Categories
All Countries Saudi Arabia

2019 RLLR 112

Citation: 2019 RLLR 112
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 21, 2019
Panel: M. Hayes
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Sarah Jamali
Country: Saudi Arabia
RPD Number: TB9-13037
ATIP Number: A-2020-01459
ATIP Pages: 000197-000200


REASONS FOR DECISION

On November 21, 2019, the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) heard the claim of [XXX] who claims refugee protection under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). On that same day, the panel rendered its oral positive decision and Reasons for decision. This is the written version of the oral decision and Reasons that have been edited for clarity, spelling, grammar and syntax with added references to the documentary evidence and relevant case law where appropriate.

INTRODUCTION

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

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

[3]       In rendering my reasons, I have considered and applied the Chairperson’s Guidelines on Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution.

ALLEGATIONS

[4]       The allegations of your claim are fully set out in your Basis of Claim (BOC) form. Very briefly, you have suffered extreme physical and emotional abuse from your mother all your life. As well, your brothers and your ex-husband were very emotionally and physically abusive towards you, and your ex-husband is abusive towards your four minor children. You sought police protection, but protection was not forthcoming. You fear returning to Saudi Arabia where you will continue to face violent mistreatment, death threats, and emotional abuse at the hands of the agents of persecution. You were able to escape from Saudi Arabia to come to Canada to make a refugee claim. Despite efforts to date to bring your four minor children to Canada, you were forced to leave them in Saudi Arabia in the circumstances.

DETERMINATION

[5]       I find that you are a Convention refugee as you have established a serious possibility of persecution should you return to Saudi Arabia based on the grounds in section 96.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[6]       I find that your identity as a national of Saudi Arabia is established by a certified true copy of your Saudi passport, as well as by your testimony.

Nexus

[7]       I find that you have established a nexus to section 96 by reason of your membership in a particular social group, that being your gender.

Credibility

[8]       I find that you were a credible witness and I accept the allegations in your claim. You testified in a straightforward manner and there were no inconsistencies between your testimony and the documents before me, such as the Port of Entry notes and your 151 paragraph BOC narrative and amendments that detail the lifetime of domestic torture and abuse you have suffered as a woman in Saudi Arabia. I was concerned that you did not take more steps to obtain additional documentary evidence such as your children’s Birth Certificates. However, I accept your explanation that trying to obtain those documents would likely cause problems with your children’s father. You did submit a recent medical report that corroborates the burn scars all over your body are consistent with the injuries inflicted on you by your mother when you were a child, as you describe in your BOC; a letter from the Refugee Law Office that corroborates that you obtained legal advice earlier this year regarding the legal risks of re-availing to Turkey to bring your children back to Canada; the custody order obtained by your ex-husband, and the custody order obtained by you, which describes the harm your children suffered at the hands of your ex-husband. I have no reasons to doubt the authenticity of the evidence you submitted and find that the evidence supports and corroborates the allegations in your claim.

Objective basis of future risk

[9]       Based on the credibility of your allegations, and the objective country condition evidence, I find that you have established a well founded fear and a future risk that you will be subjected to mistreatment and violence at the hands of the agents of persecution, in a country where women have limited rights, and there are reports of judges and police returning women to their abusers.1 The fact that you face these risks is corroborated by the documents submitted by you in Exhibit 5, as well as numerous documents in the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Saudi Arabia (March 29, 2019), including Items 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, and 5.6.

Nature of the harm

[10]     The harm you have faced, and would face upon return to Saudi Arabia, clearly amounts to persecution.

State protection

[11]     I accept that you sought state protection, but protection was not forthcoming. Your experience is consistent with the country conditions described in the above cited documentary evidence. As such, I find that you have rebutted the presumption of state protection, as there is clear and convincing evidence before me that the state is unable to provide you with adequate protection.

Internal flight alternative (IFA)

[12]     With regards to an IFA, I find that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Saudi Arabia, as one of the agents of persecution is the father of your children, and this close family connection means that he could likely locate you anywhere in the country.

CONCLUSION

[13]     Based on this analysis I conclude that you are a Convention refugee and accept your claim.

1 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Saudi Arabia (March 29, 2019), Item 2.1.

Categories
All Countries Ethiopia

2019 RLLR 111

Citation: 2019 RLLR 111
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 6, 2019
Panel: T. Cortes Diaz
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Daniel Tilahun Kebede
Country: Ethiopia
RPD Number: TB9-12020
ATIP Number: A-2020-01459
ATIP Pages: 000193-000196


DECISION

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

[2]       I would like to add that when written decisions are issued, a written form of these reasons may be edited for spellings, syntax, and grammar and references to the applicable case law and documentary evidence may also be included.

[3]       So, the principal claimant [XXX] claims to be citizen of Ethiopia and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[4]       I find that you are a Convention refugee pursuant to Section 96 of the IRPA.

[5]       The claimant fears for her safety at the hands of Ethiopian authorities due to her perceived anti­ government profile and her profile as an Oromo.

[6]       She is perceived by the State to hold anti-State political views and view as a supporter of member of the OLF, Oromo Liberation Front. The details of your claims are documented in your Basis of Claim Form and were elaborated by you orally during the hearing.

IDENTITY:

[7]       Your personal and national identity as a national of Ethiopia has been established on a balance of probabilities through the passport on File at Exhibit 1 in your oral testimony.

CREDIBILITY:

[8]       With regard to credibility, I have found you to be a credible witness even though you were very general in the way that you answered the questions.

[9]       I found no relevant inconsistencies in your testimony or contradictions between your testimony and the other evidence before me. Given that I have found you to be a credible witness, I also accept what you have alleged in support of your claim including the following.

[10]     You work in Ethiopia in the [XXX] and you were subjected to discriminatory attitudes because of your ethnicity, reluctance to join the government party and for being a woman.

[11]     You were perceived as a supporter or member of the OLF, this is in part due to your friendship and closeness with Mr. [XXX] (ph), your reluctance join the EPRDF and your Oromo ethnicity.

[12]     Mr. [XXX] (ph) was incarcerated for his political beliefs and you visited him three times in the month of August in 2018.

[13]     Soon after you were detained, interrogated and beaten during these three interviews with the police where they accused you of having anti-government views. You were released with conditions to report to the police every week.

[14]     You also presented documents in support of your claim, I wont go through everything but includes the supporting letter your sister wrote, the letter from [XXX] (ph) and your [XXX] that attests your profession in [XXX], the harassment you experienced in Ethiopia and your incarceration.

[15]     Given your general credibility, I have no reasons to doubt the authenticity of the documentary evidence.

OBJECTIVE BASIS:

[16]     The overall objective evidence supports the claim. Items 1.5 and 2.1 among other indicate that in the past Ethiopian authorities regularly arrested, detained, and harassed persons including journalists in particular and their family members for criticising the government or for being supporters or perceived supporters of opposition groups.

[17]     In April 2018, there was a significant change in the political landscape of Ethiopia when Abiy Ahmed Ali became Prime Minister. Item 2.1 indicates that Abiy’s assumption of office was followed by positive changes in the human rights climate.

[18]     The government decriminalize political movements that had been accused of treason in the past, invited opposition leaders to return to the country and resume political activities, allow peaceful rallies and demonstration, enable the formation of new political parties and media outlets, continued steps to release thousands of political prisoner and <inaudible> provisions or repressive law.

[19]     However, objective evidence at Exhibit 4 indicated that despite these positive changes, there is not yet any fundamental and structural change in Ethiopian politics and the political atmosphere remains oppressive.

[20]     For example, we have the report from Ethiopian Human Rights Council dated July 18th, 2019, which your counsel submitted, which talks about the Ethiopian Government arresting and killing all suspects of having participate in the failed coup attempt which happened in the same year, 182 Ethiopians were arrested and many were killed as suspected of supporting this effort.

STATE PROTECTION:

[21]     With regard to State protection, given that the State is the agent of persecution, I find it will be objectively unreasonable for you to seek protection of the State in your circumstances.

[22]     With regard to internal flight alternative, given that the State is an agent of persecution with control over the entire country, I find there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Ethiopia and therefore a viable internal flight alternative does not exist.

[23]     My conclusion is having considered all the evidence I find there is a serious possibility that you will face persecution in Ethiopia.

[24]     I conclude that you are a Convention refugee and therefore I accept your claim. Welcome to Canada, thank you, counsel good work.

[25]     COUNSEL: Thank you.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Categories
All Countries Iraq

2019 RLLR 110

Citation: 2019 RLLR 110
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: June 20, 2019
Panel: R. Bafaro
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Micheal F. Loebach
Country: Iraq
RPD Number: TB8-32936
Associated RPD Number(s): TB8-33006, TB8-33007
ATIP Number: A-2020-01459
ATIP Pages: 000183-000192


DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: We are back on the record now, I’ve had an opportunity to carefully consider, examine, and weigh all the totality of the evidence which is before me.

[2]       I find that there is sufficient, credible, and trustworthy evidence before me to establish that the claimant has a well founded fear of persecution in Iraq. I am going to be delivering my oral reasons from the bench providing analysis of how I came to this decision.

[3]       I did ask madam interpreter to do simultaneous translation and she will do that to the best of her ability.

[4]       INTERPRETER: I just don’t want to interrupt.

[5]       MEMBER: Yeah, that’s fine. She will do that to the best of her ability, so she is going to go to the back of the hearing room and then what I am going to do is just, in the interim I am going to return all the original documents to counsel on the record so that she has all her documents.

