimony about your practice of Falun Gong and in China and Canada, and your knowledge of Falun Gong was detailed, natural and clearly based on your personal experience as a practitioner. Although, I initially had concerns with the delay in claiming refugee protection in Canada, you explained that you approached the Falun Dafa Association for support in [XXX] 2018 who investigated you for two months and who referred you to council who spent the rest of time with you and your daughter gathering data and documents.

[10] Your claim was extensively corroborated with supporting documentation which includes photographs of your participation in various Falun Gong activities in Canada, supporting letters from five Falun Gong practitioners in Canada including two supporting letters from your-, for your daughter, a supporting letter from your mother, who introduced you to Master Lee’s Book, the Zhuan Falun, in [XXX] 1997, supporting letters from your brother, sister and husband, supporting letter from the Falun Dafa waist drum band in Toronto of which you are a member, a news report from [XXX] a website that reports on the worldwide Falun Gong community about your [XXX] at the [XXX] provincial women’s prison where you were imprisoned from 2004 to 2008, dated June 3rd, 2005. You have also provided a decision on re-education through labour documents, a detention notice, an arrest notice, an expert opinion, conclusion from the prison in [XXX] where you were detained, the indictment, the criminal judgments, the criminal ruling and a release certificate.

[11] More significantly, there is also the letter of support from the Falun Dafa Association [XXX] dated [XXX], 2019. The Panel has taken particular note of the letter written on your behalf from the Falun Dafa Association which verifies your Falun Gong practice here in Canada. The Panel places great weight on that letter which is supported by an Immigration and Refugee Board response to information request on the Falun Dafa Association [XXX]. In that response to information request, it states that the asso-, association set out that credibility is very important because it can save the lives of genuine practitioners who risk persecution if returned to China. They therefore only support those practitioners who are known to them and take serious steps to determine the validity of each individual claim before agreeing to support them. The document goes on to provide the list of those people that are responsible for signing these support letters and I note that in the [XXX] region it is [XXX]. The letter that you had provided is from [XXX] and he confirms that you are both Falun Gong practitioners. I find that this letter corroborates your identity as a Falun Gong practitioner with respect to you and your daughter.

[12] In the letter, Mr. [XXX], who [XXX] president of the Falun Dafa Association [XXX], went over the rigorous procedures for the Falun Dafa Association supporting a Falun Gong practitioner in his letter. While a letter of support from the Falun Dafa Association is not determinative of any refugee claim in the Panel’s experience, such a letter is a relatively rare occurrence and is certainly one piece of evidence that the Panel takes seriously. In this case, we have a letter from the Falun Dafa Association [XXX].

[13] For these reasons, the Panel finds that you have established, on a balance of probabilities, your Falun Gong practitioner identities and the Panel believes that your commitment to your spiritual practice is genuine. On the basis of your credible and consistent testimony and because of his consistency with the documentary evidence you have presented which I accept, the Panel believes what you have alleged, namely that you were both Falun Gong practitioners, that you were arrested and detain, that you were abused and tortured by the Chinese authorities and harassed for being a Falun Gong practitioner. And I find that you have established that you have a subjective fear of persecution in China based on your Falun Gong practice and identity as a Falun Gong practitioner with respect to you and your daughter.

[14] The objective evidence is also consistent with your account of fearing persecution as Falun Gong practitioners in China and Canada. Specifically, I have considered the objective documentary evidence in Exhibit 3, namely the National Documentation Package, known as the NDP for China, version 31 October 2019. At Item 2.1 of the NDP, the U.S. Department of State confirm of the People’s Republic of China is an authoritarian state in which the Chinese Communist Party commonly known as the CCP is the paramount authority. Repression and cohesion persist including as against members of banned religions and or sp, spiritual practices such as Falun Gong. In Item 12.23, an Immigration Refugee Board response to information request on the treatment of Falun Gong practitioners contains information that further confirms that there is a serious possibility that the practice of Falun Gong will be met with persecution.

[15] In Item 12.22, a 2008 report by the Falun Dafa Information Center states that family members of those who practice Falun Gong have suffered various degrees of persecution ranging from lost of employment to detention and torture. The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom 2019, annual report in Item 12.2 indicates that the Chinese government has classified Falun Gong as an evil cult. Under article 300 of the Chinese criminal code, belonging to a banned group such as the Falun Gong is punishable with three to seven years of imprisonment or more. Throughout 2018, authorities harassed, detained, intimated Falun Gong practitioners simply for practising their beliefs. There were reports that many of the detainees suffered physical violence, psychiatric abuse, sexual assault, forced drug administration, organ harvesting and sleep deprivation. Items 2.1 and 12.23 also reference the State’s use of harassment, intimidation, imprisonment and torture against Falun Gong practitioners.

