Tag: No Nexus: Criminality/Corruption

2019 RLLR 210

Citation: 2019 RLLR 210
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 13, 2019
Panel: M. Vega
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Ronaldo Yacoub
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB7-12354
Associated RPD Number(s): TB7-12373, TB7-12379
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 003355-003358

[1] MEMBER: We are back on the record and the interpreter has been dismissed. I am going to give a decision at this time and there’s no further questions, as I said before, needed from counsel or submissions, and I’m prepared at this time — and counsel has waived translation, the claimants are both present at this time.

[2] This decision is being rendered orally in the claims of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the principal file is TB7-12354, and the adult claimants are present today and the father is the designated representative with respect to the minor child, XXXX XXXX XXXX, and the father is the principal claimant here.

[3] Now, the gender guidelines at Guideline 4 have been also considered with respect to the female claimant for both Egypt and Libya.

[4] This decision is being rendered orally today and a written form of these reasons may be edited for syntax, spelling, grammar, references to the applicable case law, legislation and exhibits may also be included.

[5] I find that the principal claimant is a citizen of Libya and of Egypt. The female claimant is a citizen of Egypt, and the minor child, claimant, is a citizen of Egypt.

[6] Now, with respect to, and I concluded this based on the certified true copies of their passports which were provided in Exhibit 1, as well as by their testimony and birth certificates provided as well, so therefore on a balance of probabilities I have concluded that the principal claimant has full citizenship, that of Libya and Egypt, the female claimant only of Egypt, and the minor child has the citizenship of Egypt.

[7] In this case, I find that you are all persons in need of protection, which you have made a claim against — or, sorry, pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I have considered the issue of nexus, which is whether you have — your fear or persecution is linked or connected to the convention grounds. I have found that it is not connected to the convention grounds in your countries of nationality, given that it would be with respect to Ms XXXXin Libya, but she’s not making a claim — she’s not a citizen of Libya, therefore… I’ll break this down slower.

[8] With respect to Libya, let’s start with Libya. The principal claimant fears the militias as they have in the past tried to extort him and have him pay. They know he had a business, a successful business/store, and they were trying to get money from him. In Libya there is much — the militias are divided by tribes as well. He has spoken how he was living in his tribal area of Benghazi. They tried to extort him, he was injured in a shelling and lost his leg on that occasion. His family — he lived there with his wife and child, and they lived there until 2013 when the war became unbearable and when the militias were threatening him. So he fled to Egypt where he had citizenship there as well.

[9] He also has been in contact with his family members who live in Libya and who tell him that the militias keep asking about him and want to know where he is, and they advise him not to return.

[10] Because you have another country of citizenship, Mr. XXXX, I am not making any conclusion about your claim against Libya, I am then going to look at your situation in Egypt, and that is where also your wife and child have their citizenship. So I’m not drawing a conclusion with respect to whether you would be at risk in Libya, but just to say that I see that you would, you would face risk there. Part of the reason it the country situation in Libya, and I just want to speak briefly about that situation before I leave the whole topic of Libya.

[11] If you face the problems with the militias, you would not be able to obtain any type of protection from government or the state to help you. Libya is currently in a state of civil war, there is no unified government or standardized method of delivering any type of security services. There’s an uncertainty with respect to the political and security situation, and this situation leads me to conclude that there would be no state protection for you if you were there with your family, none for your family, and there would not be an internal flight alternative available to you as well.

[12] Furthermore, if your wife were there she would be at risk of gender-related persecution, as war — unfortunately, rape is rampant in war, and she would be at risk of that, so of sexual assault.

[13] The position of the United Nations suggests that internal flight is not reasonably available in Libya, therefore now I look to Egypt.

[14] The situation with the family in Egypt, according to the allegations in the basis of claim form, which I won’t repeat, basically the principal claimant’s first wife, as he had the two wives, and they were concurrent at one point until he divorced the first wife, that that was legal in Egypt. The problem was despite the first wife agreeing that he could take on the second wife, XXXX XXXX, she later changed her mind and then she had her brothers, there are seven of them, cause false threats and assaults against the principal claimant, threats against his wife, and there was a threat on kidnapping their son, XXXX, in order to retaliate or make the principal claimant suffer for his having scorned her or for having taken a second wife.

[15] Now, this brings us to the issue. So this is where there’s no nexus to the convention definition, I believe. This is where what you fear, what your whole family fears, is not — I believe it’s a personal life risk, but it is not a nexus because there’s no convention ground that will, in my opinion, cover this.