[6]       Okay, the claimant, Ms. [XXX] and her two minor children [XXX] and [XXX] are claiming to be citizens of Iraq and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[7]       I find that the claimants are Convention refugees for the following reason:

[8]       Firstly, with respect to my analysis, I am going to address the issue of the claimants’ identity.

[9]       I have before me true certified copies of all of claimants’ Iraqi passports are which are in Exhibit 1 which is in evidence before. I find based on those documents alone that there is sufficient, credible, and trustworthy evidence to establish on a balance of probabilities that they are who they claim to be and that they are citizens of Iraq and no other country.

[10]     So, I have assessed this claim only against the country of Iraq. In terms of the issues as I mentioned at the outset of the hearing, for me the determinative issue was the claimants’ credibility.

[11]     Of course the principal claimant was the one who testified here this afternoon and overall I found that her testimony was credible.

[12]     It was generally consistent with all the very detailed information that she provided in her Basis of Claim Form, the original narrative, the amended narrative along with the addendums that were also filed into evidence.

[13]     The claimant, in addition to her testimony, did provide supporting documents to corroborate key aspects of her refugee claim that really substantiate and go to the heart of this refugee claim.

[14]     Especially as it relates to the aspect of this claim regarding the domestic violence which the claimant was subjected to at the hands of her ex-husbands [XXX] and [XXX] (ph) who was her second husband.

[15]     In the claimants’ supporting documents, she provided some key pieces of evidence, these are witness statements. There is one in Exhibit C15 from counsel’s disclosure which again corroborates that she was married to [XXX] who was [XXX], her first husband and that he was abusing her and beating her, that he was also abusive towards her daughter [XXX] and it confirms that her second husband was [XXX] (ph) and that he is a Shia Muslim who is influential with the government of Iraq and that he too subjected her to violence and beatings and also was abusive towards her eldest daughter [XXX], this is Exhibit C15 and this is page 3.

[16]     Identification documentation has been attached to this witness statement to verify the person who has written this statement.

[17]     There was also another witness statement and it is at page 15 of Exhibit C14, again which corroborates central aspects of this refugee claim namely that she was in two marriages and they were abusive marriages, she suffered at the hands of her first husband and her second husband, that she also was threatened by both husbands and this is at page 15.

[18]     There is also a transcription of some recorded information messages that were received by the claimant and again it corroborates the fact that her ex-husband [XXX] (ph) as recent as May of 2018 made a very serious threat against her, also not only threatening her personally but also threatening her daughter [XXX] and in this message he is boasting saying how powerful and how influential he is and that he knows people all over the world and that nothing will stop him in terms of achieving his own aims and goals.

[19]     He is also threatening to, he alleges also that he has got connections with ISIS and that he will seek retribution against her daughters through ISIS and this is found in Exhibit again Cl4 and it’s page 8.

[20]     There is a further documentation page 3, it’s a receipt and what this document is that it’s a receipt of monies that she had to repay her ex-husband [XXX] (ph) in order to get a divorce from him and this is also outlined in her narrative and this document corroborates that.

[21]     She had to pay a very large sum of money in order to facilitate getting a divorce from him.

[22]     The claimant also provided a lot of documentation that confirms and corroborates the fact that she was in a relationship, she was married to two different men, there are marriage certificate for her first husband, marriage certificate for her second husband along with the divorce certificates for both ex­ husbands and those are at Exhibit CS of counsel’s materials and that information is consistent with the information we have in the claimants Basis of Claim Form, the addendums, the amendments that were made, that information is consistent.

[23]     The claimant also corroborated another element of her refugee claim that is central. She has indicated, has been very specific about her profile.

[24]     She said that she is a [XXX], trained as a [XXX]. She upgraded her skills and underwent further training and schooling and is now [XXX], a [XXX], she was practicing in Iraq.

[25]     There is a lot of supporting documentation that establishes that in fact she was a [XXX], a [XXX], a [XXX], an [XXX] and this is at Exhibit C7 of counsel’s materials.

[26]     There are numerous school documents, school transcripts from various schools, from various medical associations, from various professional boards that again corroborate her background as [XXX].

[27]     There was one other document, I wanted to mention which is again part of C14, this is a very detailed letter from her brother-in-law [XXX] (ph) where again he corroborates the fact that she has been married twice, had been abused twice by her ex-husbands.

[28]     She has been threatened by them, beaten up by them, they have been abusive to her children as well in particular, [XXX], and that the claimant has received threats and that’s page 11 of Exhibit C14 and there was a correction made and we have an affidavit of correction that was provided this afternoon and that is before me as well and there was a change in the date.

[29]     I also find that there were no major contradictions or inconsistencies or discrepancies internal to her testimony or between her testimony and all other evidence which is before me.

[30]     I find that her testimony is also credible in the context of the objective country information on Iraq. Domestic violence is very prevalent, it is widespread. The authorities don’t provide adequate or effective State protection to victims of domestic violence.

[31]     The women who are medical practitioners in the public domain are also targets and they receive threats from militants from extremists be they Shia, Sunni extremists because of the fact that they are women and they are professionals, they are doctors.

[32]     So, the fact that she was threatened by extremists is not surprising in light of the objective country information is entirely plausible.

[33]     I also find that the claimant has established on balance of probabilities a nexus, actually to several grounds in the Convention refugee definition under Section 96. There is a nexus to her gender and I have taken into consideration the Chairperson’s guidelines on gender based persecution.

[34]     There is another aspect, another nexus she has established. She is a [XXX], that is another ground, I find that this claim is also based on that ground, which is membership in a particular social group.

[35]     And then I also find there is a further nexus which is victim of domestic violence which again is a particular social group.

[36]     So, really there are three different grounds upon which I find the claimant has established a nexus under Section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[37]     Now, I find that taking into consideration all those evidence that clearly the claimant has been able to establish that she has subjective fear of extremists, terrorists, be they Sunni, Shia, and also fear of her ex-husbands at whose hands she was subjected to horrendous and appalling physical, emotional and psychological violence.

[38]     Turning to the objective basis, I find that there is also sufficient objective evidence to demonstrate that her subjective fear as a woman, as a [XXX], and as a victim of domestic violence, is well founded and I am going to refer to some of the documentation found in the National Documentation Package which I find demonstrates that the claimant’s fear of persecution is based on good grounds and that it is objectively well-founded.

[39]     There is a UNHCR Report in the National Documentation Package Item 1.7 which makes it very clear that doctors and medical professionals are one of the groups who are at risk in Iraq.

[40]     It is individuals that have this particular profile that are subjected to targeted attacks and Item 1.7 has a section that outlines these different risk profiles, one of them is doctors and medical professionals and the report goes on and states that health professionals have been killed, maimed, and kidnapped and thousands of armed Sunni and Shia groups and criminal gangs since the fall of the former regime of Saddam Hussain.

[41]     According to the Iraqi Ministry of Health, more than 600 medical personnel were killed between 2003 and 2008 and 8000 of Iraq’s 15,500 doctors resigned in the same period with many having left Iraq subsequently.

[42]     The Iraqi Medical Association has estimated the number of doctors killed since 2003 are closer to 2000.

[43]     The reports goes on and talks about the motivation behind some of these targeted attacks and it goes on and states the exact motives for attacks on medical professionals are difficult to establish and is rare for identified perpetrators to be charged or convicted.

[44]     There is speculation that victims are targeted on the basis of their ethnic, religious background, their social status or perceived political opinion, criminal motivations, or personal, or tribal acts of revenge may be relevant factors.

[45]     However, even in such cases, elements such as a victim’s religion or ethnic identity may also be relevant. And as the claimant testified this afternoon, she was [XXX], [XXX] at a hospital and then she received a letter that was threatening her personally and she said that her understanding of why this happened and what the motive was is that she is Sunni practicing in an area which is predominantly Shia, so it was her belief that’s what really motivated the attack by way of this threat, that was received in written form when she was [XXX].

[46]     And this is supported as I just referred to. the documents support what is saying that’s probably more likely than not the motivation behind that targeted attack on her and that’s the reason why they issued this threat against her because she is a member of a minority religion, the Sunni religion practicing in an area in Baghdad which is predominantly Shia and we know from the documents also there has been a lot of Sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni Muslims and the government that’s in place in Baghdad is a Shia Government and through these various Shia militias the government has essentially carried out a campaign of ethnic cleansing wanting to push out any Sunnis.

[47]     There is also problem become the authorities perceive Sunnis to be terrorists, supporters of ISIS, the Islamic State, so clearly I find that in this case which is supported by the objective documents, this attack on the claimant when she received this threat is clearly motivated in part by her religion, the fact that she is a Sunni practicing medicine in an area that is predominantly Shia.

[48]     This very same report talks about and it confirms what I just, as it talks about Sunni Arabs who are living in essentially a majority Shia area and it says that even the demographics of Baghdad have changed over time.

[49]     Initially Shias lived peacefully next to Sunnis and there was harmony and there was tranquillity and people got along with one another with one another and after the fall of the Iraqi regime under Saddam Hussain everything changed and violence flared up between Sunni groups and Shia groups and there have been many attacks by Shia extremists including militias on members of the Sunni religion and this is supported again by the objective documents that I was just referring to in the UNHCR Report.

[50]     There is another section in this report that says that not only are doctors and professionals at risk in Iraq but women also that have specific profiles or that face particular circumstances are also at risk and it goes onto state that while those killed and maimed in violence since 2003 have mostly been men, women are also caught up in indiscriminate attacks including in attacks aimed at their husbands or other male family members for example work as policemen, politicians, or government officials.

