Categories
All Countries Cameroon

2019 RLLR 122

Citation: 2019 RLLR 122
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 19, 2019
Panel: R. Jackson
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Solomon Orjiwuru
Country: Cameroon
RPD Number: TB7-12430
ATIP Number: A-2021-00256
ATIP Pages: 000026-000029


DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: This is the decision of [XXX], who claims to be a citizen of Cameroon and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[2]       The panel finds the claimant is a Convention Refugee on the grounds of his membership in a particular social group, that of bisexual man in Cameroon, for the following reasons.

[3]       In rendering its reasons, the panel has considered the Chairperson’s Guideline Number 9 proceedings before the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada involving sexual orientation and gender identity and expression.

[4]       The claimant has alleged that he identifies as bisexual. He alleges he has had a few same-sex relationships in Cameroon. He was married to a woman in Canada and they have divorced because she discovered that he had been carrying on a same-sex relationship in Canada.

[5]       He claimed refugee protection as he cannot live openly as a bisexual in Cameroon and fears persecution, arrest and discrimination at the hands of the family of his ex-wife, the community and the government due to his sexual orientation.

[6]       The claimant’s identity as a national of Cameroon is established by his testimony and the supporting documentation filed including a certified true copy of his passport in Exhibit 1.

[7]       His identity as a bisexual is established by his credible testimony and the supporting documentation filed including a letter from the claimant’s mother, a copy of her identity card, a letter from the claimant’s former landlord as well as the claimant’s divorce documents, wherein his sexual orientation is discussed. The supporting documentation does not establish the claimant’s sexual orientation all by itself, but it does support his allegations in that regard.

[8]       The claimant’s testimony regarding his sexual orientation was believable including how he described his relationships with his same-sex partners in Cameroon and in Canada.

[9]       The panel accepts that the claimant is bisexual because, in that regard, his testimony was coherent, spontaneous and he generally provided a sufficient level of detail when explaining his same-sex relationships with men. For these reasons, the panel finds that he has established his identity as a bisexual man on a balance of probabilities.

[10]     The panel also finds that his allegations are supported by the country documentation, which is found at the National Documentation Package for Cameroon, Items 2.1, 6.1, 6.4 and 6.6, which indicate that consensual same-sex sexual activity is illegal and punishable by a prison sentence of 6 months to 5 years and a fine.

[11]     Cameroon prosecutes people for consensual same-sex conduct more aggressively than almost any country in the world. Cameroon’s anti-homosexuality law is easily subject to abuse and can be used by virtually anyone as a method of settling scores.

[12]     It is also a recipe for extortion. There are numerous examples of sexual minorities who were arrested or who were victims of violence, similarly grave violations of human rights because of a person’s real or perceived sexual orientation has become common in Cameroon.

[13]     The climate in that country is marked by pervasive homophobia. Ordinary citizens often express extreme hatred towards LGBT individuals. In Cameroon, it is common to link homosexuality to witchcraft.

[14]     Given the claimant’s credible testimony, the objective country condition evidence and the supporting documents the claimant filed, the panel finds that the claimant would face a serious possibility of persecution in Cameroon based on his sexual orientation.

[15]     Based on his personal circumstances, the panel finds that it would be objectively unreasonable for him to seek the protection of the State, and in any event the State protection would not be reasonably forthcoming; the police are one of the agents of persecution.

[16]     It is very clear from the objective documentation that there is no State protection available to sexual minorities in Cameroon, same-sex acts are illegal in Cameroon and the NDP indicates that police do arrest people for engaging in consensual same-sex sexual activity.

[17]     A report by the Finnish Immigration Service at Item 6.4 states that when LGBTI people seek protection from abuse in their communities, police officers fail to protect these individuals.

[18]     Police officers not only discriminate against LGBTI individuals, but also engage in harassment and violence against them. The threat of arrest for homosexual conduct can deter LGBTI individuals from reporting crimes committed against them, and those committing the abuse have done so with impunity.

[19]     Given the documentary evidence, the panel finds there is clear and convincing evidence that adequate State protection is not available to the claimant.

[20]     The panel has considered whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for the claimant. On the evidence before the panel, there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Cameroon.

[21]     Given that homophobia is widespread in Cameroon, the homosexual acts are illegal throughout all of Cameroon and there is no State protection throughout the whole of Cameroon, the panel finds there is no place the claimant could go in Cameroon where he could live openly as a bisexual man. For these reasons, the panel finds there is no viable internal flight alternative for him.

[22]     So, in conclusion, the panel finds that he is a Convention refugee and therefore accepts his claim.

[23]     This hearing is now concluded. So, thank you both for your participation today.

[24]     COUNSEL: Thank you so much.

[25]     CLAIMANT: Thank you.

[26]     MEMBER: You’re welcome.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Categories
All Countries Cameroon

2019 RLLR 121

Citation: 2019 RLLR 121
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: August 19, 2019
Panel: W. Short
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Pablo Andres Irribarra Valdes
Country: Cameroon
RPD Number: TB7-23504
ATIP Number: A-2021-00256
ATIP Pages: 000023-000025


DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: This is my decision with respect to the claim of [XXX]. This is a 22-year-old man who is a citizen of Cameroon and he claims to be a Convention Refugee or a person in need of protection pursuant to the provisions of Section 96 and Subsection 97.1 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[2]       The claimant alleges that should he return to Cameroon he would be in danger of his life and safety because of his sexual orientation as a gay man.

[3]       The claimant alleges that he became aware of his sexuality at around the age of 15 when he discovered while participating in sports he was much more attracted to his fellow male players and he was not attracted at all to females.

[4]       His problems became manifest when he was caught having an affair according to his evidence with a student teacher. He has also given oral evidence today as to how he was attacked by a mob and was rescued by the police but he was also arrested and he was put in hospital and the police checked on him every day.

[5]       He has testified to the fact that he has a couple of friends, male friends in Canada and I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the individual is a gay man.

[6]       I noticed that he arrived in Canada on [XXX], 2017 but did not claim refugee protection until two months later. When he was in Canada at first he was on a student visa.

[7]       Now, the student visa had been illegally obtained but I still take the approach that since it would have been difficult for the authorities to have deported the claimant during those two months he should be forgiven for the delay. He also said that he did not realize that he would apply immediately for refugee protection but was advised so by the gay help group, 519.

[8]       Therefore, I have determined that should the claimant return to Cameroon he would face more than a mere possibility of persecution on account of his sexuality which is a connection to one of the five grounds which define a Convention Refugee.

[9]       I am looking at Item 6.1 of the National Documentation Package. This is response to information request by this board and it is CMR106270.FE, it is dated May 8, 2019 and it says according to sources homosexual acts are illegal in Cameroon and the Penal Code provides for up to five years in prison for sexual activity with a same-sex partner.

[10]     Sources report that the section of the law penalizing homosexuality was retained during a reform of the Penal Code adopted in 2016. The Penal Code provides that whoever has sexual relations with a person of the same sex shall be punished by imprisonment from six months to five years and to a fine. Sources report that sexual minorities are subject to arrest and prosecution.

[11]     Cameroon prosecutes people with consensual same-sex conduct more aggressively than almost any other country in the word this report says; quoting an NGO. According to sources arrests and prosecution are based on suspicion rather than evidence and the Cameroonian authorities are in the main (inaudible) sexual gender and minorities instead of performing their function of protecting their citizens.

[12]     Not only that but the claimant’s testimony indicates that the attitude of the populous at large is very, very homophobic and it would be dangerous for him to be exposed to these individuals and he could expect no help whatsoever or protection from the police.

[13]     For these reasons I believe that the claimant has made out his case.

[14]     I find that he therefore is a Convention Refugee and his claim for refugee protection is accepted.

[15]     This oral decision will be transcribed into writing and it may be edited for grammar and syntax and we are now off the record.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Categories
All Countries Venezuela

2019 RLLR 120

Citation: 2019 RLLR 120
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: October 16, 2019
Panel: R. Andrachuk
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Maureen Silcoff
Country: Venezuela
RPD Number: TB7-22939
ATIP Number: A-2021-00256
ATIP Pages: 000004-000008


DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: Mr. [XXX], I have considered all your evidence, your documentary evidence and your evidence and I am ready to render my decision orally.

[2]       You, Mr. [XXX], claim to be a citizen on Venezuela and you seek refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and Section 97 (1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[3]       And, in considering your claim for protection, I have considered the Chairperson’s Guidelines, Guideline Number 9, on proceeding before the IRB involving sexual orientation and gender identity and expression.

[4]       In regard to your identity as a citizen of Venezuela, I find that I am satisfied that you are a citizen of Venezuela and I am most satisfied with your personal identity based on the certified copy of your passport the original of which is being held by the CBSA.

[5]       The details of your allegations appear in your Basis of Claim Form and in your oral testimony. The main allegations are that you are afraid to return to your country of nationality Venezuela because you fear persecution based on your sexual orientation of being a homosexual.

[6]       You claim that you are a gay and you’ve known of your sexual orientation, you’ve known that you were different from childhood and knew about your sexual orientation from above the age of 13.

[7]       You didn’t appear to have experienced serious persecution, discrimination or persecution in Venezuela basically because you didn’t live openly as a gay man.

[8]       The only people that you came out to were apparently at the age of 15 when you admitted that you are a gay too, two of your best friends who were also gay and a year before coming to Canada you told your mother about your sexual orientation.

[9]       However, many people suspected that you are a gay because of the way you acted first as a child playing with girls mainly and later on for a variety of reasons they suspected that you were not heterosexual and you experienced a lot of verbal harassment.

[10]     However, you were able to attend school and complete university and there were no physical attacks on you except once in grade 6.

[11]     However, when you had a relationship with your boyfriend [XXX] which began when you were 17 and which lasted until you came to Canada there were two occasions when you were stopped or when you were accosted by police because in the first occasion you were kissing in the car and the police basically extorted a camera and a computer from you for releasing you. Otherwise, they would have caused you problems because of public demonstration of sexual behaviour or alleged public demonstrations of sexual behaviour and there was a second time when the policemen also accosted you and extorted money from you.

[12]     Since coming to Canada you have come out of the closet and lived openly as a gay man. You believe that if you return to Venezuela or you fear that if you return to Venezuela that you will face a serious possibility of persecution because of your sexual orientation and if you were to live there openly as a gay man.

[13]     My determination is that you are a Convention refugee for the following reasons:

[14]     In regard to credibility I find that your testimony was internally consistent with the other evidence that you presented, in particular the documentary evidence that you presented as well is also consistent with the documentary evidence and country conditions.

[15]     In fact, your homosexual orientation and the rest of your allegation are corroborated by documents in Exhibit 4 which you provided in support of your claim and I have no reason to discount them, as well as you presented a persuasive psychological report in Exhibit 6.

[16]     You also presented evidence from your boyfriend, your former boyfriend in Venezuela, and also letters from your current boyfriend in Canada, [XXX] (ph). I note that [XXX] (ph) was listed as a witness and appeared here today ready to testify on your behalf.

[17]     I therefore find that you are a credible witness and I find that you have established that you are a gay and I find on the balance of probabilities the rest of your allegations are also true.