[16] However, on a balance of probabilities, which is the threshold I have to use, I find that there is, on a balance of probabilities, a personalized risk to your lives in Egypt. There’s also no state protection, in my opinion, given that your ex-wife’s brother worked in XXXX XXXX department in Egypt. If he were merely a government employee perhaps it wouldn’t be the same. But given that you’ve provided evidence by way of your testimony and your belief that he is an XXXX XXXX XXXX and the documentary material is clear with respect to the human rights situation deteriorating in Egypt where many human rights groups have spoken out against how the government in Egypt has, on many occasions, basically — it is respecting the human rights of the citizens.

[17] The authorities in Egypt arbitrarily restrict the rights to freedom of expression, association, peaceful assembly, any opposition to them is basically taken in for questioning and they will not tolerate anyone being in any type of opposition to the government or expressing it in anyway.

[18] But apart from that, the question is on the street level, would the police protect you? You’ve testified how this brother, how police officers were even present at the assault when you were stabbed, Mr. XXXX. Now, that’s not to say all the police are corrupt or would do that, but given the fact that the documentary material speaks about that there’s a very high level of corruption in Egypt and that this brother who is one of the persons who has been threatening your family, given that he is also in the XXXX XXXX and the documentary material makes it clear, in my opinion, that a person who has those types of connections, with the corruption that is rampant in Egypt, can accomplish harming you if you were to try to go elsewhere.

[19] So I don’t believe there’s an internal flight alternative for you and your family and I don’t believe that the state will adequately and effectively protect the three of you if you were to try to get help against them. You did file a report against them and the report, which is in evidence, didn’t go anywhere. If anything, the other family filed counter-charges against you, for which you’ve testified that you were then having to appear in court.

[20] The documentary material also speaks about prolonged detention for people in Egypt, sometimes without charges or without a trial, and how the Egyptian authorities have misused many of their powers against their own citizens, according to many human rights groups throughout the world.

[21] So for all of these reasons, I find on a balance of probabilities that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX, that you are all persons in need of protection under Section 97(1) because your life is at risk in Egypt. Therefore, these three claims are now allowed.

[22] Thank you.

[23] CLAIMANTS: Thank you.

[24] MEMBER: Do you understand? Have a good day. Thank you, counsel.

– – – UPON RECESSING – – –

– – – UPON RESUMING – – –

[25] MEMBER: We’re back on the record. I just wanted to comment and say with respect to credibility, I had my concerns with respect to certain omissions, and I considered them a lot throughout the hearing, and I found your explanations reasonable for why these omissions occurred. You did mention them, they were mentioned as attacks in the basis of claim form. The only thing is that they were not — you did not provide the dates specifically. But you did mention them. I understand and I found your explanations reasonable for you, Ms XXXX, because they were very painful to talk about and to put down and for you, sir, because you didn’t have the proof, you only had the proof of one, and you did mention it and it is in your evidence.

[26] So overall — and I found that this doctor’s letter explaining that you have XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX helps me to understand why you kind of would not answer my questions. I don’t believe you were trying to be evasive.

[27] So, for all of these reasons, I have accepted your credibility, and therefore your allegations. That’s why I’ve also accepted you as persons in need of protection.

[28] This hearing is now concluded. Thank you and good day to all.

– – – DECISION CONCLUDED – – –

All Countries Georgia

2020 RLLR 189

Citation: 2020 RLLR 189
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: August 27, 2020
Panel: N. Bower
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Vera Povaliaeva
Country: Georgia
RPD Number: VB8-02778
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00859
ATIP Pages: 000562-000572

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

[1] These are the reasons for the decision in the claim of a citizen of Georgia who is claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the IRPA).¹

DETERMINATION

[2] I find that the claimant is a person in need of protection.

ALLEGATIONS

[3] The claimant is from Martkopi, a town in Georgia about half an hour’s drive from the capital city of Tbilisi.

[4] In May 2007 the claimant was convicted of possessing small amounts of two narcotic drugs and was sentenced to seven and a half years in prison. He appealed the sentence, and reached a plea agreement with the prosecutor. His sentence was reduced to two years’ imprisonment and five years’ probation. The claimant alleges that one of the drugs, heroin, was planted on him to increase his sentence.

[5] As part of the plea agreement for a reduced sentence, the claimant was required to provide a statement to the authorities that he had purchased drugs from a specific named individual. The claimant did not recognize the name and had never purchased drugs from him. The claimant’s lawyer recommended that the claimant provide the statement, and the claimant did so.

[6] When the claimant was imprisoned his relationship with his wife ended. He entered into a common-law relationship with another woman after he was released from prison.