[51]     Women have also been singled out for attacks in particular, if they have assumed a public role as politicians, government officials, rights activists, or professionals such as the claimant others including women of religious minority groups which is also the claimant, she is Sunni, have been targeted for not conforming to conservative Islamic or traditional norms, for example concerning their dress or because they have considered to have brought shame to their family’s honour.

[52]     And if we think back to the claimant’s testimony in evidence about her second husband [XXX] (ph), he was a Shia, and he didn’t like the fact that his wife was Sunni and he tried to force her to convert from the Sunni religion to the Shia religion.

[53]     He also many times tried to force her to wear the hijab even though she didn’t want to. The report goes on and says that violence against women, this is another profile, people who are at risk in Iraq, violence against women and girls have reportedly increased since 2003 and according to most observers continued unabated.

[54]     Women and girls in Iraq are victims of societal, legal, and economic discriminations, abductions, and killings for political, sectarian or criminal reasons, sexual violence, forced displacement, domestic violence, honour killings, and other harmful traditional practices as well as sex trafficking and forced prostitution.

[55]     Iraqi women and girls are reported to face violence at the hands of range of actors including armed groups, members of law enforcement agencies, and their extended families and community and most violence against women and girls notably appears to be perpetrated with impunity.

[56]     According to the reports, the main reasons why victims of gender based violence refrain from reporting sexual abuse and rape, forced marriage, and domestic violence, as well as FGM, is their fear of retaliation by the perpetrator or the family community for tainting their honour.

[57]     Reports further indicate that women often fear that would not receive protection from law enforcement agencies and courts given that gender based violence often treated leniently while certain forms of violence including domestic violence, trafficking and FGM are not criminalized by Iraqi law.

[58]     The reports goes onto state that generally speaking the authorities have only very limited capacity to prevent, protect, and prosecute in cases of violence against women.

[59]     So, clearly the documents speak volumes when it comes to victims of domestic violence, not only that they are their targets but that the response from the State is largely inadequate and ineffective.

[60]     The report goes on and states that law enforcement and judicial personnel often disregard domestic violence cases and merely focus on criminal charges brought against women.

[61]     What also I find makes the claimant’s situation even more vulnerable and puts her at even greater risk as a woman facing gender based persecution is the fact that she was married twice, she is divorced twice, she has two young children and essentially she is on her own, she is a single parent with two young kids.

[62]     The report speaks to that as well and it goes onto say that women without male support including widows, women whose husbands are missing or detained and divorcees are most affected.

[63]     Traditionally they would move in with their families or their in-laws after the loss of their husbands; however, these relatives are often unable to provide substantial support given their own economic destitution.

[64]     In addition many female headed households have been displaced and as a result have been separated from their extended families and traditional support networks, most women headed households in central and southern Iraq do not receive government welfare.

[65]     It goes on to say that overall many females headed households are lacking the means to provide for themselves and their children and remain among the most vulnerable in the country.

[66]     Women without support and protection provided by their family or travel network are particularly vulnerable to being harassed, kidnapped, or sexually assaulted.

[67]     There is another report that talks about the situation facing Sunni Arab Muslims in Iraq and that’s at Item 1.20 of the National Documentation Package which is a British Home Office Report and it gives numerous examples of were Sunnis have been arbitrarily detained, tortured, and even killed at the hands of Shia extremists, at the hands of the Iraqi security forces and the report goes onto say that essentially the authorities are in no position to be able to protect Sunnis from this type of violence that they are either unwilling, some of the documents suggest they are either unwilling or they are simply unable to provide adequate protection.

[68]     This is not surprising when you consider that in many cases the perpetrators are these Shia militias which seem to have free reign in the country and seem to be able to operate independently of the Iraqi Forces.

[69]     The documents to a great extent indicate that not only do they support the central government in Baghdad, but that the central government supports them and supports what they are doing which is to a large extent ethnic cleansing, trying to eliminating, get rid of Sunnis from the area of Baghdad, so that it becomes predominantly a Shia area.

[70]     So, there are many references in this report to attacks on Sunnis by Shia militias and Shia extremists in the central Baghdad, because they are members of minority religion and that this continues to happen in the country and in this report there is reference to a passage were it states within majority Shia community, Abadi continues to struggle politically against the growing influence of Shia militia commanders who operate independently of the official military chain of command, have close ties to Iranian leaders and question the Abadi Government’s alliance with the United States.

[71]     The government has needed to rely on militias in some battles against the Islamic State.

[72]     Some of the Shia militia leaders seem to combat the Islamic State without the participation of Sunni fighters who many experts assert are key to completely defeating Islamic State Forces and in Section 7 of this report, there is a heading, Shia militia abuses which give many examples of targeted attacks against members of the Sunni community which includes forced displacement, kidnappings, abductions, and killings.

[73]     Now, so I find that given that these Shia militias are in fact connected to central government of Iraq and the central government of Iraq acquiesces and lets them do pretty much whatever they want to do, I find that it would be objectively unreasonable in the particular circumstances of the claimant to expect her to go to the Iraqi central authorities to ask for protection.

[74]     This is a government that does not support Sunnis. This is a government that allows Shia militia’s which are essentially extremist groups to carry out their own agendas and to target, detain, torture, and kill members of a minority religious groups which are the Sunnis.

[75]     I find that even if the claimant could approach the authority’s protection, I find objectively speaking that it would not reasonably be forthcoming given the fact that there is a strong alliance between the central authorities in Baghdad and these Shia militias.

[76]     The other issue that I turn my mind to is the issue of internal flight alternative, I find that in the particular circumstances of these claimants that there is no realistic or viable or attainable internal flight alternative in any other part of the country outside of Baghdad and this is for several reasons.

[77]     We are talking about a woman who is essentially for all intents and purposes a single mother, two young children, she has been divorced.

[78]     The documents say that women divorcees are highly stigmatized. It also mentions there are significant legal restrictions that prevent freedom of movement for women, especially when they are own their own, they are single, they don’t have a male guardian, so that also would make an internal flight alternative not feasible given that the claimant’s particular circumstances.

[79]     Also important to note that throughout the country outside of Baghdad, there are checkpoints everywhere, there is Islamic State and ISIS, there is Shia militias that are operating at their own checkpoints.

[80]     The claimant finds herself in a very precarious and very dangerous situation, because even if she try to go to any of these areas, she could very well encounter these checkpoints which are manned by ISIS.

[81]     ISIS is an extremists group, they are terrorists, they target professionals, they target women who are in the public domain working as medical practitioners, the same applies to Shia militias.

[82]     The claimant is working and is a woman and in an area that used to be male dominated profession and in the sense in that respect is transgressing Islamic norms and values and Sharia law and that also puts her in as situation were she could face serious peril if she tried to move around the country to try to find a safe place.

[83]     I find that it wouldn’t reasonable to expect that she could go to some of these other locations without any obstacles or any obstructions, I find that on a contrary I think it would be unduly harsh to expect her to be able to move around as a single woman who is highly stigmatized, who has been divorced, who doesn’t have a male guardian or support figure and who has been targeted by way of domestic violence, has been threatened by extremist groups because she was working as a [XXX], as a [XXX].

[84]     So, I find that given these particular circumstances that the claimants do not have a viable internal flight alternative anywhere else in the country outside of Baghdad.

[85]     It is also important to know with respect to my analysis of the internal flight alternative that we also have evidence that her ex-husband [XXX] (ph) is influential.  He is connected to the government. He is and even based on some of the threats he has made, he seems to suggest that he has the ability to track the principal claimant’s movements, her family’s movements and he seems to be strongly motivated to do so because even though they were divorced in 2012, he hasn’t stopped threatening her and we have that evidence before me.

[86]     So, for that reason also it makes no sense for her to try to relocate to some other part of the country when you are dealing with an individual who is a Shia who seems to have connections with the government but also with fundamentalist extremists groups.

[87]     So, for that reason also I find that the claimant doesn’t have a viable internal flight alternative.

[88]     So, for all those reasons, I find that claimant faces more than a mere possibility, a reasonable chance, a serous possibility that she would be persecuted if she were to return to Iraq today.

[89]     The same applies to her young minor children who are also members of particular social group, namely the family. They too are victims of domestic violence and they too are being targeted and threats have been made against them, in particular the eldest daughter [XXX].

[90]     So, that brings us to the end of the hearing, this hearing is now concluded. I want to thank everybody for their participation, thank you Madam Interpreter for your assistance. This matter is now concluded.

[91]     INTERPRETER: Thank you Mr. Bafaro.

[92]     MEMBER: Thank you

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Categories
All Countries Eritrea

2019 RLLR 109

Citation: 2019 RLLR 109
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 26, 2019
Panel: Avril Cardoso
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Medhat Mary Ghobrial
Country: Eritrea
RPD Number: TB8-28669
ATIP Number: A-2020-01459
ATIP Pages: 000176-000182


REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]       The claimant, [XXX] is seeking refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Act1.

ALLEGATIONS

[2]       The claimant’s allegations are fully set out in her Basis of Claim form (BOC). In summary she alleges a fear of persecution in Eritrea at the hands of the government due to her anti­government political opinion.

DETERMINATION

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

ANALYSIS

Identity

[4]       The claimant’s personal and national identity as a citizen of Eritrea has been established on a balance of probabilities by a true copy of her passport2 and national ID card.