[18]     I also find that you have established that you continue to, that live a gay lifestyle in Canada and that you are involved in LGBTQ activities. The documentary evidence before me and country conditions establish that Venezuela is a seriously dangerous place for LGBTQ persons.

[19]     I note particularly the RIR from 2014 which is reprinted in the Exhibit, in the current NDP Package in Exhibit 3, referenced in Exhibit 3.

[20]     I did note one concern which is the delay in claiming but I accept your explanation as to why you didn’t make an immediate refugee claim when you came to Canada.

[21]     For you to be found a refugee you must demonstrate that there is a serious possibility of persecution if you return to a country of origin as well as that there is no, that you wouldn’t receive adequate State protection there.

[22]     In considering your prospective return to Venezuela, I have taken into consider your personal profile and your particular situation at the present time, also taking into consideration the objective evidence regarding the current situation in Venezuela particularly for homosexual men in Exhibit 3 which is the National Documentation Package, I note that Tabs 2.1, 2.4, 2.8, 6.1 and 6.2, I find that your allegations are consistent with the objective evidence on the file which confirms that there is a violence and discrimination against the LGBTQ community in Venezuela, and that members of sexual minorities in Venezuela are subject to social stigma, prejudice, acts of violence, discrimination, exclusion, threats and ill treatment.

[23]     They are also subject to discrimination when they seek healthcare in the field of employment and in public places.

[24]     Although I do note that there is evidence that there is certain gay infrastructure in Venezuela; however, the objective evidence also indicates that there is no general openness about demonstrating a person’s sexual orientation in public if that person is homosexual.

[25]     I also note that homosexuality is not illegal in Venezuela. However, there is no specific law which protects against crimes based on sexual orientation or sexual identity although everyone according to the law is to be treated equally no matter what their sexual identity.

[26]     There is, as I said equality before the law for all persons and the law prohibits discrimination based on sex or social condition, but the law does not explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

[27]     And, there is evidence that the Supreme Court ruling in Venezuela states that no individual may be discriminated against because of sexual orientation has rarely been enforced.

[28]     Considering the entirety of the evidence I find that the treatments suffered by the persons of the LGBT community in Venezuela may constitute persecution.

[29]     As your counsel pointed out, in your particular case your occupation makes you more visible to the public and therefore would attract more notice for you as a gay man and then may lead to more discrimination and persecution.

[30]     You are not expected to hide your sexual orientation in order to ensure your safety and security. And, I find that based on the objective evidence, it demonstrates that if you, that you may suffer discrimination, violence amounting to persecution if you were to live as openly as a gay man.

[31]     Therefore I conclude that you have met your burden of proof and have demonstrated that you face a serious possibility of persecution based on a Convention ground if you return to Venezuela which is a membership in a particular social group, persons who fear discrimination persecution based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

[32]     I find that there is not adequate State protection for you in Venezuela. In coming to this conclusion I have taken into consideration of your personal profile and your particular situation at this time.

[33]     Also the interaction you experienced on two occasions with the police indicates that you yourself already found that the police themselves are involved in some cases in persecuting LGBTQ minority and therefore it would be difficult to expect they would also provide protection for you.

[34]     As indicated, the reports indicate that although discrimination based on sexual orientation is barred, LGBTQ community members faced widespread discrimination and are occasionally subjected to violence.

[35]     So, therefore considering the entirety of the evidence, I find that there is clear and convincing evidence that at this time that Venezuelan authorities are unable or unwilling to provide you with adequate protection and therefore I find that the presumption of State protection has been rebutted in your particular circumstances.

[36]     So, considering your personal situation and the current situation for the LGBT community in Venezuela, I find that there is a serious possibility of persecution for you throughout the country of Venezuela.

[37]     In conclusion, based on all these reasons, I conclude that you are a Convention refugee and the Refugee Protection Division accepts your claim. Congratulations, and I hope you lead a happy life in Canada.

[38]     CLAIMANT: Thank you so much. Thank you.

[39]     COUNSEL: Thank you.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Categories
All Countries Iran

2019 RLLR 119

Citation: 2019 RLLR 119
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: May 16, 2019
Panel: I. Singh
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Brian Ibrahim Cintosun
Country: Iran
RPD Number: TB9-01998
ATIP Number: A-2021-00256
ATIP Pages: 000001-000003


[1]       MEMBER: I have considered your testimony and the other evidence in the case, and I am ready to render my decision orally. I would like to add that written reasons will be issued, and the written form of these reasons may be edited for spelling, syntax, and grammar, and references to the applicable case law and documentary evidence may also be included.

[2]       You, the Claimant, [XXX] you claim to be a male citizen of Iran, and you are claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[3]       Determination: I find that you are a Convention refugee for the following reasons:

[4]       I find that you have established a serious possibility of persecution based upon the Convention ground of membership in a particular social group based on your sexual orientation as a gay man.

[5]       Allegations: Your allegations are contained in your Basis of Claim form, and I won’t repeat them all here, but in summary, you allege the following:

[6]       You fear returning to Iran because you identify as a gay man, which is illegal in Iran.

[7]       Analysis/Identity: Your identity as a national of Iran is established by your testimony and a certified true copy of your Iranian passport found in Exhibit 1.

[8]       Credibility: Although I had some minor credibility concerns with your testimony, overall, I have found you to be a credible witness on a balance of probabilities and therefore believe what you have alleged in support of your claim. You testified in a straightforward manner without embellishment and there were no relevant inconsistencies in your testimony or contradictions between your testimony and the other evidence before me that were not satisfactorily explained.

[9]       Well-founded fear, state protection, and internal flight alternative: As it relates to the well-foundedness of your fear of persecution, I find that your subjective fear has an objective basis based on the objective documentary evidence before me. In the National Documentation Package, which is Exhibit 3, it confirms that same sex acts are criminalized in Iran, and gay men who are arrested are reported to suffer a range of human rights violations in detention, which range from harassment to physical torture. The test in assessing your risk of harm is forward-looking. You testified credibly about your fears regarding returning to Iran and the treatment you would receive. Your testimony was consistent with the country conditions in Iran, as reported in the documentary evidence. Thus, there is an objective basis to support your fears based upon your sexual orientation.

[10]     So having considered all this evidence before me, and your testimony which I believe to be credible on a balance of probabilities, I find that your fear of persecution is well-founded and you face a serious possibility of persecution in Iran due to your sexual orientation. Given that it’s the Iranian Government and authorities that you fear, I find it would be objectively unreasonable for you to seek the protection of the Iranian Government in light of your particular circumstances. I also find that you face a serious possibility of persecution throughout Iran, given that the documentary evidence shows the state authorities operate similarly throughout Iran. Therefore, I do not find that you have a viable internal flight alternative within Iran.

[11]     Conclusion: I conclude that you are a Convention refugee, and I therefore accept your claim.

[12]     And that concludes the decision and the hearing.

— DECISION CONCLUDED

Categories
All Countries Somalia

2019 RLLR 118

Citation: 2019 RLLR 118
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 6, 2019
Panel: Isis van Loon
Country: Somalia
RPD Number: VB8-04737
ATIP Number: A-2020-01459
ATIP Pages: 000233-000241


— DECISION AND REASONS BY THE MEMBER

[1]       PRESIDING MEMBER: [XXX], the claimant, seeks refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[2]       In rendering my reasons, I have considered and applied the Chairperson’s Guidelines On Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-related Persecution. I have also considered the claimant’s level of education and life experiences.

Allegations

[3]       The claimant was married by her father’s arrangement to the son of a [XXX] in Korlari (ph) in December of 2016. She was about 16 years old when this marriage was arranged. Her husband was abusive and on April 7th of 2018 while they visited her parents’ house an al-Shabaab raid on the home took her father and her husband and the al­ Shabaab later killed them.

[4]       After this her father-in-law attempted to force the claimant to marry his other son. As a minority clan member, she had no protection from this and she fled the country with the assistance of her family. If she returns to Somalia, her father-in-law will find her and force her to marry his other son who she fears will also abuse her.

[5]       I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee as she’s established a well-founded fear of persecution based on a Convention ground.

[6]       In terms of identity, the claimant does not have a passport or a birth certificate. She spoke Somali as would be expected of a person of Somali origin. She provided a number of documents to support her identity. Exhibit 4, page 2 is a letter from the Manitoba Somali Association and it describes the lengths that they went to confirm her membership in the minority Shanshee (ph) clan as well as her origins in the Qoryoley town area in Somalia.

[7]       This Manitoba Somali Association described interviewing a Mr. [XXX] (ph) who had known her family in Somalia and they lived in the same area. The committee compared notes on this interview with Mr. [XXX] and with responses to questions they’d asked the claimant, found them consistent. They also interviewed other Somalis from the same area with respect to descriptions and landmarks. Based on all their research they were able to confirm the claimant is a Shanshee clan member and a citizen of Somalia.

[8]       At Exhibit 4, page 3, the Winnipeg Somali Community president confirms that elders also interviewed the claimant and found she had knowledge consistent with a Shanshee person from Qoryoley.

[9]       Exhibit 4, page 8 is a statement from [XXX] himself who also became a witness to this hearing. He testified that he lived in the same neighbourhood and that he’d known her parents better than her but he knew her briefly when he was a child and she was a child.

[10]     He testified that he was from Qoryoley and he remembered the parents a little because he’d left when he was young and he did confirm that she was of the minority clan Shanshee.

[11]     Exhibit 4, page 5 is from the claimant’s mother who provided an affidavit from an advocate in Nairobi dated July 9th of 2019 and her affidavit confirmed that her daughter was of the Shanshee clan.

[12]     The claimant said that she didn’t have any identity documents because she was from a minority clan and it was very difficult to get documents in Somalia, particularly with respect to being a minority clan as what documents that you were able to get was pretty much controlled by the majority clans and that if anything is to be issued, it’s a very long process and she didn’t have much time. She needed to leave the country in a hurry.

[13]     The country documents state consistently that record-keeping where it exists is poor in Somalia. The Executive Director of the Somali Canadian Association of Etobicoke in the NDP 3.9 actually stated that due to the civil war all personal records had been destroyed. Seen in this light, the claimant’s lack of formal identity documents appears consistent with country conditions.

[14]     It’s pretty easy in Somalia, according to the country documents, to obtain fraudulent passports and fraudulent identity cards so the fact that the claimant has neither a passport nor any other identification card is not necessarily detrimental to her claim.

[15]     Based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the claimant is who she says she is and that she is a member of the Shanshee minority clan and a citizen of Somalia.

Credibility

[16]     When a claimant swears to the truthfulness of certain facts, there is a presumption that what the claimant has said is true unless there is sufficient reason to doubt its truthfulness. The presumption before me is that your testimony is true; however, this could be rebutted in appropriate circumstances such as inconsistencies, contradictions, omissions and undetailed testimony.

[17]     That was not the case here. In this case, the claimant was straightforward and forthcoming. She provided detailed testimony on many aspects of her life and experiences and why she had to leave Somalia.

[18]     There were no relevant inconsistencies in her testimony or contradictions between her testimony and other evidence before me.  She didn’t seem to embellish events and actions even when it could have appeared favourable to her claim.