[7] In 2013 the claimant needed his ex-wife’s signature as part of his application for a Canadian work visa. His ex-wife’s brother, the claimant’s prior brother-in-law, demanded that the claimant sign a dept receipt stating that the claimant owed the brother-in-law US$10,000 before the ex-wife would sign as required. The claimant signed the debt receipt, and his ex wife signed for the work visa application.

[8] The claimant received a Canadian work visa in 2013 and travelled to Canada. He has remained in Canada since except for two brief trips to Georgia to visit his wife and their son, who was born very shortly after the claimant first came to Canada. He extended his work visa multiple times. After he was unable to obtain an extension in 2018, he sought refugee protection.

[9] Since seeking protection in 2018, the claimant has learned that a strange man has been looking for him, demanding to know from the claimant’s brother and common-law partner where to find the claimant. This man blames the claimant for destroying his life, apparently by naming this man as a drug dealer, resulting in over a decade in prison. This strange man has assaulted the claimant’s brother in Martkopi, and has threatened and harassed the claimant’s common-law partner and young son in Tbilisi.

[10] The claimant alleges that he faces harm from Georgian police because of his history of drug use. He alleges that he will be imprisoned for using drugs, even though he now no longer uses drugs. He alleges that his ex-brother-in-law will harm him because the claimant left his ex-wife and because the ex-brother-in-law wants the claimant to pay the amount promised by the debt receipt. He alleges that he faces a risk to his life from the stranger who blames the claimant for his lengthy imprisonment.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[11] I find that the claimant is a national of Georgia. He has provided a copy of his Georgian passport with the Canadian work visa he used to enter Canada.² He has also provided a certificate from the Ministry of Justice of Georgia stating that he is a citizen of Georgia who received amnesty for his conviction.³

Exclusion – 1F(b)

[12] I find that the claimant is not excluded from protection by Article 1F(b) of the Convention.

[13] Under section 98 of the IRPA and Article 1F(b) of the Convention, a person is excluded from protection if there are serious reasons for considering that they have committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee. I find, based on the evidence before me, that there are not serious reasons for considering that the claimant committed a serious crime outside Canada before seeking protection in Canada.

[14] If a maximum sentence of ten years or more could have been imposed had the crime been committed in Canada, there is a presumption that the crime is serious.⁴ Factors to consider when determining if a crime is serious include the elements of the crime, the mode of prosecution, the prescribed penalty, and the aggravating and mitigating circumstances underlying the crime.⁵

[15] I find that there are serious reasons to consider that the claimant has possessed prescribed drugs in Georgia for personal use. He has acknowledged that he used drugs in the past. I find that there are not serious reasons to consider that the claimant trafficked in drugs; there is no evidence before me to suggest that the claimant has been involved in trafficking.

[16] I find in the circumstances of this claim that possession of drugs for personal use is not a serious crime. The maximum sentence in Canada for possession for personal use (as opposed to possession for the purpose of trafficking) is seven years’ imprisonment.⁶ It is not presumed serious. As noted specifically in the context of the severe punishments imposed for personal use of drugs in Georgia, criminalizing drug use has few if any benefits for either public safety or for the health of those addicted to drugs.⁷ Canadian courts are recognizing that drug addiction is a health issue rather than a moral choice deserving of condemnation, and possession of personal use of even “hard” drugs may result in a conditional discharge (which does not leave a criminal record should the person sentenced complete the conditions).⁸ There is nothing aggravating about the circumstances of the claimant’s possession. Although the claimant was initially sentenced to more than seven years in prison in Georgia, Georgia’s criminal laws regarding drugs are particularly harsh, and have become somewhat more liberal since the claimant’s conviction.⁹

Credibility

[17] I find that the claimant was a credible witness.

[18] The claimant testified in a spontaneous and responsive manner. There were no significant inconsistencies in the evidence before me.

[19] The claimant provided several corroborating documents. He has provided a notarized letter from his Georgian lawyer regarding the claimant’s drug conviction.¹⁰ He has provided a second notarized statement from his Georgian lawyer about his statement about the stranger.¹¹ In these letters the lawyer states that it is common for police to plant drugs on suspects, that the claimant did not want to plead guilty to the charges he faced, and that the lawyer recommended that the claimant plead guilty in order to receive the minimum punishment of seven and a half years in prison instead of nine and a half years in prison. The lawyer goes on to state that the prosecutor’s office forced the claimant to state that the claimant purchased drugs from someone the claimant did not actually know, in exchange for a significantly reduced sentence. He has provided a copy of the verdict of the Chamber of Appeals of Criminal Cases of Tbilisi Court of Appeals reducing his sentence on the motion of the prosecutor.¹²