Credibility

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

[6]       The claimant’s testimony about her anti-government actual and imputed political opinion in Eritrea is consistent with her profile. His testimony was spontaneous and materially consistent with her narrative and supporting documents. The minor inconsistencies in the claimant’s evidence were not sufficient to overcome the credibility of her testimony and the documentary evidence.

The claimant and her spouse refused to join the ruling PFDJ party

[7]       The claimant testified that the People’s Front for Democracy and Justice (PFDJ) which is the government in power sent her husband two letters in 2016 asking him to join the party. She said her husband refused and said he was too busy. The claimant said there was no further contact at that time from the PFDJ. She testified that in 2017, she was asked to join the women’s wing of the PFDJ. The claimant testified that the party sent her a letter. When asked why she did not provide a copy of the letter, she said she did not think about it.

[8]       I find that the claimant’s explanation is unreasonable. She is a business owner and the letter requiring her to join the PFDJ is regarding the central issue in her claim. However, the claimant’s testimony regarding the letters from the PFDJ sent to her and her husband is consistent with her BOC and there is no valid reason to doubt her credibility. Therefore corroborating documents are not necessary in these circumstances3.

The claimant is sought after by the PFDJ

[9]       The claimant testified that after she left Eritrea on [XXX] 2018 the authorities have searched her home, shut down her businesses and frozen her bank account. She testified that she obtained this information through her neighbour because her two daughters who were in Eritrea left the country in [XXX] 2018 and her husband was arrested on or about August 2018.

[10]     The claimant testified that the authorities left a document at her house. She said she asked her neighbour to send her a picture of the document but her neighbour did not do so and she believes her neighbour has since left Eritrea as she has been unable to contact her since approximately November 2018. When asked for any documents regarding her testimony that her bank account was frozen, she testified that she has nobody else left in Eritrea to contact and nobody is looking after her home and that her bank did not have a presence in Canada where she could obtain information about her bank account.

[11]     The claimant submitted a business licence and a letter from the Housing and Commerce Bank of Eritrea in support of her testimony. The letter from the bank indicates that her bank balance as of May 17, 2018 was [XXX] Nakfa. In her BOC she stated that her bank account has a balance of [XXX] Nakfa. When asked to explain the discrepancy, the claimant said the letter was for her chequing account and her savings account had a balance [XXX] Nakfa. I find the claimant’s explanation unreasonable. The bank letter indicates that the account is a savings account not a chequing account. I draw a negative inference from the claimant’s explanation.

The claimant was of interest to the authorities prior to leaving Eritrea

[12]     The claimant testified that when she applied for an exit visa to leave Eritrea to come to Canada for her grandchild’s baptism, she was refused. She said her husband and his friends bribed immigration officials in Eritrea and she was able to obtain an exit visa on May 3, 2018 and she went to Kampala, Uganda to apply for a Canadian visa. This evidence demonstrates on a balance of probabilities that the claimant was of interest to the authorities as her exit visa request was denied and she left Eritrea through irregular means.

The claimant’s husband was detained since she left Eritrea

[13]     In the claimant’s BOC she states that one of her three daughters left Eritrea in 2014 after completing mandatory conscription and claimed refugee protection in Ethiopia. In her BOC she states that her husband was subsequently detained for six weeks at the Adi Abieto prison likely because the authorities believed he assisted his daughter in leaving Eritrea. She testified that after her neighbour told her that her husband had been arrested in approximately August 2018, her remaining two daughters managed to exit Eritrea when the border with Ethiopia opened in September 2018. The claimant submitted refugee documents in support of her testimony that all her three daughters are residing in Ethiopia. She testified that she has not been able to obtain any further information about her husband’s whereabouts. I find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant’s husband has been detained or arrested since she has come to Canada.

[14]     An unknown number of persons disappeared which are not investigated by the government. Nor are family members notified about the status of detainees and disappeared persons included those detained for political or religious beliefs4. Furthermore, although the law and unimplemented constitution prohibit arbitrary arrest and detention, such acts remain widespread. Reasons for arrest include criticizing the government5.

Failure to claim in Uganda reasonably explained

[15]     The claimant arrived in Uganda on [XXX] 2018 and left Uganda for Canada on [XXX], 2018. When asked why she did not claim protection in Uganda, the claimant said she had a letter of invitation to come to Canada for her granddaughter’s baptism and went to Uganda to apply for her Canadian visa. I find the claimant’s explanation reasonable. She was in Uganda for a short period awaiting the issuance of her Canadian visa and she explained that she did not leave right away on [XXX] 2018 when her visa was issued as her ticket was for [XXX] 2018. There is no evidence that the Eritrean authorities were seeking the claimant at this time.

Delay in claiming for protection in Canada

[16]     After arriving in Canada on [XXX] 2018 the claimant filed for protection on October 31, 2018. When asked to explain the delay in claiming, the claimant testified that she had intended to return to Eritrea however once she heard her husband had been detained or arrested and that her house was searched and her bank accounts had been frozen, she decided to seek protection in Canada. I find the claimant’s explanation for the short delay to be reasonable and consistent with her other testimony.

Objective basis

[17]     Item 2.1 of the Eritrea NDP August 30, 20196 indicates that Eritrea is a highly centralized, authoritarian regime under the control of President Isaias Afwerki. The People’s Front for Democracy and Justice (PFDJ), headed by the president, is the sole political party. Item 9.2 indicates that ordinary judicial procedures are not in place in Eritrea where the rule of law is absent. This document also indicates that in cases of a political nature summonses are not issued7.

[18]     The authorities are intolerant of dissent and those who fail to maintain loyalty to the one party ruling party risk imprisonment8.

[19]     Item 8.8 indicates that individuals forcefully repatriated are considered serious offenders and also traitors and are usually arrested upon return and face ill treatment to the point of torture. Item 14.2 indicates that persons who left Eritrea illegally could face interrogations, arrest and harsh punishments9.

[20]     The objective evidence is consistent with the claimant’s account of fearing persecution based on her political opinion in Eritrea.

[21]     I find that the claimant’s fear of persecution because of her actual and imputed anti­ government political opinion has an objective basis and is well-founded.

State Protection

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

[23]     Given that the state is the agent of persecution and taking into account the objective evidence, I find that it would be objectively unreasonable for the claimant to seek the protection of the state in her circumstances, and that adequate state protection would not be reasonably forthcoming.

Internal Flight Alternative (IFA)

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

CONCLUSION

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

(signed)           Avril Cardoso

November 26, 2019

1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 as amended
2 Exhibit 1
3 Feride Celik Guven & Miray Guven v. The Minister Of Citizenship and Immigration, 2018 FC 38 at para. 37.
4 Exhibit 3, Item 2.5
5 Ibid. and Item 2.3
6 Exhibit 3
7 Exhibit 3, Item 9.2
8 Exhibit 3, Item 2.3
9 Exhibit 3, Item 14.2

Categories
All Countries Saudi Arabia

2019 RLLR 108

Citation: 2019 RLLR 108
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 7, 2019
Panel: A. Rico
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Hannah Lindy
Country: Saudi Arabia
RPD Number: TB8-25749
ATIP Number: A-2020-01459
ATIP Pages: 000172-000175


DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: These are the reasons for decision in the claim of [XXX]. First name is spelled, [XXX] (sic).  Second name is spelled [XXX], middle initial [XXX]. Last name is spelled, [XXX] who claims to be a citizen of Saudi Arabia and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[2]       In rendering my decisions, I have had considered and applied the Chairperson’s guidelines on women refugee claimants fearing gender related persecution.

[3]       You allege the following. You were sexually assaulted in Canada by a male Saudi citizen. You reported the sexual assault to the police and criminal charges were laid which resulted in criminal proceedings against the male Saudi citizen.

[4]       The Saudi Government pressured you to drop the criminal charges and to work with them to stop the criminal proceedings.

[5]       The male Saudi citizen belongs to a prominent family in Saudi Arabia. You fear that you will be prosecuted if returned to Saudi Arabia as the Saudi Government would blame you for being sexually assaulted.

[6]       I find that you are a Convention refugee as your fear of persecution is by reasons of your membership in a particular social group, specifically that a woman fearing gender based violence.

[7]       I find that your identity as a national of Saudi Arabia is established by your testimony and the supporting documentation filed, including the certified true copy of your passport found at Exhibit 1.

[8]       I find that the wealth of documentation found at Exhibits 5 and 7 establishes, on a balance of probabilities, that criminal charges were laid against a male Saudi citizen, and that you received threats from the Saudi Government because of these criminal charges.

[9]       You provided documents corroborating the criminal court proceedings against the male Saudi citizen as well as the threats you received via WhatsApp messaging arising from the commencement of those criminal court proceedings.

[10]     Given the preponderance of the corroborating evidence before me I find that, on a balance of probabilities, your allegations of persecution are, in fact, true.

[11]     I do not draw a negative credibility inference from your delay in making a refugee claim. I find it completely understandable that you had many things going on between attending hospital appointments, attending court appearances, and being available for Crown Prosecutors related to your criminal case.

[12]     I find it completely reasonable that the criminal case be in the forefront of your mind and that you would focus on the criminal proceedings.

[13]     I also note that at the time you were not at risk of being removed until Saudi students were called back to Saudi Arabia. As such, the risk had not yet materialized for you. And shortly after the risk of return to Saudi Arabia materialized you initiated your refugee claim.

[14]     While I continue to have concerns regarding your re-availment to Saudi Arabia in 2017, when weighing the totality of evidence as a whole these concerns are insufficient to rebut the presumption of truthfulness.