[19]     I found her to be a credible witness and therefore I believe what she has alleged in support of her claim.

[20]     As well she provided a number of relevant and probative documents. As previously discussed, there were statements verifying her identity in Exhibit 4. As well, Exhibit 4, page 8 was the witness statement which confirmed the forced marriages and some of the risks that minority clan members face.

[21]     As well, her uncle and her mother both verified in their affidavits that the father-in-law had been trying to force the claimant to marry the brother of her deceased husband and both of them, I note, have now escaped to Kenya as a result of the claimant’s actions it became dangerous for them to remain as the majority clan had insisted that the claimant stay and get married. When she didn’t do that it put her family at risk and they fled to Kenya.

[22]     So I found these documents were relevant and helpful in confirming and corroborating the claimant’s documents and testimony.

[23]     In terms of a nexus, I found the persecution that the claimant faces has a nexus to one of the Convention grounds, that of membership in a particular social group as a woman, as well specifically she is a minority clan woman and she’s at risk of forced marriage and, in fact, has already experienced that one time.

[24]     Therefore, I have assessed this claim under section 96.

Well-founded fear

[25]     In order to be considered a Convention refugee, a claimant must demonstrate that they have a well-founded fear of persecution.  This includes a subjective basis and an objective basis for this fear and I note also that it must be forward-looking.

[26]     Based on the claimant’s testimony, supporting documents, the witness testimony, the country condition documents, I find the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution for the following reasons.

[27]     In terms of the subjective basis, her abusive husband was killed by al-Shabaab around the 18th of April, 2018.  Shortly after this, her father-in-law demanded that she marry his other son who she had seen was equally abusive. Shortly after that, she fled to Mogadishu, hiding while she was making arrangements to leave. She left the country on [XXX] for Ethiopia initially, stayed there until [XXX] of 2018 under the advice of an agent who she’d employed to assist her.

[28]     She left Ethiopia and arrived in Toronto on [XXX], 2018 and from there drove to Winnipeg and claimed asylum, signing her Basis of Claim form on the 28th of August of 2018.

[29]     I find the claimant has adduced sufficient credible evidence by her testimony as well as by her actions to establish a subjective fear of persecution in Somalia.

[30]     I asked the claimant what made her leave the country and she said that she’d explained to her uncle that she did not want to marry the brother of her husband. Her uncle told her that if she refused they would be killed together.

[31]     I asked her then, so why did you go and she said: I felt that he could torture, or abuse or beat me – referring to this brother – and I was escaping to avoid this. She said very clearly, I wasn’t going to undergo a forced marriage.

[32]     She told me that a female is always the victim and that if you were in the minority and you were a female you are even more at risk.  She described her life in Somalia, how she’d been forced to marry at about age 16, the abuse that she’d endured and that she had no recourse but to suffer this abuse.

[33]     She spoke of her escape and what she did staying under the radar while she was in Mogadishu and her efforts to find a way out of the country.

[34]     The witness offered testimony and he described the situation in Somalia for women with an experience that he had had, where a sister-in-law had been married to his cousin. Now, the witness was also from a minority clan, a different one from the claimant but he was from a minority clan. He said that majority clan people came and took the sister-in-law by force from her cousin, to whom she was married, and they married her to one of their members. After the sister-in-law died, they came and took her younger sister and they also forcibly married her. He said this is like a normal thing and there was nothing that anyone can do. He said it is like that everywhere.

[35]     The country documentation is consistent with the claimant and the witness’s testimony of persecution and the risks in Somalia. Forced marriage is deeply rooted in Somali culture and its interpretation of Islamic practices according to the NDP 5.2. Harmful practices such as forced marriages are still taking place and are common although they are constitutionally against the law.

[36]     Women’s rights and physical integrity are challenged by religious and customary practices, including polygamy, forced marriage and wife-inheritance. Gender-based violence is widespread in Somalia according to Human Rights Watch.

[37]     In terms of widow inheritance, there’s actually a name for that, duma (ph), and it means that a widow marries her deceased husband’s brother. Apparently there’s a report in a book called Culture and Customs of Somalia that this tradition is dying out but that it is probably more frequent in rural areas than in towns.

[38]     I asked the claimant what her place of residence was like and she described a place where there were farms even within the town as well as farms around the town. She described livestock. In fact, her bride price was ten goats paid to her father. As a minority clan member, she said she was only worth ten goats to them. If she’d been of a majority clan, it would have involved large sums of money and goats and camels as well.

[39]     So, while the tradition may be dying out according to that one source, I’ve heard the credible claimant’s testimony as well as corroboration and documents from the uncle who was involved with this second marriage that was to be arranged as well as the mother and, of course, there is the testimony of the witness who said that this type of thing is very common in that part of Somalia and generally in Somalia.

[40]     Again, as I said the country documents confirm that sexual and gender-based violence are serious concerns throughout Somalia and a woman without family, friends or clan connections or without resources in general is likely to be at risk of sexual and gender­ based violence upon her return.

[41]     There’s a report called No One Cries for Them: The Predicament Faces Somalia’s Minority Women. This report paints a grim picture of the human rights situation affecting women generally in Somalia and minority women in particular based on the various historical, social, economic, and political factors, including traditional religious and clan structures compounded by years of violence, poverty and famine. This has made Somalia one of the worst places in the world for women, according to this report.

[42]     The report highlights how women’s rights and those of minority women in particular are ignored by the majority population, how they are violated with impunity. The plight of women during the last two decades of conflict has been characterized by displacement, rape, gender-based violence, etcetera, etcetera, inadequate or non-existent political representation and lack of access to economic and social rights and these are some of the grim realities that women of Somalia in general and especially minority women continue to endure today.

[43]     Based on all the evidence before me, I find that the claimant would face a senous possibility of persecution if she were to return to Somalia.

State protection

[44]     Except in situations where the state is in complete breakdown, states must be presumed capable of protecting their citizens. To rebut this presumption there is an onus on the claimant to establish on a balance of probabilities with clear and convincing evidence that their state’s protection is inadequate.

[45]     I find that adequate state protection would not be forthcoming in this particular case and there is clear and convincing evidence that rebuts on a balance of probabilities a presumption of state protection.

[46]     Women in Somalia do not have the same rights as men and they’ve experienced systematic subordination to men despite provisions in the federal constitution, a weak judiciary, as well as misogynist traditional and tribal laws and practices work against women. In general, a woman fearing sexual or gender-based violence is unlikely to be able to access effective protection from the state according to the NDP 5.5 which is from the United Kingdom Home Office.

[47]     Gender-based violence is widespread. Constitutional protections are largely limited to the paper that they are written on and they are not available in practice. Most incidents go unreported. There is a culture of impunity. It is a serious and according to recent reports increasing problem.

[48]     Domestic violence such as the claimant experienced is generally accepted with 76% of women aged 15 to 49 believing that a husband is justified in beating his wife for burning the food, refusing sexual relations, or arguing with him. Thus, the claimant who endured domestic violence from her late husband and was then faced with forced marriage to her equally abusive brother-in-law is in the minority. She’s a woman who did not agree with this and she actually fled the situation in disagreement with her in-law’s demands and the cultural expectations.

[49]     Thus I find there is clear and convincing evidence demonstrating on a balance of probabilities the state is unable or unwilling to provide this claimant with adequate protection and the presumption of state protection has been rebutted.

[50]     An internal flight alternative arises when someone who meets all the elements of the definition of a Convention refugee in their home area of the country nevertheless is not a Convention refugee because they could live safely elsewhere in the country.

[51]     The test for this has two prongs. I’d have to be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that there would be no serious possibility of persecution in the part of the country to which I found an IFA exists; and, conditions in the part of the country considered to be an IFA must be such that it would not be unreasonable in all circumstances, including those particular to the claimant for her to seek refuge there.

[52]     Looking at this second part, I do find that it would be unreasonable in all circumstances, including those particular to the claimant, for her to seek refuge there, anywhere, in Somalia and this is why.

[53]     First off, the claimant testified that if you’re seen as Westernized, i.e. you’ve lived in a Western country for any period of time as the claimant has now done for over a year, you can be seen as a spy and be treated very poorly.

[54]     I asked the witness as well if there was anywhere in all of Somalia that the claimant could be safe and he said that she wouldn’t be able to survive anywhere else if her clan was not there and that she’s from a minority clan and it’s only in that general area. As she testified earlier there are some clan members in Mogadishu and in Qoryoley area.

[55]     The witness said that if the claimant goes back she’11 end up right back in the hands of the people that she was running from.

[56]     Country documentation notes there’s ongoing insecurity and severe drought in Somalia which poses a major risk to the viability of any repatriation process. That’s NDP 14.6.

[57]     Somalia is a far from stable state. There are more than five million people, that is 40% of the population who are in need humanitarian assistance, according to NDP 5.7. Access to water is a major issue according to Amnesty International and this leads to illness and disease widespread. Even simple access to shelter is problematic and when and if shelter is found, returnees are at risk of regular and ongoing forced evictions.

[58]     The situation for internally displaced women, which is what this claimant would be if she returned to an IFA in Somalia, is grim. The Response to Information Report from the IRB states that according to sources due to the need for male protection in Somali society, women without a support network face extreme hardship and difficulties accessing housing or employment.

[59]     The gender advisor similarly explained that even for women with clan protection that women’s rights are not protected, especially in cases of rape or sexual violence. Perpetrators can even be from the same clan and clan elders can resolve cases such as this in traditional ways which can result in forcing a woman to marry the person who has been harming in order to protect their family honour.

[60]     Minority women lack any such protection and experience most pronounced forms of social, cultural and economic discrimination including exclusion from basic services, difficulties accessing support.

[61]     I mentioned the forced evictions of internally displaced people. Mass evictions are not uncommon.

[62]     The documents are clear that any women need to have established clan network support and endorsement from clan elders in order to survive and with no connections this would be difficult.

[63]     It would be unreasonable to expect the claimant to return to the area where she’s from where her father-in-law and his son, who he plans to make her marry, are living and if she were to go anywhere else she would not have access to clan support.

[64]     The UK Home Office at NDP 1.12 also says that travel by land across southern and central Somalia to a proposed place of relocation may well in general pose real risk of serious harm, particularly the al-Shabaab checkpoints.  The claimant herself described traveling just to Mogadishu, hiding in among the sheep and the goats in the back of a truck, hoping at every checkpoint that she would not be discovered.

[65]     There are checkpoints all over Somalia operated by government forces, allied groups, armed militias, clan factions and al-Shabaab. These checkpoints have inhibited movement, exposed citizens to looting, extortion, harassment and violence according to the US Department of State report.

[66]     So, even just relocating to another place in Somalia would put the claimant at great risk.

[67]     When you’re looking at the test for an internal flight alternative if either prong of the test is not met, then there is no viable internal alternative in the country. I’ve considered the second prong which requires nothing less than the existence of conditions that would jeopardize the life and safety of the claimant in relocating to any safe area and it would have required actual and concrete evidence of adverse condition and I have now considered the conditions throughout Somalia. I have reviewed the country documentation. I’ve considered the circumstances of this claimant and I find it is objectively unreasonable and unduly harsh as understood in Canadian jurisprudence for this claimant to seek refuge anywhere in Somalia; therefore, there is no internal flight alternative.