[16] Base on the credible evidence provided by you, with respect to your Falun Gong activities both in China and in Canada, as well as the documentary evidence before the Panel, the Panel finds that your fear of persecution in China at the hands of Chinese government has an objective basis and therefore, you have a well-founded fear of persecution.

[17] Having found that, you face a well-founded fear of persecution, on the basis of being Falun Gong practitioners, the Panel must consider whether state protection is aval-, available to you or whether you could safely live elsewhere in China without facing such risks. In this case, the Panel finds that the State is the agent of persecution. It is the state authorities who have outlawed the practice of Falun Gong whom you fear. The Panel, therefore, finds, on a balance of probabilities, that it is objectively unreasonable for you to seek the protection of the State.

[18] The Panel has also considered whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for you. On the evidence before this Panel, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that there is a serious possibility of persecution for you throughout China given that the State is the agent of persecution and is in control of the whole country. The Panel, therefore, finds that there is no viable internal flight alternative for you in China. Based on the forgoing analysis and considering the totality of the evidence before the Panel, I therefore find that you are a Convention refugees and I accept your claims.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

All Countries Nigeria

2019 RLLR 28

Citation: 2019 RLLR 28
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: October 11, 2019
Panel: J. Robinson
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Richard Wazana
Country: Nigeria
RPD Number: TB9-02835
Associated RPD Number(s): TB9-02920, TB9-02921, TB9-02922, TB9-02933
ATIP Number: A-2021-01124
ATIP Pages: 000165-000169

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: This is the decision for the following claimants, [XXX], [XXX], [XXX], [XXX] and [XXX] and file numbers TB9-02835, TB9-02920, TB9-02921, TB9-02922 and TB9-02933, respectively.

[2] [XXX] was appointed as the designated representative for the minor claimants, whom I refer to as, [XXX], [XXX], [XXX] and [XXX].

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

[4] The claims were heard jointly pursuant to Rule 55 of the Refugee Protection Division Rules. The principal claimant was appointed as the designated representative for her children, the minor claimants.

[5] In making this decision, the panel has considered the Chairperson’s Guideline 9, Proceedings Before the IRB Involving Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression and the Chairperson’s Guideline 4, Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-related Persecution.

[6] Having considered the totality of the evidence, the panel finds that the minor claimant, [XXX], that is, [XXX], is not a Convention refugee, pursuant to Section 96 of the IRPA or a person in need of protection, pursuant to subsection 97(1) of the IRPA.

[7] Counsel indicated clearly at the beginning of the hearing that he was not leading any evidence with respect to this minor claimant, a U.S. citizen.

[8] With respect to this claim, I do not have any persuasive evidence before me to suggest that the minor claimant would face a serious possibility of persecution in the U.S. or that she would face a risk of torture or a risk to her life or cruel or unusual treatment or punishment in the U.S., were she to return there.

[9] Therefore, the panel rejects the claim of the minor claimant, [XXX].

[10] The remainder of these reasons shall be in reference to the four remaining claimants.

[11] The panel finds that the claimant, [XXX], is a Convention refugee pursuant to Section 96 of the IRPA on the basis of her membership in a particular social group, namely, as bi-sexual.

[12] The panel finds that she would face a serious possibility of persecution in Nigeria.

[13] The panel finds that the female minor claimant, [XXX], is a Convention refugee, pursuant to Section 96 of IRPA on the basis of gender discrimination because she faces a serious possibility of persecution in Nigeria in so far as the principal claimant’s husband’s extended family wishes to perform female genital mutilation, FGM, upon the female minor claimant.

[14] The panel finds that the minor male claimants, [XXX] and [XXX], are Convention refugees pursuant to Section 96 of IRPA on the basis of religious belief, in so far as the principal claimant’s husbands extended family wishes to perform ritual incision upon them and they do not agree.

[15] The allegations in the claim are found in the respective Basis of Claim Forms, filed by the claimants. The claimants fear that they will be killed or seriously harmed because the principal claimant is bi-sexual and because the minor claimants have refused to undergo ritual mutilation to purge or atone for the perceived transgressions of the principal claimant.