[15]     I therefore find that you have established a subjective fear of persecution if you are to be returned to Saudi Arabia by reason of your membership in a particular social group, specifically that of women fearing gender based violence.

[16]     Your subjective fear of persecution is objectively well-founded.

[17]     The documentary evidence at Exhibit 3 Item 2.1 states that one of the most significant human rights issues included violence and official gender discrimination against women, despite the announced new women’s rights initiatives.

[18]     Though rape is a criminal offence under Shari law, a rape victim must provide four witnesses to the rape or the perpetrator’s confession. Otherwise, the victim will be persecuted … prosecuted for having illegal sex. Punishment imposed by the court for having illegal sex may range from flogging if she is single or execution if she is married. Any resulting pregnancy also leaves them open to criminal prosecution or other punishment such as honour killing. Evidence of which can be found at Exhibit 3 Items 5.1 and 5.6.

[19]     Few cases of rape are prosecuted or reported as women fear being prosecuted themselves if they do report the crime.

[20]     Given that the criminal proceedings of sexual assault against a male Saudi citizen is public knowledge and that the Saudi Government through its embassy is aware of these criminal proceedings and that the objective documentary evidence establishes that you will more likely than not face a serious possibility of persecution if returned to Saudi Arabia as you may be punished for having what is considered in Saudi Arabia illegal sex, I find that you have established a well-founded fear of persecution in Saudi Arabia.

[21]     As the agent of persecution in your particular circumstances is the State, given that they will more likely than not prosecute and met out the punishment, I find that it would be objectively unreasonable for you to seek protection of the State.

[22]     I have also considered whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for you. On the evidence before me I find that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Saudi Arabia.

[23]     It is clear from the objective documentary evidence that the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia is the same throughout. As such, there is no safe place for you.

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

[25]     Okay, let’s pull the mics back.

[26]     This concludes today’s hearing. We will be going off the record now. I wish you all a good afternoon.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Categories
All Countries Venezuela

2019 RLLR 107

Citation: 2019 RLLR 107
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 7, 2019
Panel: Robert Bafaro
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Yaritza Martinez
Country: Venezuela
RPD Number: TB8-25225
Associated RPD Number(s): TB8-25277, TB8-03615
ATIP Number: A-2020-01459
ATIP Pages: 000167-000171


[1]       MEMBER: I’ve had a chance to carefully review all of the evidence before me, to carefully consider the testimony of the principal claimant, XXXX, the testimony of his daughter XXXX. I’ve had a chance to examine all of the supporting documents that have been provided as well as the country documents regarding the human rights situation in Venezuela at the present time, as reflected in the National Documentation Package on Venezuela from May 2018.

[2]       I’ve decided to accept these refugee claims and I’m now going to deliver my oral reasons from the bench.

[3]       The claimants, [XXX] and [XXX], are claiming refugee protection pursuant to s. 96 and s. 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[4]       With respect to the issue of their identities, I’m satisfied that they have established, on a balance of probabilities, that they are who they claim to be and that they are citizens of Venezuela. have in evidence before me, in Exhibit 1, certified true copies of their Venezuelan passports.

[5]       The other important issue that I have to assess in all refugee claims is the issue of credibility. I have to be satisfied that the testimony and evidence of the claimants, as it relates to the most central, most important, aspects of their refugee claims, is credible.

[6]       Now, in refugee law in Canada, there’s a presumption. The presumption is that everything that a claimant says under oath is true, unless there’s evidence, persuasive evidence, to the contrary. I find that there is no persuasive evidence to the contrary.

[7]       The narratives of the principal claimant, [XXX], and his daughter, [XXX], are very detailed. I’m not going to repeat everything that’s in their basis of claim forms. Suffice it to say that they are both alleging a fear of persecution in the country on the grounds of their political opinion, both their actual political opinion and their perceived or imputed political opinion, by virtue of the fact that they are members, active members, of an opposition party called COPEI (ph.). They are alleging that they fear persecution in the country also because they were actively involved in protesting, demonstrating and criticising the government – the Chavez government, the current government of Maduro – by attending demonstrations, protests, holding placards, distributing flyers, condemning the government, in the hopes of restoring some kind of democracy. As the principal claimant mentioned, he was providing logistical support, food, water, but he was also actively involved holding placards, distributing anti-government literature and flyers to demonstrators. The principal claimant has been political active for many, many years. His daughter, [XXX], started in – became a member of the party in 2007 and then she continued right up until 2014 and then the threats started. And the threats continued right up until the time she left the country for the very last time. So, that is a synopsis or a brief encapsulation of the key elements that form the basis for these refugee claims.

[8]       I already made some comments about credibility. And I heard testimony from the principal claimant. I heard testimony from [XXX], his daughter. And first want to make some comments about the principal claimant.

[9]       He gave his testimony in a very straightforward manner. His answers were spontaneous. They were consistent with the objective country information. They were consistent with the information provided in his basis of claim form. There were no major contradictions or inconsistencies or discrepancies between his testimony and other evidence which was before me.

[10]     Likewise, his daughter [XXX] also testified in a straightforward manner. Her answers were spontaneous. Her answers were generally consistent with the very detailed information she provided in her basis of claim form narrative and her testimony was consistent with, generally speaking, with the objective country information contained in the National Documentation Package on Venezuela.

[11]     And I wanted to make one comment about [XXX] and her testimony. There was one aspect of her testimony that I did have some difficulty with. However, I think she – however, I find that she did provide a reasonable explanation.  Initially I didn’t find it entirely – it didn’t make a lot of sense to me and it didn’t seem to be plausible that despite these continuing threats from the Venezuelan government that she would keep leaving the country and re-availing herself of the country. In other words, it didn’t sound plausible to me that someone who’s fearing persecution would leave the country of persecution, go abroad to places like Argentina, United States, Canada and not ask for protection.

[12]     However, I find that she provide a reasonable explanation. And the explanation is this. Those other times that she went out of the country, it was a kind of a temporary measure. She really had no intention at that time to claim asylum. She wanted to finish her education. And, more importantly, she didn’t really feel at that time that the threats were as serious as they became later.

[13]     Now, a threat is a threat. It’s serious. However, it wasn’t until later, when she returned from Canada and went back to Venezuela and returned to Margarita Island, that things became a lot worse. It was when she went back that she was kidnapped, she was beaten up, she was threatened with rape. And they clearly perceived her to be someone that was disloyal to the government, an opponent of the government, especially since she had actually done an internship within the government. And it’s people that work for the government especially that the government expects loyalty from them, expects them to be patriotic. And in her case, she wasn’t. She didn’t want to go along with what the government was trying to pressure her to do, which was to get this patriotic identity card under Chavez to, you know, vote for the government and support their policy. She refused to do that and, in fact, did the opposite. She continued to remain active in an opposition political party and attended protests that were denouncing the government.

[14]     So, I think when you look at it that way, it actually sounds entirely reasonable and plausible that initially she didn’t claim asylum or ask for protection in those countries, but once she was actually kidnapped and physically assaulted at gun point and then threatened with rape, that that was basically the final straw. And it’s at that point in time that she came to the realisation that this situation was really serious and that it was out of control and that things were not going to get better. And it’s precisely around that time that she left and then her parents followed her to Canada because the threats were continuing.

[15]     So, that having been said, I find in light of all of the evidence that both the principal claimant, [XXX], and his daughter [XXX] were in fact very credible witnesses.

[16]     Now, turning to the objective evidence – and the objective evidence is not in dispute. It’s we – we know what’s going on in Venezuela. The objective documents speak very clearly about what’s going on in Venezuela, that if you’re a political activist, you’re an opponent of the government, you’re criticising their policies openly at demonstrations, protests, you face serious problems, including arbitrary arrest, detention, torture, extra-judicial killings. The situation has really spiralled out of control and the Maduro government has consolidated its power, giving itself and its own – members of its own party the ultimate power over and above the power that the National Assembly once used to have.

[17]     So, I’m now going to refer to some of the objective documents that talk about the situation in Venezuela.

[18]     Item 2.3 in the National Documentation Package, which in evidence today as Exhibit 5, indicates – and it’s a report from Human Rights Watch. It indicates that brutal repression of political protest in Venezuela, the erosion of human rights, state-sponsored censorship, intimidation of critics, and – it notes that people face torture and abuse in custody and that people are discriminated against because of their criticism of the government.

[19]     Item 4.3 notes that the political prisoners have been tortured in Venezuela and the government has limited human rights, including personal freedom of integrity and freedom of expression.

[20]     Item 4.14 notes that,

“Protests have been met with outright prohibition, roadblocks … repressive policing, as well as deployment of armed civilians who have beaten and shot at demonstrators.”

[21]     The colectivos are a violent paramilitary wing of the ruling socialist party and they are responsible for much of this political persecution.

[22]     As indicated in Item 4.16, a faction of the colectivos known as the Tupamaros are also known for dealing ruthlessly with political opponents through fierce and deadly intimidation and assault by firearm, including the murder of protesters.

[23]     Based on the evidence before me, I find that the claimants face more than mere possibility of persecution in Venezuela as opponents of the Maduro régime.

[24]     I find that your claims are objectively well-founded. The totality of the country documentation supports your allegations.

[25]     On a balance of probabilities and in light of your particular circumstances, I find that there is clear and convincing evidence that the Venezuelan State would be unwilling to provide political opponents with protection. Indeed, the agent of persecution that you fear in Venezuela is the government itself. And the documentary evidence at Exhibit 5 corroborates this.