[68]     I find that there is a serious possibility the claimant would be persecuted up on her return to Somalia throughout the entire country. Based on the totality of the evidence I have concluded the claimant is a Convention refugee and accordingly I’ve accepted her claim.

—PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED

Categories
All Countries Rwanda

2019 RLLR 117

Citation: 2019 RLLR 117
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: April 26, 2019
Panel: Miryam Molgat
Country: Rwanda
RPD Number: VB8-02636
ATIP Number: A-2020-01459
ATIP Pages: 000228-000232


— DECISION

[1]       PRESIDING MEMBER: This is the decision in the claim of Mrs. [XXX]. I have considered your testimony and the other evidence in the case and I’m ready to tender my decision orally. I would like to add that in the event that written Reasons are issued, a written form of these Reasons may be edited for spelling, syntax and grammar and references to the applicable case law and documentary evidence may also be included.

[2]       The claimant claims to be a citizen of Rwanda and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee as the claimant does have a well-founded fear of persecution on a Convention ground in Rwanda. My reasons are as follows.

[3]       The claimant’s complete allegations are set out in the Basis of Claim Form at Exhibit 2 and need not be repeated here in detail. To summarize briefly, the claimant is a woman born in 1979. She left her country on [XXX], 2018. She left behind her three children, her siblings and her mother. Her claim is based on gender-related abuse from her husband, [XXX] (phonetic). The abuse was sexual and physical in nature. The certainly sought state protection to no avail. She suffered a miscarriage as a result of her husband’s abuse. She was repeatedly raped by her husband in the course of their marriage. Her husband is employed by the [XXX] and is associated with the [XXX].

[4]       The claimant alleges that neither state protection nor safe and reasonable internal flight alternatives are available in her country of nationality. The main issue is state protection.

IDENTITY

[5]       The claimant’s national identity has been established by the testimony and the supporting documentation filed and entered in the proceeding. The current passport is on file, along with other documents. I’m satisfied of the claimant’s identity.

NEXUS

[6]       For the claimant to be a Convention refugee, the fear of persecution must be by reason of one of the five grounds enumerated in the Convention refugee definition. In other words, the claimants must have a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion. I find that the harm feared by the claimant is by reason of one of the five grounds enumerated in the Convention refugee definition, namely, as a woman victim of domestic abuse, i.e. membership in a particular social group.

[7]       Turning to credibility, when credibility is assessed there are two principles that are followed. Firstly, when the claimant swears to the truthfulness of certain facts there is a presumption that what she is saying is true unless there’s reason to doubt it. Secondly, when assessing credibility, the panel is entitled to rely on rationality and commonsense. The determination as to whether the claimant’s evidence is credible is made on a balance of probabilities.

[8]       I had concerns regarding credibility because of the significance of some of the Basis of Claim Form amendments and very specifically the amendment relating to the claimant’s husband’s association with the DMI. DMI is the [XXX]. I also had credibility concerns regarding a certain lack of corroborating evidence in support of her allegations.

[9]       Having heard the claimant’s testimony and having observed her in person, I find her credible. Her demeanour was very credible. Her face was very expressive and was a direct and contemporaneous expression of emotions that her testimony conveyed. There was a lack of embellishment to her testimony. She many times simply said, “I don’t know” when asked questions. Her testimony was direct. Her explanation for some of the omissions from the original Basis of Claim Form were reasonable. She explained that she had so many things in her head and I found that her explanation for what she meant by that was very credible and directly supported the subject matter of the Chairperson’s Gender Guidelines in terms of what one can reasonably surmise and expect in the testimony of gender-related persecution, which in this case is a history of horrific abuse at the hands of her husband. So I draw you negative inference from the fact that certain aspects of the claimant’s material allegations were not in her original Basis of Claim Form.

[10]     In addition, she added credible testimony in her hearing which was not in the Basis of Claim Form, for example, explaining that she had considered divorce and she provided a reasonable explanation for why she did not go ahead and actively take steps to obtain a divorce from her husband and she also said that her husband threatened her and said that she would only leave the house dead.

[11]     The claimant was able to reasonably and consistently explain why she had failed to mention the DMI in her original Basis of Claim Form and she was able to credibly testify to her husband’s employment history. Given the relatively secretive nature of [XXX], I found her lack of detail on his employment with the DMI and how he combined that with his [XXX] to be credible. To draw a parallel, unless the spouse worked for the [XXX] in the case of Americans, I would not reasonably expect the spouse to know a lot about what the other spouse in the marriage did while employed by the [XXX], for example.

[12]     I further note that the claimant, who has 12 years of education, came across as relatively unsophisticated and that this helped me to understand certain perceived gaps in the credibility which she was able to resolve to my satisfaction at the hearing.

[13]     Moving on to the question of subjective fear, I found her credibility in this regard to be -­ her testimony in this regard to be credible and she provided reasonable explanations for why she had not sought refugee status in the United States. She explained in a spontaneous way why she had decided to come to Canada and why she had chosen Vancouver specifically. Her explanation had to do with the lack of a significant Rwandan population here and the fact that she knew no one in Canada, unlike the situation of the people she was visiting with in the United States. So I found that that aspect of her oral testimony added to her credibility and actually positively contributed to a finding that she does have a subjective fear.

[14]     Turning to the determinative question of state protection, it was open to the claimant, according to the law, to rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence. Individual police figures do not prove that state protection is inadequate and it is unclear to me whether the claimant reasonably tested the effectiveness of state protection in Rwanda. I disagree with counsel as to whether there is adequate state protection for domestic violence in Rwanda but, ultimately, that’s neither here nor there because I agree with counsel that the claimant, in her specific case, is unable to access effective adequate state protection and I will start the analysis by assuming, for the purposes of analysis, that there is acceptable enough or adequate enough state protection for domestic violence in Rwanda that one needs to try to understand why the claimant did not make further efforts to obtain state protection.

[15]     I note in this regard that the Response to Information Request, RWA104588.E, which is item 5.1 of the National Documentation Package at Exhibit 3, provides detailed information on the existence of hotlines and of one-stop centres and on the fact that there are gender desks at the police station and that there is a gender desk within the Rwandan Defence Force and Ministry of Defence.

[16]     I note, and I agree with counsel, that there are shortcomings to the state protection measures in place in Rwanda for domestic violence, but I do note, for example, still from this Response to Information Request, that there have been several convictions perpetrated of domestic violence. For example, there was a conviction of 115 perpetrators of spousal harassment and there was a conviction of 53 perpetrators of adult rape. I note that the possible sentence for spousal rape is notably lower than that of adult rape outside of marriage and I note that, in general, the attitude in Rwanda appears to be that this is often a private matter which should be resolved, probably to the detriment of the victim, within the family. But all the same, when I look at the extensive information in this Response to Information Request, I found that there were more avenues that the claimant could have pursued and did not.

[17]     However, I find that in her case she would not have been able to access adequate state protection, not because of a problem with the Rwandan Police, who are the first level of response to complaints of domestic abuse, but rather because of her husband’s association with the DMT.  This matters not only because of what I find is objective evidence supportive of an adequate level of state protection for domestic violence in Rwanda, but also because the claimant twice testified that had her husband not worked for the DMI, she would have been able to get state protection. I can’t ignore that testimony and even less so when it was clear and direct, unsolicited. It was not in response to a direct question and it came twice during the hearing.

[18]     Now, turning to the DMI, as was well argued by counsel, it’s not surprising that there’s little information on the DMI, given the nature of its work. I find that the DMI does exist. As is indicated by Exhibit 6, it is a notorious agency and I find that, on a balance of probability, it is an agency with malevolent goals and practices. Unlike the evidence on the Rwandan Police, which seems to be more mixed, the evidence on the DMI would point to an agency which has specialized in human rights abuses conducted in a covert way and, as the claimant’s testimony on what little she knew of her husband’s work, fully supported this. She said that she went out at night. She said that he came back with bloodstained clothes and she provided during the hearing testimony that was shocking with regards to what the DMI seem to do, which in that case was to blow up the home with the family inside the home of people who are political opponents of the Rwandan government, and this was in addition to information that she had already provided in her Basis of Claim Form of people being persecuted in front of her and her husband showing her the abuse as a way of further intimidating her.

[19]     In addition to her husband working for the DMI, she has established that he is someone who is evil and who continues to want to harm her and her family members. Her testimony on what has happened to her family members since she left was credible. I note that at one point he was sentenced to a criminal sentence, but I found that that is not enough for me to conclude that he no longer has the profile or the motivation or the capacity to persecute her should she return to Rwanda and I further find that this profile of his is such that I find that he would thwart any serious attempt on the claimant’s part to obtain state protection.

[20]     When asked why she did not complain at a police station where her husband was not employed, the claimant spontaneously testified that that is not how it works and that it’s not possible to do so. I accept that explanation and I accept that she did complain twice to the police of her husband’s domestic abuse and that there was an utter failure of state protection in response to this. So given all of this, I find that the claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence.

[21]     Turning to the last question, which is that of internal flight alternative, it was not canvassed at the hearing, but I find that, given her husband’s profile and the fact that he is employed by the DMI, I find that the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution throughout Rwanda as the state is in control of the entire territory and it would not be difficult for the claimant to locate her should she return. It’s clear that he’s motivated to do so and, in addition, Rwanda is a geographically quite small country.

[22]     In conclusion, having considered all of the evidence, I determine that there’s a serious possibility that the claimant would be persecuted in Rwanda for one of the five grounds enumerated in the Refugee Convention.  I find that the claimant is credible. She has established that her husband works for the DMI and has the motivation and capacity to continue to persecute her should she return to Rwanda. This matters, as it relates to the determinative issue of state protection.

[23]     Having come to this conclusion, I have not conducted further assessment under section 97(1) of the Act. I conclude that the claimant, Mrs. [XXX], is a Convention refugee and I, therefore, accept her claim.

— DECISION CONCLUDED

Categories
All Countries Palestine

2019 RLLR 116

Citation: 2019 RLLR 116
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: July 31, 2019
Panel: Chad Prowse
Country: Palestine
RPD Number: VB8-02564
ATIP Number: A-2020-01459
ATIP Pages: 000221-000227


— DECISION

[1]       PRESIDING MEMBER: Mr. [XXX], I’ve considered your testimony and the other evidence in your case, I’m ready to render my decision orally. I would like to add that in the event that written reasons are issued they will reflect those that I’m giving you know.

[2]       Mr. [XXX] and his spouse Mrs. [XXX] and their child [XXX] are stateless persons from Gaza in the occupied Palestinian territory, who claim refugee protection pursuant to ss. 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[3]       Mr. [XXX] is the designated representative for his daughter [XXX].

[4]       The claimants’ complete allegations are contained in the principal claimant’s basis of claim form and narrative. In brief, they allege the following: The principal claimant was raised Muslim but has considered himself to be an atheist or agnostic for the past four to five years.