[16] The identity and country of reference for the claimants have been established, on the balance of probabilities, by the claimants’ Nigerian passports.

[17] The principal claimant is a member of a particular social group, as a bi-sexual, as is the female minor claimant, who has been threatened with FGM. I am, therefore, satisfied on the available evidence, that the principal claimant and the female minor claimant have established a nexus to a Convention ground under Section 96 of the IRPA, on the basis of gender-based persecution.

[18] I am also satisfied, on the basis of the available evidence, the male minor claimants have established a nexus to a Convention ground under Section 96 of the IRPA, on the basis of religious belief because the male minor claimants are Christians who do not wish to undergo a ritual incision.

[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 in your Basis of Claim Form.

[20] You have explained that your difficulties in Nigeria arose in [XXX] 2018 when your sister-in-law discovered your affair with your same-sex partner and sent compromising pictures from your cellphone to your husband.

[21] Thereafter, your husband’s family became angry about your bi-sexuality and having advised the King, the claimants were each ordered to undergo a ritual cleansing through the imposition of FGM upon the minor female claimant, facial and chest incisions upon the minor male claimants and facial and genital incisions upon the principal claimant.

[22] When the principal claimant refused to attend to the appointed place for the ritual, representatives of the community attended at the home of the principal claimant, beating her and torturing her by the application of a hot iron to her abdomen and by lashing her legs with cables.

[23] The claimants fled to [XXX], where, after three weeks, the story of these events followed them and their host asked them to leave.

[24] Hence, the fled to [XXX], where the principal claimant received threatening phone calls from the agents of persecution.

[25] Thereafter, the claimants fled to Canada.

[26] I, therefore, find that your subjective fear is established by your credible testimony and the corroborating documentary evidence and I believe what you have alleged, on a balance of probabilities.

[27] I find that the agent of persecution in this case is the extended family of the husband of the female claimant, the principal claimant and the broader Nigerian community in which same-sex relationships are illegal and homophobia is the prevailing attitude.

[28] You have testified that your mother has since been beaten by representatives of your extended family in an attempt to discover your whereabouts.

[29] Your testimony is consistent with the objective documentary evidence. Exhibit 3 consists of relevant extracts of the National Documentation Package for Nigeria. At Tab 3.2, the country conditions reports confirm that, state sponsored homophobia exists in Nigeria.

[30] At Tab 5.28 and 6.12, the country conditions reports confirm the prevalence of FGM.

[31] The foregoing country conditions report is consistent with the personal experiences reported by the claimant, principal claimant.

[32] Although the country conditions reports do not specifically address the ritual mutilation ordered for the male, minor claimants, I found the testimony of the principal claimant on that matter to be compelling, consistent and credible. I am satisfied, on the basis of her testimony, that this threat did actually occur.

[33] The principal claimant’s testimony, I found, to be credible overall. It was given directly. It was broadly consistent. There were no inconsistencies that went to the heart of the claim.

[34] I find the events as described did, in fact, occur.

[35] Based on your personal circumstances, as well as, the objective country documentation, I find that you have rebutted the presumption of state protection. The country conditions reports confirm that, as a bi-sexual woman, the principal claimant would be persecuted through Nigeria.

[36] The country conditions reports confirm that the position of the police forces with respect to the enforcement of traditional norms, such as, FGM and ritual mutilation is to regard it as a family matter, rather than as a police matter.

[37] State protection is not available for you.

[38] I have also considered whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for you. The evidence shows that with respect to the persecution of a particular social group, the State is itself the agent of persecution with reach throughout the country and a motivation to pursue the principal claimant.

[39] I find that the test fails on the first prong with respect to her.

[40] With respect to the minor claimants, I find that the claimants were unsuccessful in hiding in [XXX] and that the agents of persecution would able to confirm the presence of the claimants in [XXX].

[41] Their willingness to harm the principal claimant’s mother in order to locate the claimants, demonstrates, on a balance of probabilities, that the agent of persecution has the motivation and the reach to find the claimants in Nigeria.

[42] In all the circumstances, I find the claimants have no reasonable flight alternative within Nigeria.

[43] Based on the totality of the evidence, I find the claimants to be Convention refugees and I accept their respective claims.

[44] Thank you.

[45] So, we are off the record.

[46] Returning to the record for just a moment to confirm that I have returned the original documents to Counsel.

[47] Thank you very much.