[26]     I just wanted to back up one minute and just mention that another reason why I found the claimants’ testimony to be credible is that it was supported by objective documentation. And this is found at Exhibit 9. The claimants provided supporting documents that corroborate central aspects of their refugee claim. And those are found at – beginning at page 22, it talks about the internship of the female claimant, [XXX]. There’s another document, page 24, that corroborates the fact that she had an internship with the government. We’ve got a letter, page 27, that corroborates that [XXX] was a member of the COPEI opposition political party. And likewise we have a document, at page 30, that corroborates the membership of [XXX] in the COPEI opposition party and it corroborates that – and both of these letters corroborate that both [XXX] and [XXX] were not just members, or card-carrying members; they were activists. They were actively involved in opposing the Maduro government. They were actively involved in protests against the government.

[27]     There’s also a witness statement at page 33 that provides corroboration about an incident that happened at the claimants’ home. Sorry, there’s a – let me – I stand corrected. There’s a witness statement that says that since they have left the country, there continues to be unusual activity surrounding their home and that – suspicious activities in their neighbourhood, involving people going around asking, trying to find out where the [XXX] family has gone to.

[28]     And there’s also a medical report, at page 36, which corroborates an incident in June of 2017 involving [XXX], where she sustained multiple contusions, and this was around the time that she was kidnapped, beaten brutally and threatened with rape.

[29]     So, I find that the documentary evidence is both clear and convincing and that it rebuts the presumption of State protection in your particular circumstances.

[30]     I’ve also considered whether there’s an internal flight alternative for you, as members of one family, anywhere in the country, in Venezuela. However, on the evidence before me, I find there is a serious possibility of persecution for all of you throughout the country in your particular circumstances. Again, the documentary evidence at Exhibit 5 indicates that persecution of political opponents occurs throughout the country.

[31]     For the foregoing reasons and having considered all the evidence before me, I conclude that you all face a serious possibility of persecution on the basis of your both imputed and actual political opinions, should you return to Venezuela.

[32]     According, I am accepting your refugee claims and find you to be Convention refugees pursuant to s. 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

DECISION CONCLUDED

Categories
All Countries Uganda

2019 RLLR 106

Citation: 2019 RLLR 106
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: October 1, 2019
Panel: Diane Hitayezu-Fall
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Micheal F Loebach
Country: Uganda
RPD Number: TB8-18931
ATIP Number: A-2020-01459
ATIP Pages: 000161-000166


REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]       [XXX] (the claimant) claims to be a citizen of Uganda, and seeks refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)1.

ALLEGATIONS

[2]       The details of the claimant’s allegations are set out in his Basis of Claim (BOC) form.2 In short, the claimant alleges persecution based on his political opinion and membership in the Forum for Democratic Change (FDC); an opposition political party in Uganda.

[3]       He alleges that he was detained three times due to his political activities. He was released with conditions after each arrest, and one of the conditions was to report back to the police. He decided to flee Uganda after the third detention in [XXX] 2017, when he learned that he had been charged for inciting violence.

[4]       He arrived in Canada on [XXX] 2018 from the United States where he had a pending asylum claim.

[5]       The claimant alleges that the Ugandan government is still looking for him. He fears his life would be at risk, if he were to return to Uganda, as he still opposes the National Resistance Movement’s programs and its ways of ruling the country.

DETERMINATION

[6]       Having considered the totality of the evidence, the panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee as he has established a serious possibility of persecution in Uganda, based on a Convention ground, political opinion.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[7]       The panel is satisfied with the claimant’s personal identity and status as a citizen of Uganda, on a balance of probabilities.

[8]       His identity was established based on his oral testimony, a certified copy of his Ugandan passport (a copy of which is on file) seen by a border services officer and other documents from Uganda he provided, which include a birth certificate, academic documents and his marriage certificate.3

Credibility and subjective fear

[9]       The claimant’s oral testimony regarding his motives to join the FDC party, his activities and his political opinion was detailed and credible. It was supported by documents that the panel assessed and found trustworthy on a balance of probabilities.4 His knowledge of the Ugandan political sphere was commensurate to his alleged involvement in the FDC.

[10]     His testimony included his motives to join the FDC, his role within the FDC, the events that made him leave Uganda, and his current fears.

[11]     Despite this credible oral testimony, the panel noticed that the claimant submitted questionable police documents.5 These documents contain spelling errors and at least one cites the wrong section of the applicable law.6 The claimant did not offer any explanation when he was invited to comment on the flaws noted; he simply stated that the release on bond documents were handed to him by the police, and the other documents were given to his lawyer or his wife. The flaws identified on these police documents were not explained to the panel’s satisfaction. The panel finds that they are non-genuine, on a balance of probabilities and were submitted to embellish this claim.

[12]     These non-genuine documents were tendered to corroborate the claimant’s allegations that he had been detained, then released on bonds, was required to report back to the police, and that several warrants to arrest were issued against him.

[13]     The panel considered the other evidence on file regarding these allegations and found that the negative impact of the submission of these documents that the panel assessed and found non-genuine on a balance of probabilities was overcome by the claimant’s credible oral testimony and other credible evidence tendered to support the alleged dealings with the police. This other evidence included the claimant’s testimony, found to be credible, and a number of letters and affidavits which included an affidavit from the FDC lawyer who handled the claimant’s detention cases and letters from FDC leaders and that

[14]     As the claimant arrived in Canada from the US where he had a pending asylum claim, the panel had to assess if leaving the US and abandoning his claim was a sign of lack of subjective fear.

[15]     The claimant has provided a number of documents related to his US asylum claim, which indicate that the assessment of his claim was almost completed when he left the US.7 He had received a letter inviting him to clarify some elements of his claim. He explained that having heard about the unfavourable US immigration policies, he got scared to be sent back to Uganda and decided to come to Canada.

[16]     Taking into consideration the claimant’s particular circumstances and his explanation for abandoning his claim in the US and based on the understanding of the panel of the current US administration’s attitude and treatment of immigrants and asylum seekers, the panel will not draw any negative inference in regards to the claimant’s abandonment of his US claim.

[17]     Having assessed the entire evidence on record, the panel finds that, based on the oral testimony found credible and the documentary evidence found reliable, the claimant has established that he is a member of the opposition and that he left Uganda because of his political opinions. Therefore, the panel concludes that he has established a subjective fear as a person who holds opinions that do not align with the ruling party.

[18]     The panel finds that there is a connection between the fear alleged by the claimant and one of the Convention grounds, namely political opinion.

Objective Basis

[19]     The claimant’s allegations are supported by the objective documentary evidence contained in the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Uganda.8 This objective documentary evidence reports that people in the claimant’s circumstances, individuals in Uganda who express political views that do not align with the government in power, face persecution. The claimant fears to be arrested if he returns to Uganda. He has charges pending in Uganda, stemming from his past political activities with the FDC when he opposed the Government and the National Resistance Movement (NRM) policies. The objective evidence validates his fear. There is information that Ugandan authorities cite laws protecting national security to restrict criticism of government policies.9 The FDC is reported to be the strongest force in the opposition and represents the biggest challenge to President Museveni.

[20]     The United States State Department’s Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 2018 included in the NDP for Uganda notes that significant human rights issues were observed, including unlawful killings and torture by security forces, harsh prison conditions, arbitrary detention, restrictions on freedom of press, expression, assembly and political participation, as well as, official corruption.10 During the period covered by this report the police arrested and detained members of the opposition.

[21]     The same report also noted that the Ugandan government was reluctant to investigate, prosecute or punish officials who committed human rights violations, whether in the security services or elsewhere in the government and impunity was a problem. The objective evidence demonstrates that the fact that President Museveni and NRM have been in power since 1986 has resulted in the intertwinement of the ruling party with the state apparatus.11

[22]     Having considered this documentary evidence in conjunction with the claimant’s allegations about his political opinion, and the consequences of having strong political opinions that oppose the ruling party’s opinions, the panel finds that the claimant has a well-founded fear and that he faces a serious possibility of persecution based on his political opinion.

STATE PROTECTION

[23]     As the agent of the persecution is the State which acts with impunity, as it transpires in the documentary evidence as discussed above, the panel finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that State protection would not be available to the claimant.

INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE

[24]     Likewise, as the State is the agent of persecution and is in control of all of its territory, who oppose the ruling party face persecution across Uganda. Therefore, the panel finds that there would be no place throughout the country where the claimant would not face a serious possibility of persecution due to his political opinion.

[25]     Therefore, considering both the testimony of the claimant and the documentary evidence as a whole, the panel finds that the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground, that of his political opinion.

CONCLUSION

[26]     Based on the totality of the evidence before it, the panel concludes that the claimant is a Convention refugee and therefore accepts the claim.

(signed)           Diane Hitayezu-Fall

October 1, 2019

1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended.
2 Exhibit 2, Basis of Claim.
3 Exhibit 1; Exhibit 6, pp. 1-7.
4 Exhibit 10, pp. 1-8: Affidavit from the claimant’s wife and other friends; Exhibit 9: Affidavit from his mother and grand-mother, Exhibit 6, pp. 10-11: FDC letters and Exhibit 10, pp. 9-12: Internet pas.
5 Exhibit 6, pp. 12-14 and Exhibit 7, pp. 2-4.
6 Exhibit 6, page 19 (“Release On Bond”).
7 Exhibit 8 (14 pages) and Exhibit 9, pp. 5-6.
8 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Uganda (March 29, 2019).
9 Idem, Tab 2.1
10 Ibidem
11 Exhibit 3, Tab 4.4.