[5]       In June 2010, the principal claimant completed his undergraduate degree in Gaza graduating at the top of his class. Although it is a long-standing tradition in Palestine that the top graduate of each class goes on to work for the government. He was told that he was not ethically fit to work for the government as he did not attend mosque or answer their questions about his religion appropriately. The principal claimant went on to work in the non-profit sector including at the [XXX] from June 2012 to June 2013, and for the [XXX]. He worked as a [XXX].

[6]       Around February or March 2013, the claimant received his first threat, a neighbour associated with Hamas approached him and politely advised him to stop taking a position as part of his work that abusers of disabled women should be prosecuted. A neighbour told him that Hamas would otherwise take action against him. As a result of this threat, the claimant kept a lower profile at work. He left his employment a few months later.

[7]       In February 2014, the claimant was kidnapped the day after discussing his UNESCO project with youth during which he had inadvertently spoke about the problem of military recruitment of children by Hamas, and expressed his view that the problems in Palestinian are due to land seizure and are not about religion or ethnicity, and that children should not be taught to hate Jews. The claimant was beaten and told that what he said at the round table discussion with youth was inappropriate that Jews were the enemy, and that those who had kidnapped were angry with him or angry with him. He was dropped off at night a long ways from his house. The claimant believes that he was kidnapped by the internal security wing of Hamas.

[8]       September 2015, the claimant received a letter from Hamas at his home informing him that he was required to attend the Hamas police station on 7th September 2015. He attended this meeting. The Hamas police officer told him that he was disturbing the public calm for having voiced his opinion about a schoolgirl who was dismissed from class for refusing to wear a headscarf. His opinion was that persons should be free to wear whatever they wish. While he was being interviewed by the police his phone was searched, they found a conversation with other secular atheists there and discovered that he was working as a volunteer with a human rights organization called [XXX]. The officer was angry and threatened to kill him and tell everyone after he was an Israeli spy if he peeped one peep.

[9]       The claimant became ostracized in his community and decided to leave Gaza permanently as he feared for his life. He applied for and obtained a Fulbright scholarship which allowed him to obtain all four permits required to leave Gaza. On [XXX] 2016, the claimants departed Gaza. The principal claimant was questioned for three hours at Erez cross point by Hamas security forces. The officer told him that he would do well not to return to Gaza.

[10]     The principal claimant completed his graduate studies in Kansas on 10th May 2018. He considered making an asylum claim in the US but did not do so because of what he refers to as the US president’s bigoted and racist comments towards Muslims, and personal encounters with racism in the US. The claimants decided to seek asylum in Canada and entered Canada on [XXX] 2018, shortly before the expiry of their status in the US.

[11]     The principal claimant fears that he will be killed or harmed by Hamas as a secular western educated liberal who values freedom of thought and speech. Particularly as he has been critical of Hamas already and he’s experienced threats and violence from them or persons allegedly acting in concert with them.

[12]     In order to find that the claimants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection, I must find if there’s sufficient credible or trustworthy evidence to determine that there is a serious possibility that they would be persecuted on Convention ground, or that on a balance of probabilities there is substantial grounds to believe they would be tortured or at risk of losing their life or being subjected to cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if they return to the Palestinian occupied territory.

[13]     Additionally, there must be clear and convincing evidence that state authorities there cannot adequately protect them from this persecution or risk. Furthermore, there must not be another place within the Palestinian occupied territory where they could live safely and where it would be reasonable to do so under the circumstances. I find that the claimants are Convention refugees on the grounds of political opinion as perceived traitors or enemies of Hamas.

[14]     The determinative issues, in this case, are identity and credibility. Where stateless persons of multiple countries of former habitual residence they must demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that there is a serious possibility that they would be persecuted than any country of former habitual residence, and that they cannot return to any other country of former habitual residence where they would not face persecution.

[15]     The claimants’ identity as stateless former habitual residents of Gaza is established by their testimony, and the supporting documentation filed including their Palestinian authority passports, certified copies of which are on file.

[16]     Although the claimant resided in the US for one to two years while the principal claimant completed his graduate studies there, and the principal claimant also briefly studied in Egypt prior to marriage, I find that neither country is a country of former habitual residence for the purpose of this analysis. Notwithstanding this, the claimants are unable to return to either the US or Egypt where the claimants only possessed temporary status that has since expired.

[17]     When a claimant swears to the truth of certain allegations this creates a presumption that those allegations are true unless there’s a reason to doubt their truthfulness. I found the principal claimant to be a credible witness. He testified in a straightforward manner and there were no material inconstancies in his testimony or contradictions between his testimony and the other evidence before me that have not been explained. He provided a spontaneous and detailed account of his former employment in Gaza on community and youth development issues, and was able to articulate his thoughts on the Hamas lead government in Gaza, Hamas affiliated military camps for youth and children and related challenges and obstacles affecting youth in Gaza in a manner that suggested that these were deeply held and considered views.

[18]     The claimants supported their claim with considerable probative and reliable documents including but not limited to documentary evidence of the principal claimant’s employment and volunteer experience with non-profit and human rights originations in Gaza. Evidence of his social media posts on Facebook in which he is clearly criticizing Hamas and personal letters of support.

[19]     Although the claimants did not make a refugee claim in the US, I do not draw a negative inference from this. The claimants did not delay in leaving Gaza considering that logistical difficulties involved in exiting the territory. The claimants maintained valid temporary resident status in the US for the duration of their stay. They applied for refugee protection promptly upon their arrival in Canada. Moreover, as per case law, the mere fact that the claimant failed to seek asylum in the US is not fatal to their claim.

[20]     The claimants’ fear of persecution in the Palestinian occupied territory is supported by the objective evidence. Firstly, on the issue of the treatment of perceived or actual political opponents of Hamas, according to a report by Human Rights Watch in the NDP:

Since it seized control of Gaza in June 2007, Hamas authorities have harassed critics and abused those in its custody. Hamas authorities have also carried out 25 executions since they took control in Gaza in June 2017 including six in 2017. Following trials that lacked appropriate due process protections and courts in Gaza have sentenced 117 people to death according to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights.

[21]     Similarly, according to the United States Department of State report on Israel, Golan Heights, West Bank, and Gaza for 2018:

Human right issues with respect to Hamas include: reports of unlawful or arbitrary killings, reports of systematic torture, reports of arbitrary detention, political prisoners, arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy, family and home, undue restrictions on free expression the press and the internet, including the detention of journalists, censorship and site blocking, substantial inference with the rights of peaceful assembly and freedom of association. Significant restrictions on freedom of movement including the requirement of exit permits, restrictions on political participation as there has been no national election since 2006. Corruption unlawful recruitment or use of child soldiers, threats of violence motivated by anti-systematism and the use of forced or compulsory child labour.

[22]     Similarly, according to the 2018 Freedom House report for the Gaza Strip:

Hamas continues to persecute critical journalists and other perceived opponents during the year and persisted in its application of the death penalty without due process.

[23]     On the issue of the forced recruitment and mistreatment of children, according to a report from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade titled, “DFAT Thematic Report: Palestinian Territories” for March 2017:

Statistics on forced recruitment in Gaza are not available and it is difficult to build a complete picture of the prevalence and nature of this practice. However, Hamas runs summer camps for schoolchildren and based on various reports, these camps involve some level of militant training, including weapons handling and lessons on Hamas doctrine but do not result in forced recruitment. About 100,000 children attend Hamas’ summer camps; 50,000 attend the alternative camps run by Palestinian Islamic Jihad, but the majority, around 250,000, attend the more popular UNRWA summer camps.

[24]     However, according to the latest US DOS report already referenced:

There are reports Hamas trained children as combatants as recently as 2018. Hamas reportedly did not enforce child labour laws in Gaza either and reportedly encouraged children to work gathering gravel and scrap metal from bombed sites to sell to recycling merchants and increased recruitment of youth for tunnel digging activities.

[25]     During the hearing, the principal claimant also expressed his fear that his daughter will face discrimination accumulatively amounting to persecution or gender-based violence as a female in Gaza.

[26]     According to a UN report titled, “Gaza Ten Years Later”:

Over the past decade, Gaza has also seen rising levels of gender­ based violence, and child protection violations. While accurate reporting on these issues remains difficult, a recent report suggests that more than 148,000 women in Gaza are exposed to gender­ based violence. Between 2011 and 2014 UNRWA identified 3,160 survivors of gender-based violence in Gaza and provided a range of different services. Moreover, the Women’s Centre for Legal Aid and Counselling has documented 27 killings of women and girls in 2014, 15 cases in 2015 and 18 cases in the first eight months of 2016.

[27]     On a balance of probabilities, I find that the principal claimant genuinely holds views and has undertaken paid or unpaid activities that make him a perceived political opponent of Hamas. Including his opposition to the recruitment of children and youth by Hamas that on the basis of his testimony which I have found to be reliable. He has already been the target of both official and unofficial targeting by Hamas and its affiliates as a result of these views and actions. Country documents show that he faces more than a mere possibility of persecution on the basis of a Convention ground on this basis.

[28]     Leaving aside the question of whether or not his wife and daughter have a well-founded fear of persecution solely on the basis of gender-based violence and discrimination in Gaza an allegation that finds some support in the country documents, I find that they too have a well-founded fear of persecution by virtue of their dependence on the principal claimant. The principal claimant’s daughter is a five-year-old girl.

[29]     I find that there’s no — there is no adequate expectation of state protection for the claimants and they have rebutted the presumption of state protection. In this case, the agent of harm is the de facto state in Gaza which is effectively run by Hamas.

[30]     Additionally, I find that the claimants do not have a viable flight alternative — internal flight alternative as relocation is effectively impossible without alerting the de facto authorities in Gaza. Furthermore, the current severe restrictions on the movement of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip in the West Bank will make internal relocation extremely difficult for many. I find that it would not be possible for the claimants to safely relocate to the West Bank or within the Palestinian territory.

[31]     Therefore, having considered all of the evidence before me, I determine that the claimants are Convention refugees on the basis of the grounds enumerated above. Your claims are approved. Congratulations.

— DECISION CONCLUDED

Categories
All Countries Venezuela

2019 RLLR 115

Citation: 2019 RLLR 115
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 7, 2019
Panel: Jennifer Ellis
Country: Venezuela
RPD Number: VB8-02306
ATIP Number: A-2020-01459
ATIP Pages: 000212-000220


This unedited transcript constitutes the member’s written reasons for decision.

— PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED

[1]       PRESIDING MEMBER: This is a decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board in the joined claims of a family from Venezuela. The principal claimant is [XXX]. The associated claimants are [XXX], spouse of the principal claimant, and [XXX], minor child of the principal claimant. This transcript constitutes the Member’s written reasons for decision, as the decision was not rendered orally at a hearing.

[2]       The hearing was held via videoconference on December 11, 2018. The claimants, their counsel, and the interpreter were all in Calgary, while I presided over the hearing from Vancouver. At the start of the hearing the principal claimant was designated as the representative for the minor claimant. The claimants are citizens of Venezuela and are seeking refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[3]       Allegations: The detailed allegations of the claimants are set out in their respective basis of claim forms and can be summarized as follows.