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

All Countries Nigeria

2019 RLLR 27

Citation: 2019 RLLR 27
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: October 17, 2019
Panel: Dian Forsey
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Roger Rowe
Country: Nigeria
RPD Number: TB9-02164
Associated RPD Number(s): TB9-02208, TB9-02229, TB9-02230, TB9-02231, TB9-12232
ATIP Number: A-2021-01124
ATIP Pages: 000162-000164

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: This is a decision for the claimant in file number TB9-02164. The male claimant was appointed the designated representative for the four minor children. I have also considered the Guidelines 3 and 4 with respect to look at-, looking at the evidence today. One deals with women and the other one deals with child-, with children that are before me. I’m sure Counsel’s familiar with those Guidelines.

[2] I have considered your testimony and the other evidence in this case and I am ready to render my decision.

[3] You are claiming to be citizens of Nigeria and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). I find that you are a-, that you are Convention refugees and persons in need of protection for the following reasons.

[4] You alleged the following, that you are citizens of Nigeria and of no other country. The documentation on file provided by your Counsel, which were in the form of your passports, your US visas, your educational documentation, the documentation with respect to your role within your church as a Pastor and Deacon for the female claimant, clearly, and the birth certificates also of your children, provide a basis for me to-, to declare that you are indeed citizens of Nigeria based on your testimony and supporting documentation filed in the Exhibits.

[5] Therefore, on a balance of probabilities that your identity and country of reference have been established. In terms of your general er-, credibility, I’ve found that you are ere-, were credible witness and therefore I accept what you have alleged in your oral testimony and in your Basis of Claim form. In support of your claim, you provided document-, documents confirming your role as a Pastor and your wife’s role as a Deacon within the Christian Church.

[6] You in fact performed your duties for more than seven years in that church in Nigeria. You continue today to be a parishioner of churches within Canada, which confirms to me that you are following your Christian faith. Your testimony was straightforward and in keeping with your Basis of Claim form and there were no significant inconsistency or admissions in your evidence today. Your evidence was clear, there were times when you had an opportunity to exaggerate your claim, but you did not do so. So, I find therefore that you are credible with respect to the fear that you have in returning to Nigeria.

[7] I find there is a link between your fear, there’s no–, no link between your fear and one of the five Convention grounds, therefore I’m going to assess the claim under Section 97, and that is the fear upon your return to Nigeria given your profile. The objective evidence supports your allegations that individuals in your circumstances face being persecuted by persons that you have named as Kingsman and their-, and their group and organization, this is also supported by the documentary evidence quoted by the Counsel. It speaks of the difficulty of leaving such cults once you are born into it. In this particular case, however, it appears to be particularly offensive to them, because you have become a Christian and in fact a Pastor within the Christian Church. And that was clear from the evidence in your BOC and in your oral evidence today.

[8] You have also provided me two police report and the originals of those police reports. The law and principle are clear that they do provide protection in some matters in Nigeria, but in your particular case, the practice is not always available to claimants who are bringing forth complaints about cults or the cult activity towards them. The police also appear as Counsel has alleged in his submissions under Chap. 2, page 12, and that the police appear to be discriminatory toward women with respect to traditional rituals. The claimant has spoken of those traditional rituals when speaking to me about the rituals that were performed, that would be performed on his family should he return to Nigeria.

[9] The claimants also-, claimant has also-, principal claimant has also testified that he is strong within his Christian faith and does not believe in these traditional rituals that occur within his family-, the main group of his family. He has also indicated to me that he swore to his father that he would not take on the chieftainship of-, of this family group. He also would not take it on because of-, he would lose his marriage to his wife who is a strong Christian person. He’s also fearful for his children should he take on any such position. And indeed, his own beliefs would prevent him from taking on such a role.

[10] Therefore, I find that you face a risk of serious harm, as set out in Section 97, should you return to Nigeria today. I find that adequate state protection would not be available to you were you to seek it in Nigeria. The objective evidence that I’ve stated already indicates that would not be possible for you, and more likely than not, they would continue to inform you that you should settle matters within your family and within that group.

[11] You have testified that you made attempts to seek state protection, as we-, as I’ve just spoken about, and that the State was not forthcoming to you, and in fact advised you that you should settle it among yourselves. In light of the objective con-, country documentation which counsel has referred to and is in the documents from the Board, I find that the claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection based on your personal circumstances as well as the do-, objective documentary evidence. I find that adequate state protection would not be available to you should you return to Nigeria.