Categories
All Countries Sudan

2019 RLLR 105

Citation: 2019 RLLR 105
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: April 5, 2019
Panel: Eric Omeziri
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Howard P Eisenberg
Country: Sudan
RPD Number: TB8-14259
Associated RPD Number(s): TB8-14258, TB8-14260
ATIP Number: A-2020-01459
ATIP Pages: 000154-000160


REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]       The principal claimant, [XXX] and her daughter [XXX], allege that they are citizens of Sudan and no other county. The principal claimant’s daughter [XXX] is a citizen of the United States. They are claiming refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act1 (IRPA).

[2]       The principal claimant was appointed the designated representative of the minor claimants pursuant to subsection 167(2) of the IRPA.

ALLEGATIONS

[3]       The details of the claimants’ allegations are fully set out in the principal claimant’s Basis of Claim (BOC) form.2 To summarize, the principal claimant alleges a fear of persecution in Sudan based on her anti-government political opinion.

[4]       The principal claimant alleges past persecution at the hands of the Sudanese National Intelligence and Security Service (NISS), who have arrested her on multiple occasions due to her activities in opposition of the ruling government and in support of the Nubian people.

[5]       The principal claimant remained active in Sudanese politics after relocating to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Egypt in 2013 and 2016, respectively.

[6]       During a 2017 visit to Sudan, the principal claimant was arrested, detained for several days and physically mistreated due to her prior political activity. With the assistance of an individual within the Sudanese police, the principal claimant escaped Sudan for Egypt. Fearing that she may be returned to Sudan, as her status in Egypt was temporary, in [XXX] 2018, the principal claimant travelled to Canada via the United States (US) to seek refugee protection.

[7]       In addition to the claimants’ fear of persecution at the hands of Sudanese authorities. The claimants also fear that the female claimant’s family would force her daughters to undergo female genital mutilation if they were to return to Sudan. The panel makes no finding on this issue due to the disposition of the claim based on political opinion.

DETERMINATION

[8]       Having considered the totality of the evidence, the panel finds that the principal claimant and her dependent daughter, [XXX] are Convention refugees pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA. The principal claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution in Sudan based on her political opinion, while the dependent claimant has a derivative risk of persecution based on her membership in a particular social group-that of family member of the principal claimant.

[9]       The panel also finds that the principal claimant’s youngest daughter, [XXX], has not established that she faces a serious possibility of persecution under the Convention, nor has she established that, on a balance of probabilities, she would personally be exposed to a risk of torture, to a risk to her life, or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if she were to return to the US.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[10]     With respect to the principal claimant and her eldest daughter’s personal identities, the panel finds that on a balance of probabilities, their identities as a citizens of Sudan have been established by their passports and the principal claimant’s testimony.

[11]     Likewise, the personal identity of the principal claimant’s youngest daughter, has also been established, on balance, and the panel finds that her identity as a US citizen has been established by her passport and the principal claimant’s testimony.

Credibility

[12]     Overall, the claimants were found to be credible. The principal claimant provided testimony which was consistent and included spontaneous details not included in the Basis of Claim form.

[13]     The principal claimant’s testimony did not contradict the declarations within the Basis of Claim form and there were no significant inconsistencies or omissions.

[14]     The principal claimant provided credible testimony with respect to her anti-government political activity on behalf of the Nubian community, which began while she was attending high school in Sudan. She further detailed how she continued to advocate publicly for Nubian causes, protesting against dam building in the Nubian region, raising money for the anti-dam committee, participating in committee meetings, as well as participating in Nubian cultural activities and awareness campaigns.

[15]     The principal claimant’s anti-government political activity made her the subject of repeated arbitrary arrests and extra-judicial detention by the Sudanese National Intelligence and Security Service (NISS). The principal claimant provided credible testimony regarding the events leading up to her arrests, her experience in detention, as well as her activities following her release.

[16]     The panel has also considered the principal claimant’s testimony regarding her political activity online and since arriving in Canada. The principal claimant provided convincing testimony regarding her participation in anti-government protests in Toronto and St. Catharines, Ontario in late 2018. The principal claimant also provided testimony about her anti-government activity online and, using her mobile phone, she was able to spontaneously show the panel that she was subscribed to an anti-government message group on WhatsApp.

[17]     In addition to the principal claimant’s credible testimony, the claimants also provided supporting documents which I found to be credible, they include:

a.         Letter of support from the Secretary General of the Nubian House in Abu Dhabi

b.         Letter of support from the Anti-dam youth committee of Dal and Kajbar Dams

c.         Letters of support from friends and family which corroborate the claimants’ allegations

d.         Photographs of the principal claimant’s participation in anti-government protests in Canada

[18]     As such, the panel finds that, on a balance of probabilities, the claimants have established that the principal claimant has a subjective fear of persecution due to her anti-government political opinion.

Nexus Section 96

[19]     The panel finds that there is a link between the principal claimant’s fear of persecution and the Convention grounds, specifically that the principal claimant has been persecuted by the Sudanese Government because of her anti-government political opinion, therefore this claim has been assessed under Section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Objective Basis

[20]     The evidence before the panel establishes, on a balance of probabilities, an objective basis for the claimant’s fear of persecution. Item 1.4 of the National Documentation Package for Sudan states that the NISS is responsible for the management of operations for national security, and under Sudanese law individuals suspected of a threat to the State may be detained by the NISS indefinitely.

[21]     The same law provides NISS officials with impunity for acts involving their official duties and that its current human rights violations have reached unprecedented levels. The objective documentary evidence also cites examples of the NISS using excessive and sometimes lethal force in breaking up demonstrations, protests, and rallies as well as conducting raids and confiscations.

[22]     The NISS arbitrarily arrests and detains Sudanese citizens, often detaining these individuals for a few days before releasing them without charge. The Sudanese government often targets political opponents and suspected rebel supporters and the NDP also makes reference to several reports of individuals being detained for their actual or assumed political or anti­ government political opinion.

[23]     The panel has also considered the risk to the principal claimant’s Sudanese child. The NDP for Sudan provides evidence of the targeting of family members of political opponents. Item 1.7 describes the situation of the brother of [XXX] – a noted Darfuri Sudanese Human Rights Defender-who was kidnapped in Khartoum by members of the NISS and taken to a deserted location in Khartoum, and beaten and subsequently released.

[24]     Item 2.1 of the NDP also make reference to numerous reports of violence by Sudanese government authorities against the family members of Darfuri student activists.

[25]     Therefore, I find that the principal claimant’s Sudanese born child has a risk of persecution based on the membership in a particular social group, that of a family member of the principal claimant.

[26]     The panel has considered the documentary evidence in conjunction with the principal claimant’s credible allegations about her identity as an individual with an anti-government political opinion. Having considered these factors, the panel finds that the principal claimant and her eldest daughter do have a well-founded fear of persecution.

State Protection

[27]     As the agent of persecution is the State which, as mentioned above, does act with impunity, the panel finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that adequate State protection would not be available to the claimant.

Internal Flight Alternative

[28]     Likewise, since the Sudanese government is in control of the entirety of the country, the panel finds that there would be no safe place for the claimants throughout the country and that there is no viable internal flight alternative for the claimants anywhere in Sudan.

CONCLUSION

[29]     Based on the totality of the evidence before it, the panel concludes that the principal claimant, [XXX], and her daughter, [XXX], are Convention refugees and accepts their claim.

[30]     The minor claimant, [XXX], has not established she faces a serious possibility of persecution in the US and is not a person in need of protection without recourse to state protection. The panel must find the minor claimant is not a Convention refugee under section 96 or person in need of protection, under section 97(1) of the IRPA and rejects her claim.

(signed)           E. Omeziri

April 5, 2019

1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), sc, 2001, c 27, as amended.
2 Exhibit 2, BOC.

Categories
All Countries Cameroon

2019 RLLR 104

Citation: 2019 RLLR 104
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 22, 2019
Panel: Diane Hitayezu-Fall
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Denis Onek Olwedo
Country: Cameroon
RPD Number: TB8-11840
ATIP Number: A-2020-01459
ATIP Pages: 000150-000153


DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: So, I have considered your testimony and the other evidence before me in this case and I’m ready to render my decision orally. So, this is a decision for the claim made by [XXX]. The file number is TB811840. The decision is rendered today, November 22nd, 2019. So, you were claiming to be a citizen of Cameroon and you are claiming refugee protection under Sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Act. So, my-, I have found you to be a refugee for the following reasons.

[2]       The details of your claim can be found in your Basis of Claim Form that is in Exhibit 2 and you allege that you are an Anglophone Cameroonian. You were born and you grew up in the Anglophone region in Kumba. You allege that you are a member of the Southern Cameroons National Counsel, SCNC. You allege that you have been a member since September 2009 and that because of your membership in the SCNC and your political activities, you have been mistreated by the government agents.

[3]       You allege that your life would be at risk if you were to return to Cameroon. And you allege that the-, the government agents who have mistreated you in the past and have been mistreating members of the SCNC will arrest you, detain you, torture you or even kill you. So, as I said, I found you, that you are Convention refugee, as you have established a serious possibility of persecution on account of your political opinion and political activities.

[4]       In terms of identity, I find that your identity is established by your testimony and the supporting documentation you have provided, which include, ele-, p-, Republic of Cameroon passport which is in Exhibit 1, document we received IRCC and your acad-, your academic documents in Exhibit 5. I find that your personal identity and the National, your National identity have been established as a commun-, a citizen of Cameroon. I assessed your credibility and I find-, I found you to be credible, you have been a credible witness and I believe what you have alleged in support of your claim.