[4]       The principal claimant is a citizen of Venezuela and no other country. The associated claimants are citizens of both Venezuela and Italy.  The principal claimant fears returning to Venezuela because of his opposition to the current regime and his status as a member of an opposition party, namely, the Alianza Bravo Pueblo. The associated claimants fear returning to Venezuela as the family members of the principal claimant.

[5]       Determination: I find that the principal claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to Section 96 of the Act on the grounds of his political opinion. I find that the two associated claimants [XXX] and [XXX] are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

[6]       Analysis: Identity: The identity of the principal claimant as a citizen of Venezuela is established by his testimony and the identification documents on file, namely, his valid Venezuelan passport.  The identity of the minor claimant as a citizen of both Venezuela and Italy is established by the documents on file, namely, his valid Venezuelan and Italian passport. The same is true for the adult associated claimant; I find that her identity is established as a citizen of both Venezuela and Italy based on the documents on file, namely, her valid Venezuelan and Italian passports.

[7]       Exclusion: It’s the claimant’s evidence that he resided with his wife and son in Chile from January 2017 to October 2017 and that they all had valid status while there. Nevertheless, I do not find that exclusion pursuant to Article 1E of the UN Convention on the Status of Refugees is engaged. The claimant testified that they only ever had temporary status in Chile and their application for permanent status was rejected in October 2017. I have found the claimant’s evidence on this point to be both straightforward and spontaneous. While they do not have any documentary evidence confirming the rejection of this application, I also have no reason to disbelieve the claimant’s testimony on this point. As such, I accept that at the time the claimants came to Canada in [XXX] 2018 they no longer had any status in Chile.

[8]       Countries of reference: In order for a claim for refugee protection to be successful the Act requires that the claimant must establish a claim against each of their countries of nationality.

[9]       Principal claimant; although there is no evidence before me that the principal claimant is an Italian citizen, I must nevertheless determine whether Italy is a country of reference with respect to his claim.

[10]     Indeed, the term “countries of nationality” in Section 96(a) of the Act includes potential countries of nationality. Where citizenship in another country is available the claimant is expected to make attempts to acquire it and will be denied refugee status if it is shown that it is within his or her power to acquire that other citizenship.  Consequently, a person who is able to obtain citizenship in another country by complying with mere formalities is not entitled to avail him or herself of protection in Canada.

[11]     The issue of the right to citizenship was explored by the Federal Court of Appeal in Williams v. Canada 2005 FCA 126. In this decision the Court of Appeal found that refugee protection will be denied where the evidence shows at the time of the hearing that is within control of the claimant to acquire the citizenship of a particular country with respect to which the claimant has no well-founded fear of persecution. The Court of Appeal explained that the appropriate test is whether it is in the control of the person concerned to acquire the citizenship of a country with respect to which he has no well­ founded fear of persecution, if yes the claim will be denied. In other words, I must consider whether it is in the claimant’s control to acquire Italian citizenship.

[12]     I have found a number of documents contained in the national documentation package for Italy to be of great assistance to this issue. For example, Item 3.2 of the national documentation package is a document from the United States Library of Congress entitled “Citizenship Pathways and Border Protection Italy” and Item 3.4 is a European University Institute document from 2013 which also directly addresses citizenship law in Italy. According to these two documents there are only four ways in which Italian citizenship is automatically acquired, the first is by dissent from an Italian citizen, by birth in the Italian territory, by judicial recognition, affiliation, by an Italian citizen while the child is a minor, and through adoption. In other words, individuals are not able to acquire Italian citizenship automatically simply by nature of having an Italian citizen spouse.

[13]     Indeed, the document at 3.2 of the national documentation package goes on to explain that the foreign spouse of an Italian citizen may acquire Italian citizenship subject to a number of requirements, including the somewhat vague absence of impediments concerning the security of the republic. In other words, there is some discretion at the hands of Italian authorities.

[14]     As is explained in the Federal Court’s decision in Khan v. Canada 2008 FC 583, if the circumstances are not within a claimant’s control and the authorities are not compelled to grant citizenship the Board should not consider how the authorities might exercise their discretion.

[15]     Additionally, I note that the Federal Court has also held that a claimant is not required to demonstrate that it was more likely than not if they applied that they would be granted citizenship. See, for example, Hua Ma v. Canada 2009 FC 779.

[16]     Based on the evidence before me, I find that Italy is not a country of reference with respect to the principal claimant. As such, I will only be considering his claim against Venezuela.

[17]     Associated claimants: As citizens of Italy and Venezuela the associated claimants must establish a claim against both of those countries of nationality in order to obtain refugee protection. Neither of the associated claimants advanced a claim against Italy. Nonetheless, I have examined all of the evidence before me to determine whether or not the associated claimants satisfy the requirements under Section 96 or 97(1) of the Act as against Italy and I conclude they do not. Accordingly, it is unnecessary to examine the risk they face in Venezuela and their claims for refugee protection must be rejected.

[18]     For the remainder of these reasons I turn to the claim of the principal claimant alone.

[19]     Credibility: Pursuant to the Moldonado principle it is presumed that sworn testimony is true unless there is sufficient reason to doubt its trustworthiness. I have found the claimants to be credible witnesses and I believe what they have alleged. The adult claimants’ testified in a straightforward manner and did not exaggerate in any way. They were clear when they did not know the answer to my questions and appropriately asked for clarification when necessary. There were no relevant inconsistencies in their testimony or contradictions between their testimony and the other evidence before me.

[20]     During the hearing the principal claimant was asked a number of questions about his membership with the Alianza Bravo Pueblo, the ABP. He explained that he became a member of the party because he identified with the party’s founder and leader Antonio Ledezma. He explained that the ABP was a new group founded in 2000 that has fought for human rights and democracy in Venezuela since its inception.

[21]     The IRB document found at Item 4.10 of the national documentation package, namely, VEN104851, confirms that the Alianza Bravo Pueblo is a political party in Venezuela that seeks to improve public governance through democratic processes and is focussed on developing social justice, freedom, peace, solidarity, equality of opportunities and progress. This document confirms that the ABP was founded by Anthony Ledezma in 2000 and also indicates that party members have been subject to politically motivated arrests in Venezuela.

[22]     With respect to his specific role in the ABP, the principal claimant testified that he worked as a [XXX] and [XXX]. He participated in various rallies and demonstrations in opposition to the government over a period of several years. Sometimes his participation involved driving protestors to different places and bringing supplies to protests.

[23]     I note that at pages 11 and 12 of Exhibit 5 the claimant has provided a letter from the ABP confirming his membership with the party since 2005 and setting out the details of his activities as a human rights defender and activist. He’s described as a [XXX] and a [XXX] for the rescue of the democratic system. This letter is printed on party letterhead and has been affixed with the party stamp. I have no reason to believe that this document is not genuine.

[24]     In addition, the claimant has provided a number of support letters from friends and activists attesting to the claimant’s vocal opposition to the current regime in Venezuela. In my view, these letters contain what are essentially witness statements relating to a number of the attacks that the claimant experienced while engaging in political activities. These letters are all included in Exhibit 5.

[25]     For example, letters found at pages 25 through 29 and 33 through 36 confirm that the claimant was attacked and threatened by government supporters on May 18, 2016. A medical report documenting head injuries sustained by the claimant on that date can be found at pages 13 through 15 of Exhibit 5.

[26]     There’s also a support letter at pages 16 through 20 which corroborates the claimant’s evidence that he was again attacked on December 10, 2017 by a number of collectivos because of his political activities. A second medical report dated March 5, 2018 corroborates the claimant’s evidence that he again suffered head injuries from an attack at the hands of the same group of government supporters on this date.

[27]     The IRB’s document VEN106030 found at Item 4.6 of the NDP discusses the pro­ government groups known as collectivos and specifically states that they function like gangs that are integrated into the state’s policing apparatus.

[28]     Furthermore, a November 2017 report by Human Rights Watch found at Item 2.10 of the national documentation package documents the way that these groups are responsible for “violent attacks or detentions that appear to be motivated by loyalty to the government”.

[29]     In addition, I note that there is a document contained in Exhibit 5 at pages 41 through 46, the title of which has been translated as “Request for an Arrest Warrant” and which has been prepared by the national prosecutor’s office in Venezuela. This document, which is dated September 22, 2018, appears to be requesting that the authority be given for the principal claimant to be arrested on the grounds that he has been engaged in war propaganda and messages of national hate.

[30]     The claimant clarified during the hearing that this document was obtained by his sister in Venezuela with the assistance of a lawyer after state officials came looking for him at his parents’ home following his flight from the country. The claimant testified that he was unsure as to whether or not an arrest warrant was ever issued against him after this request was submitted by the prosecutor’s office but he indicated that it frightened him nonetheless.

[31]     According to a January 2018 Human Rights Watch report found at Item 2.3 of the national documentation package, while authorities repeatedly arrest and prosecute political opponents they also bring charges or threaten to bring criminal charges against protestors and even many regular Venezuelans simply for criticizing the government.

[32]     Similarly, the Freedom House report found at Item 2.4 of the NDP indicates that Venezuelans democratic institutions have deteriorated since 1999 but conditions have grown sharply worse in recent years due to a concentration of power in the executive and harsher crackdowns on the opposition.

[33]     Indeed, the U.S. Department of State human rights report found at Item 2.1 confirms that the law criminalized criticism of the government.

[34]     Based on the claimant’s own evidence and the supporting documentation he has provided, as well as the independent country evidence contained in the national documentation package, I accept that he was an active member of the Alianza Bravo Pueblo when he was residing in Venezuela; that he received a number of threats and suffered a number of physical attacks as a result of his political views, and that he continues to be opposed to the current regime in Venezuela.

[35]     Additionally, I accept that the request for an arrest warrant was a tool used by the government to intimidate the claimant to cease his political activities and that his political activism would have been protected under the Charter and would not have constituted a crime in Canada under the Criminal Code.

[36]     Accordingly, I find that the claimant is not excluded under Article l(f)(b) of the UN Convention.

[37]     Subjective fear:  While some of the claimant’s actions could be viewed as evidence of a lack of subjective fear, the claimant has provided reasonable explanations for each of them.

[38]     For example, I note that the claimant was attacked by government supporters on May 18, 2016. During this altercation the attackers advised the principal claimant that they knew who he was, where he lived, and that he had a wife and a son. He was threatened that if he continued on with his opposition work his family would be harmed.

[39]     In his basis of claim form he explained that as a consequence of this attack his wife and son travelled to Canada for a few months beginning in [XXX] 2016. During the claimant’s testimony he explained that he wanted his wife and son to leave earlier but given the challenges they had in scheduling flights because of the current crisis in Venezuela they were unable to do so.

[40]     While they awaited their departure from Venezuela, the associated claimants did not leave the family home even to purchase groceries, and the principal claimant himself kept a very low profile. It’s the claimant’s evidence that he remained hopeful that the political and humanitarian situation in Venezuela would improve and that the opposition groups would be successful in their endeavours against the current regime. Indeed, he continued fighting for what he believed in because of his deeply held beliefs regarding the importance of standing up to injustice. After several months of laying low the claimant continued his opposition activities as he felt compelled to do.

[41]     I also note that the claimants travelled to the United States for one month beginning in [XXX] 2016 and that they then went to Chile for approximately nine months after that. They did not seek refugee protection in either country and ultimately returned to Venezuela at the end of [XXX] 2017.