[12] I’ve also considered whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for you and identified Abuja and Port Harcourt as the possible IFA locations. I’ve also that the failure to claim in the US is reasonable under their circumstances that you found yourself in that particular time and place. The Panel finds that th-, your efforts also to seek state protection is reasonable in the circum-, that your efforts to seek state protection is reasonable under the circumstances that you found yourself in, in that particular time and place in Nigeria, and I have two report-, police reports that both indicate they had referred you back to the group to be able to negotiate some sort of arrangement with them. Which seems highly unlikely given the documentation about these cults.

[13] The-, in this particular case, I just want to point out that the claimant’s profile is heightened by his work within his Christian Church as a Pastor. He would be well known and would make it even easier to find in Nigeria, should he be seriously sought by these groups of people, and there’s no doubt from the evidence that he would be continued to be sought by this group, should he return to Nigeria.

[14] The country documentation indicates that the situation for individuals, in circumstances such as yours, would be the same throughout the country because of your profile as a Christian Pastor in the church. So, having considered your personal circumstances, I found it unreasonable for you to relocate in either of the IFA locations. I therefore find it would not be reasonable in the circumstances that you have indicated to reside in any of the IFAs. As such, I find there is no viable flight-, internal flight alternative for you and or your family in Nigeria today.

[15] Therefore, based on the totality of the evidence, I find you to be a person-, to be a person in need of protection, your claim is therefore accepted.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

All Countries China

2019 RLLR 26

Citation: 2019 RLLR 26
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 2, 2019
Panel: Daniel Mckeown
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Mohammed Tohti
Country: China
RPD Number: TB8-31053
Associated RPD Number(s): TB8-31087, TB8-31110
ATIP Number: A-2021-01124
ATIP Pages: 000159-000161

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: I’ve considered the testimony and evidence in this claim and I am now prepared to render a decision in IRB file number TB8-31053. The claimants seek refugee protection against China pursuant to Sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. For the following reasons, the Panel finds that the claimants are Convention refugees and this claim is accepted.

[2] This claim was based on the following allegations. The claimants are ethnic Uyghurs. They left China in 2014 so that the adult male claimant could work in Malaysia fearing current pol-, Chinese policies towards Uyghurs. The claimants fear for their lives if they were to return to China. The claimants left Malaysia and came to Canada on November 20^th, 2018. They signed their Basis of Claims on December 8^th, 2018.

[3] The identity of the claimants were established on the basis of their Chinese passports. The originals of which were seized by the Minister.

[4] The Panel had no significant concerns about this claim. There was one potential exclusion issue, given that the claimants had Malaysian residence permits in their passports. However, those residence permits are also-, also clearly state that their residence was dependent upon the validity of their passports. Which means that in order for the claimants to continue legally residing in Malaysia, they would have to renew their passports with the Chinese government at some point in the foreseeable future. Given the claimants ethnicity and the government of China is the agent of persecution, it would not be reasonable to expect the claimants to have their Chinese passports renewed. They could not reasonably exercise any right to residency in Malaysia, therefore even if it was available to them and of akin to Malaysian citizenship.

[5] The sole determinative issue in Uyghurs-, in Uyghur claims in this Panel’s view is the identity of the claimants as Uyghur. That is because of the brutally persecutory nature of the Chinese government towards the Uyghur people. This Panel has access to reliable and credible resources such as the U.K. Home Office report and the US DOS report. Each of which make clear that the Chinese government has oppressed the Uyghur people in virtually every aspect of their lives. Some reports even suggest that as many as two million Uyghur people are now detained in concentration camps.

[6] The country conditions evidence is suggestive that the Chinese policy of assimilation has now arguably moved into the realm of genocide. For this reason, in this Panel’s view, identity as an ethnic Uyghur is sufficient to establish persecution.

[7] In this claim, the claimant presented their passports which noted their places of birth in [XXX] province. The claimants spoke Uyghur. And the Panel had no reason to disbelieve any of the evidence or testimony. The Panel finds that the claimants are indeed likely ethnic Uyghurs. Whereas the State is the agent of persecution, the claimants have rebutted the presumption that state protection would be adequate and forthcoming to them. Likewise, there is no location in China where they can go where they would not face a serious possibility of persecution.

[8] For all these reasons, the Panel finds that this claim is credible. The claimants’ fear is well-founded. The claimants face a serious possibility of persecution on account of their ethnicity.