[5]       You testified in a straight forward manner and you answered directly the questions. At the end of the hearing, there were no unexplained omissions. And I note, I did not note any contradictions between what your declared in your BOC, Basis of Claim and other forms in your testimony today. I noted, some mistakes on your documents, on the documents you submitted, spelling mistakes in the French portions of your document. I asked you about it and you could not explain how it happened. You only indicated that, it happened. However, I considered your oral testimony that was oral-, overall, candid, spontaneous and detailed. And it was detailed in all aspects of the claim, your passion, your activities as a member of SCNC and your activities in Canada. And I found that, the mistakes on the document would not overweigh your other portions of test-, testimony in the other documents you have provided.

[6]       So, in support of your allegations you have provided a number of documents that support your allegations. For your membership in SCNC, you provided your membership card that you obtained in September 2009 and then attestation of membership from SCNC dated October 30th, 2019. You have provided some letters from members who attest of your membership. Some SCNC leaders provided letter of supports, attesting that you attended meetings and that they knew about your arrest, detentions and your escape. I- it would not the-, in Exhibit 5, page 13 to 17 you provided letters from [XXX] and [XXX] and other people. And with respect to your detention and mistreaten-, mistreaten-, mistreatment in detention, you provided medical note from the hospital that treated you on two occasions after being mistreated in detention. And there are-, those are notes from the, is it [XXX], in Exhibit 5, 6-, pages 16 and 17. You also provided police documents, the bail bonds from 2010 to 2014, you have provide-, provided copies of your, the warrants for your arrest and the convocation to the police.

[7]       I have also the letter from the organization that helped with your release from detention on two occasions, the Human Rights Defence Group that helps SCNC members. After reviewing all this evidence in front of me, I have accepted what you have arranged in your BOC. And I find that you have established a subjective fear based on your political opinion and political activities.

[8]       So, I looked at the objective evidence and I found that the National Documentation Package for Cameroon, May 31st, 2019, contain information that supports your allegations, that as Anglophone and as somebody who is a member of SCNC and has been identified as an anro-, Anglophone who participates in the protest asking for equal rights for Anglophone, you would be persecuted in Cameroon. The objective evidence indicates that there continue to be reports of arrests and disappearances of individuals by security forces, particularly in the Anglophone regions. The National Documentation Package on Cameroon contains many reports on-, on Human Rights that describes the situation and the crisis in those Anglophone regions, item 2.1, 2.2, 2.5. I have other documents, many documents in Items 1-, in Section 1 and Section 4 and those reports, report serious human violation, abuses of civilians by government forces and sometimes Anglophone separatists. And regarding (inaudible) disappearances and people are detained, they are not allowed to contact their families and friends and they are denied access to legal representation and some are detained in an undisclosed location.

[9]       I noted that the Item 2.(inaudible ), the human rights issues highlighted in 2018, in the report for 2018 by the United States Department of States, on Cameroon include the prolonged arbitrary detention of suspected Anglophone separatists by security forces, harsh and life-threatening prison conditions. You testified about, what you endured during the detention and the issue may-, another issue mentioned in this report is that Anglophone Cameroonians are restricted in the rights to freedom of assembly, their freedom to express their political opinion and that the government has arrested, charged and killed in recent years, those who attempted to do so. I have a response to information request that, that tells us that Anglophone regions are located in the North-West, South-West Cameroon, when from. And then, it says that Anglophone are subjected to a policy of ongoing discrimination and they’re all often denied the right to use their language. They are subjected to-, to French legal and education system against their wish. And you have testify-, testified about your experiences in Cameroon, with having to do exams in a-, in French.

[10]     And the, there’s another document in, our response to information request, Item 13.2 and it refers to people living in the diaspora. And they are-, the government accuses them to instigate the war in Cameroon. And they, I know that Canada is involved with the countries name where Cameroonian’s have been sending money, accused of sending money to-, to Cameroon. And this, the documentation in the National Documentation Package says that, anyone is who is vocal will risk-, will be at risk if they go back to Cameroon, they risk to be arrested. Some are arrested at the airport, they-, they are detained and sometimes they would have to bribe, to get out. So, given that you have established by your testimony and the-, the supporting document that you have, come to the attention of the government of Cameroon as a person interested in Anglophone’s cause, you have been detained, interrogated. I find that your-, your fear of persecution is objectively founded. I found that, I find that you, the fear you express is well-founded and you have established that there is a serious possibility of persecution based on an imputed in your-, based on a political opinion.

[11]     I had to verify if state protection would be available to you if you had to go to Cameroon. And I looked at evidence before me and I found that adequate state protection would not be reasonably forthcoming in your particular case. Based on the information on file and given that-, given that the authority in Cameroon, the authorities are your agent of persecution, I find that it is objective-, objectively unreasonable for you to seek protection from the authorities in Cameroon. I find, that I have clear and convincing evidence before me in the objective evidence, as discussed. And I find that there is no adequate state protection available for you in Cameroon. I also, had to verify if you could relocate in Cameroon and I considered whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for you, but on the evidence before me, I find that there is a serious possibility of per-, persecution throughout Cameroon. There-, there are-, there are warrants to arrest you, so it is reasonable to believe that they may be executed anywhere in Cameroon. There is nothing the documentary evidence, that to indicate that Cameroon does not control its territory. I find that there is no internal alternative for you a place in Cameroon where you could express your political opinion without fear of persecution.

[12]     So, in conclusion I find that you are a Convention refugee and I, therefore, accept your claim.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Categories
All Countries Eritrea

2019 RLLR 103

Citation: 2019 RLLR 103
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: October 23, 2019
Panel: M. Dookun
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Esther Lexchin
Country: Eritrea
RPD Number: TB8-09739
ATIP Number: A-2020-01459
ATIP Pages: 000145-000149


REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]       [XXX] (the claimant) is a 51-year old male citizen of Eritrea. He is seeking refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.1

ALLEGATIONS

[2]       The specific details of this claim are set out in the claimant’s Basis of Claim (BOC) form2. In short, he fears persecution at the hands of the Eritrean government based on his Islamic religion and his objection to forced military conscription of himself and his children in Eritrea. He also fears repercussions from the Eritrean government for having made a refugee claim against Eritrea in Canada.

DETERMINATION

[3]       The panel has determined that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[4]       The claimant established his personal identity by way of the certified true copy of his Eritrean passport3.

Credibility

[5]       The claimant testified in a straightforward manner. He made no apparent attempts to embellish his testimony. There were no serious inconsistencies or contradictions inherent in his testimony. The panel has no serious reason to doubt that the sworn testimony of this claimant was truthful.

Well-Foundedness of Fear

Refugee Claim in Canada

[6]       The panel finds on a balance of probabilities that there is less than a mere possibility that the Eritrea government would know that the claimant made a refugee claim in Canada if he returned to Eritrea voluntarily due to the fact that he left Eritrea legally. The claimant testified that he enters and exits Eritrea regularly. He stated that the Eritrean government believes that he is a resident of Sudan who visits Eritrea voluntarily. That being so, he has never had problems entering Eritrea in the past. The panel finds that there is less than a mere possibility that the Eritrean authorities would question the claimant upon entry regarding whether or not he made a refugee claim in Canada.

Religion

[7]       The panel finds there is less than a mere possibility that this claimant would face persecution in Eritrea because of his Muslim religion. The claimant testified that there is no difference between the religion he practises and the state-sanctioned Islamic religion in Eritrea. The claimant was asked whether he had any problems practicing his religion while in Eritrea. He responded that he had no problems that related to him specifically. He was then asked what kind of problems he thought he would have if he returned to Eritrea now. He responded that he did not believe that there would be issues because of his specific beliefs. The panel thus finds based on the claimant’s own testimony that he would not face problems in Eritrea based on his religion.

Military Objection

[8]       That being said, the panel does find that the claimant could face problems in Eritrea because of his objection to military service. The documentary evidence4 states that by law all Eritrean citizens between ages 18 to 50 must perform national service. The claimant, at 51 years old, is past that age range. In addition, he has already performed and completed his mandatory military service.

[9]       However, in 2012 the Eritrean government created the “People’s Army”. The People’s Army is composed of citizens released from the national service as part of their open-ended national service. Eritreans up to 70 years of age can be conscripted into the People’s Army. Those who ignore the People’s Army conscription notices may face imprisonment.5

[10]     The claimant stated that he is opposed to carrying arms and opposed to serving the Eritrean regime in any manner. His refusal to cooperate may be seen as having a political opinion contrary to the Eritrean Government. This would place the claimant at risk should he return to Eritrea.

State Protection and Internal Flight Alternative

[11]     The panel finds that as the state authorities are the agents of persecution, there would be no state protection available to this claimant anywhere in Eritrea should he return. For the same reason, the panel also finds that there is no viable internal flight alternative available to this particular claimant anywhere in Eritrea.

CONCLUSION

[12]     To conclude, the panel finds on a balance of probabilities, based on his objection to military service, that the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution in Eritrea based on his political opinion. As such the panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The Refugee Protection Division accepts this claim.

(signed)           M. Dookun

October 23, 2019

1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), S.C. 2001, c.27 as amended.
2 Exhibit 2.
3 Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 7.
4 Exhibit 3, item 2.1.
5 Exhibit 5, page 53.