[42]     With respect to the United States, it was the claimant’s evidence that they sought legal advice but were advised that seeking asylum was very risky given the current administration.

[43]     While the claimants did not seek protection in Chile they did obtain temporary work permits and made an application for permanent status. This application was denied and the claimants returned to Venezuela. It’s the claimant’s evidence that they returned with the hope of finding a calmer Venezuela and indeed they had no problems until December 2017.

[44]     I note that following the attack suffered by the principal claimant in December 2017 he and the associated claimants moved to his parents’ home approximately 30 kilometres away. Again the claimant remained hopeful, if not somewhat naïve, and when things appeared to calm down he and his family moved back to the family home a month later.

[45]     It was not until March 5, 2018 that the claimant was again attacked, this time with a gun to his head in front of both his wife and his son. It was then that the claimant accepted that he was no longer safe in Venezuela and the family left as soon as they were able in [XXX] 2018.

[46]     Under the circumstances, I find that the claimants’ explanations are reasonable. The claimants had valid status in the United States while they were there and did not face an imminent risk of being removed to Venezuela. The claimants also took steps to obtain permanent status in Chile albeit through an economic route and were unsuccessful. Throughout this time, however, they remained hopeful that the situation in Venezuela would improve. Indeed, the commitment of the principal claimant to his political values and to the ABP were what drove him to continue fighting for change despite the risks. I do not find that the claimant’s failure to claim elsewhere or his return to Venezuela to be indicative of a lack of subjective fear.

[47]     In addition, given their personal circumstances and the current anti-refugee rhetoric and realities in the United States, I find that the claimants’ decision to come to Canada to find a more permanent solution by making a refugee claim to be consistent with a subjective fear.

[48]     As such, I find that the principal claimant has established his subjective fear of persecution on a balance of probabilities.

[49]     Objectively well-founded fear: I find that the country conditions, in light of the principal claimant’s personal profile, demonstrate that his fear of persecution in Venezuela is well­ founded. The principal claimant has established, on a balance of probabilities, that he holds opinions contrary to the current regime in Venezuela and that he has expressed these opinions publicly on a number of occasions. Based on the available country condition evidence, I find he does face a serious possibility of persecution in Venezuela by reason of his political opinion.

[50]     In addition to the documents I have already cited, I note that Item 1.4 of the national documentation package, which is a background and policy report prepared by the United States Congressional Research Service, indicates that Venezuela remains in a deep political crisis under the authoritarian rule of President Nicolas Maduro of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela. Despite his unpopularity, President Maduro has successfully used the courts, security forces, and electoral council to repress the opposition.

[51]     This Human Rights Watch report also documents that tens of thousands of people took to the streets in Venezuela to protest against the government controlled Supreme Court’s attempt to usurp the powers of the country’s legislative branch in April 2017. Demonstrations quickly spread throughout the country and continued for months fueled by widespread discontent with the authoritarian practices of President Nicolas Maduro and the humanitarian crisis that has devastated the country under his watch. According to the report, the government responded with widespread violence and brutality against anti­ government protestors and detainees and has denied detainees due process rights. While it was not the first crackdown on dissent under Maduro the scope and severity of their oppression in 2017 reached levels unseen in Venezuela in recent memory.

[52]     The 2017 U.S. Department of State Human Rights report found in the national documentation package as Item 2.1 explains that democratic governance and human rights deteriorated dramatically during the year as the result of a campaign of the Maduro administration to consolidate its power. Security forces and armed pro-government paramilitary groups known as collectivos, at times, use excessive force against protestors.

[53]     According to the report, credible non-governmental organizations documented indiscriminate household raids, arbitrary arrests, and the use of torture to deter protestors. The government arrested thousands of individuals and tried hundreds of civilians in military tribunals. The government routinely block signals, interfered with operations, or shutdown privately owned television, radio, and other media outlets.

[54]     In my view, the principal claimant has established that he does indeed have an objectively well-founded fear of persecution on the grounds of his political opinion.

[55]     State protection: As the state is the agent of persecution, or at least is heavily complicit in such acts of persecution, it is clear that state protection would not be reasonably forthcoming to individuals in the position of the claimants. As such, I find that there is no state protection available to the principal claimant were he to return to Venezuela.

[56]     Internal flight alternative: The independent country documentation also shows that the Venezuelan authorities have effective control of the country’s entire territory. Therefore, there is nowhere in Venezuela where the principal claimant could go without a serious possibility of persecution. He therefore has no viable internal flight alternative available to him.

[56]     Conclusion: For the foregoing reasons, I conclude that the principal claimant is a Convention refugee and I therefore accept his claim. I further conclude that the two associated claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection and I therefore reject their claims.

— DECISION CONCLUDED

(signed)           Jennifer Ellis

January 7, 2019

Categories
Afghanistan All Countries

2019 RLLR 114

Citation: 2019 RLLR 114
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 20, 2019
Panel: Becky Chan
Country: Afghanistan
RPD Number: VB7-05815
ATIP Number: A-2020-01459
ATIP Pages: 000206-000211


— DECISION AND REASONS BY THE MEMBER

[1]       PRESIDING MEMBER: This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division in the claim of [XXX]. You claim refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[2]       I have considered your testimony and the other evidence in the case and I am ready to render my decision orally. Written reasons will be provided to you and your counsel. The written reasons will be a transcript of what I’m saying now.

[3]       I find that you are a Convention refugee as you have a well-founded fear of persecution.

[4]       I will summarize your allegations as follows. You are a 25 year old male citizen of Afghanistan. You are originally from Ghazni but you resided in Kabul most recently with your family. Your father was a [XXX] for American residents and businesses in Kabul; however, he quit his job in 2014 because the work was risky and dangerous.

[5]       You joined the [XXX] after you completed high school. In 2013, you attended [XXX] from June to October 2013. You first worked as a [XXX] in Sharana, Paktika Province for about one year and then in October 2014 you were transferred to Kabul where you worked in the [XXX] in Kabul.

[6]       You received a number of threats from someone who identified himself as [XXX] (ph) because you worked for the [XXX] and your father also worked for what the caller called the infidel government. You received a number of phone calls in 2015 when- sorry, 2014 in Kabul. You changed your number. You told your commander in the [XXX] about the threats after receiving the first two calls. Your commander dismissed your complaint as not being very serious.

[7]       The caller threatened you and your family. Your family moved from Ghazni to Kabul as they felt they would be more safe there.

[8]       In early 2016 – sorry, the caller at certain times demanded that you and your family move back to Ghazni to repent for your sins and to work for the Taliban. You changed your phone number again and changed your SIM card.

[9]       You and your family moved to four different residents in Darul Aman neighbourhood of Kabul to avert risks of harm from the Taliban.

[10]     You left Afghanistan on [XXX], 2017 to go the United States for some training. Sometime after you went to the United States your family received a letter dated August 16th, 2017 from the Taliban in Ghazni at their residence in Kabul. The Taliban said that they knew that you’d gone to the United States and threatened to punish you for that if you ever returned to Afghanistan.

[11]     You entered Canada on [XXX], 2017 by eluding a Port of Entry and you made a refugee claim in September 2017.

[12]     I find that you have established your identity as an Afghan citizen through your passport, tazkira and school documents which are in Exhibit 4.

[13]     I find that you are a credible witness. The Federal Court of Appeal stated in Maldonado that when a claimant swears that certain facts are true this creates a presumption that they are true unless there is a valid reason to doubt their truthfulness.

[14]     I have found you to be a credible witness and I therefore believe what you have alleged in support of your claim. You testified in a straightforward manner and there were no material inconsistencies in your testimony or contradictions between your testimony and the other evidence before me that has not been satisfactorily explained, either before the hearing or during the hearing.

[15]     You have provided documentary evidence to support your claim. I find that you have established that you were a [XXX] in the [XXX]. Your testimony was spontaneous and detailed. You provided documents to corroborate your work as a [XXX]. In Exhibit 4 you provided your [XXX] document and an identity document from the [XXX] in the United States to show that you did training there.

[16]     You have provided a personnel transfer document in Exhibit 7 corroborating your transfer from Paktika Province to Kabul. Your US visa also indicates that you were a [XXX]. In Exhibit 6 the Minister has provided your visa application and this also supports your employment as a [XXX] in the [XXX].

[17]     You have also provided -you have provided some documents to corroborate your father’s employment in the [XXX] field. You provided his training certificates that your father received for completing training on [XXX]. You have provided a letter your family received from the Taliban and rental agreements to corroborate other elements of your claim.

[18]     I have also considered your interview with CBSA regarding your work as a [XXX] and find that your evidence generally has been consistent with that interview as well.

[19]     I noted that in Exhibit 16 the Minister has provided a letter and indicated that CBSA did not refer you to an inadmissibility hearing after investigating your work as a [XXX]. They found that you were responsible for [XXX] to prison facilities. You did not generally deal with prisoners directly and there was insufficient evidence in the Minister’s view to find that you were inadmissible or excluded. There is no other evidence before me that would lead me to a different conclusion so I do not find that article 1(f)(a) exclusion is relevant to this claim.

[20]     I find that there is an objective basis to your claim. The UK Country Information Guide on Afghanistan NDP item 1.16 cites a variety of sources that conclude that government officials and civil servants and civilians associated with or perceived as supporting the government face significant risks of intimidation and targeted violence by Taliban and other insurgents.

[21]     This assessment is consistent with the UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines which state that security forces, particularly the Afghan National Police continue to be the object of targeted campaigns from anti-government elements including the Taliban. It states that both ALP – Afghan Local Police – and ANP officers have been targeted both on-duty and off-duty. AGEs are also reported to target officers of other police forces in Afghanistan as well as former members of the Afghan – the ANDSF.

[22]     I find that the harm you face, which includes death, bodily injury and the threat of these things, are sufficiently serious to constitute persecution.

[23]     I also find that your profile in and of itself is sufficient to ground your refugee claim. I find that your fear of persecution has a nexus to the Convention ground of political opinion or imputed political opinion as the Taliban and perhaps other insurgents view you as being aligned to the Afghan government as a [XXX].

[24]     I find that state protection is not available to you in Afghanistan. The documentary evidence before me illustrates that state protection mechanisms in Afghanistan are ineffective in protecting persons with your profile from harm. The UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines, NDP item 1.5 indicate that the rule of law is particularly weak in Afghanistan and the government has a limited capacity to respond to anti-government elements given the number and the scope of attacks by the Taliban and other insurgent groups.

[25]     The Guidelines state that the conflict continues to affect all parts of the country since the government’s decision to defend population centers and strategic rural areas, fighting between AGEs and the Afghan government has intensified. AGEs are reported to have engaged in an increasing number of attacks deliberately targeting civilians particularly suicide, IED and complex attacks. AGEs continue to carry out large-scale attacks in Kabul and other cities and to consolidate their control across rural areas. Concerns have been expressed about the ANDSF’s capability and effectiveness in ensuring security and stability across Afghanistan.

[26]     The Guidelines further state that even where the legal framework provides for the protection of human rights, the implementation of Afghanistan’s commitments under national and international law to promote and protect these rights in practice frequently remains a challenge.