[9] The claimants are Convention refugees and this claim is accepted.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

All Countries Turkey

2019 RLLR 25

Citation: 2019 RLLR 25
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 16, 2019
Panel: Jiyoung Kim
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Cemal Acikgoz
Country: Turkey
RPD Number: TB8-29430
ATIP Number: A-2021-01124
ATIP Pages: 000156-000158

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: You’re claiming to be a citizen of Turkey, and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to Section 96 and 97 Subsection of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I find that you are a Convention refugee for the following reason.

[2] For making this decision and in formulating questions for the hearing, I considered Chairperson’s Guideline 9, with regarding to proceedings before the Immigration and Refugee Board involving claims of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression.

[3] You allege the following. That you are a citizen of Turkey, and that if you were to return, you will face persecution as a member in a particular social group, which is your sexual orientation. You also allege that your work, that criticized the conservative society in Turkey, led you to be targeted by the police in addition to your sexual orientation. In addition, you alleged that you will be considered as a draft dodger by the Turkish authorities since the extension to the deferral from the mandatory service ended. You allege that there is no state protection for you or an internal flight alternative.

[4] Your personal identity as a citizen of Turkey has been established by your oral testimony and the supporting documents, which is your passports. I find that on a balance of probabilities that identity and country of reference have been established.

[5] I find that there is a link between what you fear and one of the five Convention grounds, specifically particular social group, namely your sexual orientation. Therefore, I assessed your claim under Section 96.

[6] 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 in your Basis of Claim form. In support of your claim you provided documents for your claim, including the letters from your mother, friends, medical report and photographs. Your oral testimony was straightforward and was largely in keeping with your Basis of Claim form and there were no significant inconsistencies or omissions that went to the heart of the claim. I therefore find the following to be credible. That you are a bisexual man facing persecution in Turkey due to your sexual orientation.

[7] Your o-, oral testimony today included details regarding your initial revelation that you are also attr-, attracted to person of the same gender as well as person of the opposite gender. You also provided details regarding your same-sex relationships in Turkey and the violence you faced from the society as well as from the police that led you to believe that you were targeted by the state authorities. You also provided details about your activities in Turkey such as attending the pride parade, which led to your detainment by the police, and attending social events hosted by the LGBTQ+ focus groups in Turkey. You also provided documents in support of your testimony that you are a bisexual man, those documents include letters of support from your friends, your parents, photographs and the membership statement from the 519 Organization. Your testimony and the supporting documentation all established that you are a bisexual man.

[8] The objective documentation supports your allegation that individuals in your circumstance face human rights abuse for LGBT person, and that although there’s no law that criminalize LGBTQ+ communities, the provisions of law on offences against public morality, protection of family, and unnatural sexual behaviour are used as a basis for abuse according to NDP dated March 29, 2019 Item 2.1. Bans on LGBTQ+ events by the State officials in recent years as demonstrated in NDP Item 2.7, show that the LGBTQ+ communities and their members face discrimination and violence based on their sexual orientation and gender identity. Information on both the NDP and the country condition package submitted by the counsel Exhibit 4, all corroborate the heightened level of violence against the LGBTQ+ communities and their rights by the State authorities. I therefore find that you have a well-founded fear of persecution.

[9] I find that adequate state protection will not be available to you if you were to seek it in Turkey. You testified that you never sought prate-, state protection because the State will be unwilling to protect you, and because the police were the ones who were targeting you. And this is corroborated by the objective documentary evidence dat-, it indicates that NDP Item 1.14, that the government is unable or unwilling to protect vulnerable LGBTQ+ people from viol-, violence and discrimination. Impunity for crimes against LGBTQ+ individuals continue to be reported as a problem. And that according to NDP 2.1, there is no protection based on sexual orientation or gender identity on the criminal code. In light of the objective country documentation, I find that the claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection. Based on your personal circumstances as well as the objective country documentation, I find that the adequate state protection will not be available to you, as the state will be unwilling and unable to protect you in Turkey.

[10] As you have rebutted the presumption of state protection and since the country documentation indicates that the situation for individuals in circumstances such as yours is the same throughout the country, I find that you do not have a viable internal flight alternative.

[11] Based on the totality of evidence, I find that you have established that there is a serious possibility of persecution on the Convention grounds, namely your membership in a particular social group as a bisexual person. I therefore find that you are a Convention refugee and I accept your claim.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-