[27]     Afghan governance and the adherence to the rule of law are perceived to be as particularly weak. High levels of corruption challenges to effective governance and a climate of impunity are all reported by observers as factors that weaken the rule of law and undermine the ability of the state to provide protection from human rights violations.

[28]     Corruption is reported to affect many parts of the state apparatus on the national, provincial and local levels. Afghan citizens reportedly have to pay bribes to access public services such as to the provincial governor’s office and the municipal governor’s office and the custom’s offices. Within the police, corruption is reported to be endemic as is the abuse of power and extortion.

[29]     The justice system is similarly reported to suffer from widespread corruption. The most recent US Department of State report on Afghanistan NDP item 2.1 observes that widespread disregard for the rule of law and official impunity for those who committed human rights abuses were serious problems.

[30]     I find that state protection would not be reasonably forthcoming to you in Afghanistan. The presumption of state protection has been rebutted by clear and convincing evidence.

[31]     I have also considered your failure to claim in the United States. You went there for training. You explained that you did not claim there because you understood that there was an understanding that you were to return to Afghanistan after training and you also believed, based on anecdotal information, that the US refugee system was quite slow and it would take a very, very long time for your claim to be heard and you are very concerned about the safety of your family and you did not want to wait for a very long time to re­ unite with your family.

[32]     I find that your explanation generally is reasonable and I do not draw an negative inference based on your failure to claim in the United States.

[33]     I find that no viable internal flight alternative or IFA exists for you in Afghanistan. You were living in Kabul prior to leaving Afghanistan. Kabul is considered to be one of the safer parts of Afghanistan especially for lower profile targets. However, given the Taliban’s extensive networks and the tribal and interconnecting nature of Afghan society, I do not find that there is a viable internal flight alternative for you in Afghanistan.

[34]     I have considered a Response to Information Request, NDP item 4.1 about internal relocation in Afghanistan. One source, a professor, explained that the Taliban may be able to find a person who relocates to a different area and that they have been successful in doing so particularly when targeting their well-known or well-positioned opponents.

[35]     Another source states that the Taliban generally has the capability to track individuals through the use of formal and informal communication networks to obtain information about a person’s whereabouts. Various sources in this RIR describe the tribal and interconnected nature of Afghan society. People, especially in rural areas, are extremely perceptive of their environments and know when a new person comes into the village or travels through it.

[36]     According to the professor, it is more difficult to track people who have moved into urban environments, but even there the Taliban have spies and members who can gather considerable information. Tribal networks still operate in urban areas and he gives the example of the Taliban infiltrating and obtaining information from large refugee camps near Kabul.

[37]     Afghans are a tribal people and this allows them to, in part, know the circumstances of the people in their tribe or ethno-linguistic group. This is obviously easy to do at the local, district, and provincial level of their home locality but because of extended families or other dynamics one’s identity is often hard to hide even when an Afghan leaves their home locality.

[38]     Accordingly, I find that you do not have an internal flight alternative in Afghanistan.

[39]     For the foregoing reasons, I find that you are a Convention refugee and I therefore accept your claim.

—PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED

Categories
All Countries Djibouti

2019 RLLR 113

Citation: 2019 RLLR 113
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: July 8, 2019
Panel: Miryam Milgot
Country: Djibouti
RPD Number: VB7-01166
ATIP Number: A-2020-01459
ATIP Pages: 000201-000205


— DECISION

[1]       PRESIDING MEMBER: This is the decision in file VB7-01166. It is the claim of Mr. [XXX]. The hearing took place on July 8, 2019, and the claimant was represented by counsel, Mr. Odaro Omonuwa. This was a return from the Refugee Appeal Division as the claimant had previously been denied on his refugee claim by a differently constituted Refugee Protection Division panel back in 2017.

[2]       I have considered your testimony and the other evidence in the case and I’m ready to render my decision orally. When you receive a written form of these Reasons, they may be edited for spelling, syntax and grammar and references to the applicable case law and documentary evidence may also be included.

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

DETERMINATION

[4]       I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee as the claimant does have a well-founded fear of persecution on a Convention ground in Djibouti. The nexus is his political opinion as a [XXX] of the RADDE Party, RADDE being the Rally for Action Democracy and Ecological Development and his claim was established on a sur place ground as the testimony focused entirely on the question of his political activity since leaving Djibouti. The testimony did not examine the allegations as they relate to the claimant’s life before he left Djibouti for Canada. The main issue is credibility.

Identity

[5]       The claimant’s national identity has been established by the testimony and the supporting documentation filed and entered in these proceedings. The current passport is on file, along with other documents. I am satisfied of the cm’s identity.

Credibility

[6]       I found the claimant to be a credible witness. He was able to reasonably explain why he had not amended his Basis of Claim Form sooner in his process. His explanations had to do with the lack of support that he had received up until very recently and that focused on the interpretation help he had at the time of the filing of his Basis of Claim Form, the limited and casual help that he had from a friend after that and what he described as deficient legal assistance up until recently, when he retained Counsel Omonuwa.

[7]       The three-page Basis of Claim Form amendment was accepted today and I note in finding that the claimant’s explanations were credible that although some of the amendments were material to the allegations, such as a specific detention in Djibouti or how the claimant was able to leave the airport. Others were much less material, such as the correct date of birth of his parents or the vast number of siblings, only two of whom play a part in his Basis of Claim Form.

[8]       I find that the claimant was credibility established that he is a [XXX] of the RADDE group. He testified in a manner consistent with that. At Exhibit 5 he has provided documentary evidence in support of this. He was able to spontaneously testify on what has happened to the President of the RADDE in recent years and I note that his demeanour while testifying on these matters was notably relaxed, which went toward my favourable appreciation of his credibility. He did not have the body language of someone who was fabricating evidence.

[9]       I chose to focus on the sur place aspect of the claim as I found it was an efficient way of dealing with the vast material on file and the fact that this is now his second hearing and his insinuation that he was inadequately represented until he returned Counsel Omonuwa. His testimony on his political activities in Canada consisted of regular, but limited, due to restricted availability, and activities on Facebook where the claimant follows the posts of his political group and then shares those postings with other Djiboutians, who then to go on to share it with yet other people. The claimant was able to credibly explain who he shared this with and how he knew that they, in tum, shared it with others.

[10]     The claimant did not provide direct proof of his Facebook activities in this regard, but I believe him when he says he did post those opinions by sharing his party’s posts as I found that his testimony on this was credible and his testimony on the fact that he is terribly busy as he works an awful lot in order to support his six children and his wife, all of whom are in Djibouti, makes sense to me in terms of explaining why he has not taken the time to provide direct proof of this and I’ll note that his counsel, Mr. Omonuwa, had only been very recently retained, less than two weeks ago.

[11]     The claimant had already disclosed at Exhibit 8, page 2, a letter in support of his claim (indiscernible) submitting in his appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division. It is a letter in French issued by the Djiboutian Women for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The organization is UDDESC (phonetic) and it seems to add civil and political rights among those in its letterhead. The claimant did not embellish by alleging that he knew everything that was in this letter, but he was able to credibly testify as to how he obtained the letter, stating that he had contacted his group, the RADDE, who had given him the name of this person who, according to him, is in Belgium, and that he had contacted this person and the letter is consistent with the claimant’s oral testimony today and the letter does state that he is continuing his fight on social media. So I give weight to this letter in support of the claimant’s allegations. I note that the reason for the claimant’s lack of in-person political activity since he arrived in Canada has to do with the fact that his group, the RADDE, does not have an office or physical presence in Canada or North America and that is consistent with the objective country conditions evidence before me.

[12]     I find that the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution based on the specific evidence of his Facebook activity and his continuing interest in the RADDE group. The monitoring of social media by Djiboutian authorities is established via the United States Department of State Report for Djibouti, which is at item 2.1 of the National Documentation Package, as well as in the Freedom House Report, which is at item 2.3 of the National Documentation Package, which is at Exhibit 3.

[13]     Both these documents also contribute to establishing the targeting and persecution of members of the opposition through the form of the surveillance of perceived opponents and harassment and arbitrary detention. Just to stay with the question of the monitoring of social media, the United States Department of State Report at item 2.1 explains that personnel from the security forces arrested two men in separate instances for posting (indiscernible) criticizing the government on Facebook and that one of them was arrested again for publishing a post on Facebook that criticized the government’s decision to mandate school uniforms for public schools.

[14]     This targeting of opposition members takes the form of seizing of passports or refusal to renew passports. The claimant testified that the president of his party had significant and enduring problems with his passport. That is borne out by the objective country conditions evidence and the Department of State Report on Human Rights also indicates that opposition members reported immigration officials refused to renew their passports and prevented them from boarding international flights.

[15]     In terms of the fate that awaits the claimant, I note that the Freedom House Report states that in April 2018, so relatively recently, a human rights defender, [XXX], who is also the [XXX] of an unrecognized opposition movement called Movement for Development and Liberty, was arbitrarily detained and had his passport confiscated and his home searched upon return U.N. related human rights activities abroad. I note that the claimant’s group, the RADDE, has also not been officially registered in Djibouti in spite of having attempted regularly to be registered and the authorities of Djibouti refuse to do so.

[16]     There is further evidence of relatively recent targeting of the RADDE group. For example, in the Freedom House Report it says that in March 2018 the police raided the headquarters of the unrecognised group RADDE, confiscated their equipment and arrested one person as the party was preparing non-violent demonstrations. The U.S. Department of State Report has stated government authorities refused to renew the passport of opposition leader of the RADDE.

[17]     The U.S. Department of State Report states that the Ministry of Interior refused to recognize three opposition political parties, among them the RADDE, and that members of those political parties were routinely arrested and detained for illegal political activity and that on March 23, 2018, authorities arrested a security guard at an annex of the RADDE opposition party and he was detained for one day and released with instructions  to evacuate the space and that the youth delegate for the RADDE Party, a man called [XXX] was arrested on October 21 and remained detained.

[18]     So I find that there’s objective country condition evidence to establish that, as a returnee, a supporter of the RADDE who has posted information on Facebook or forwarded or shared information on Facebook that is critical of the Djiboutian government and that was produced by a group that the government continues to refuse to recognize and the government regularly targets, the claimant has established a well-founded fear of persecution. I note that arbitrary arrests and detain amount to persecution, as is the confiscation of one’s passport or refusal to renew the passport as a result of political opinion.

[19]     That leads me to the last two questions, state protection and internal flight alternative. Given that the alleged agent of persecution is the state, I find that state protection in Djibouti would not be particularly forthcoming in this case and that the presumption of state protection is rebutted by the objective country conditions evidence. As the Djiboutian state is in control of the entire territory of Djibouti, I find that there is no internal flight alternative for the claimant and that he faces a serious possibility of persecution throughout Djibouti.

[20]     In conclusion, having considered all of the evidence, I determine that there is a serious possibility that the claimant would be persecuted in Djibouti for his political opinion. The claimant was credible. Having come to this conclusion, I have not conducted further assessment under section 97(1). I conclude that the claimant is a Convention refugee and I therefore accept his claim.

— DECISION CONCLUDED