[20] The claimant has provided notarized letters from his brother¹³ that a stranger has threatened the claimant and attacked the brother after demanding information about the claimant. He has provided a notarized letter from a witness who heard one encounter and saw the claimant’s brother immediately after the brother was beaten by the stranger.¹⁴ He has provided a notarized letter from a friend who saw the claimant’s brother’s injuries immediately after another assault.¹⁵ He has provided copies of medical report about the brother’s injuries from this assault.¹⁶ He has provided copies of the police complaints made by the brother about the assaults, which note that each case was closed “due to inadequate evidence and lack of witnesses in the case.”¹⁷

[21] The claimant has provided a notarized letter from his common-law partner that she was threatened on two occasions by a stranger who accused the claimant, her partner, of ruining the stranger’s life.¹⁸He has provided a notarized letter from a witness to one of those threatening incidents.¹⁹ He has provided a notarized letter from a different witness to the other threatening incident.²⁰ He has provided a copy of the police complaint made by his common law partner about the threatening, which notes that the case was closed “due to inadequate evidence and lack of witnesses in the case.”²¹

Risk of harm

[22] Considering the evidence before me in this claim, I find that the claimant has established on a balance of probabilities that he faces a risk to his life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if he were to return to Georgia.

[23] The evidence shows that a stranger blames the claimant for the stranger’s lengthy imprisonment and intends to harm the claimant as revenge. The stranger has attacked and injured the claimant’s brother in Martkopi, the small town where the claimant used to live. In one encounter another man helped the stranger to assault the claimant’s brother. The stranger has threatened the claimant to the claimant’s common-law partner in Tbilisi, the capital and largest city in Georgia. The stranger approached the claimant’s son in a manner that made the claimant’s partner fear that the stranger might abduct or harm the son. The stranger has repeated that he blames the claimant for ruining his life and intends to enact his revenge on the claimant when he finds the claimant.

[24] The claimant’s common-law partner and son moved to another neighbourhood within Tbilisi recently to avoid further harassment from the stranger. The partner stays in the house unless she has to go out, and the son only goes to school. The partner has been told by her prior neighbours that the stranger continues to appear around her previous house searching for her and threatening the claimant’s life.²²

[25] (I note that several of the translations of witnesses’ letters refer to a “foreign man.” At the hearing the claimant and the interpreter clarified that ‘foreign’ meant ‘strange’ or ‘unknown,’ rather than someone from another community or country.)

[26] The claimant does not know much about this stranger. He does not know the person’s name, background, or available resources. He does not know how the stranger found his family, either his brother in Martkopi or his partner and son in Tbilisi. He suggests that the stranger may have been able to get this information from the criminal underground through connections from prison, but this is speculation.

[27] As the claimant has never seen this man, and the claimant’s brother and common-law partner did not see the man who encountered the other, the claimant cannot be certain that it was the same man. However, I find the possibility that two men have recently begun to hunt the claimant making the same threats with the same justification to be implausible. It is more likely that it is the same man who first attacked the claimant’s brother and then threatened the claimant’s common-law partner.

[28] Based on the evidence, I find the following. The stranger blames the claimant for his lengthy period of imprisonment that ruined his life. The stranger has found the claimant’s brother in Martkopi and assaulted him with a knife. The stranger has found the claimant’s family in Tbilisi and threatened them. The stranger has used physical violence against those close to the claimant, and has threatened to kill the claimant. The stranger has not faced any consequences for his actions.

[29] Despite all that is unknown about the stranger, the evidence establishes that the stranger is motivated to find and harm the claimant, and has located those connected to the claimant in two different cities, including the largest city in the country. The stranger is willing to use a weapon and inflict violence of those connected to the claimant. There is nothing in the evidence that suggests that the stranger will not continue to pursue the claimant or will not carry out his threats against the claimant.

[30] Based on the evidence before me in this claim, I find on a balance of probabilities that this man is able to and intends to seriously hurt or kill the claimant should the claimant return to Georgia. I therefore find that the claimant faces a risk to his life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in Georgia.

State protection

[31] I find, considering the evidence before me in this claim, that the claimant would not receive adequate state protection in Georgia.

[32] The police response to emergency calls is best in Tbilisi, the capital, but it can take over an hour for the police to respond to a call even there. Police officers have inconsistent levels of training and lack resources. Work still remains to improve the effectiveness of post-incident investigations by police.²³ At times civilian authorities have not maintained control over security forces, and police forces have abused their powers to commit human rights abuses, particularly for political purposes.²⁴ Failure to investigate into these abuses has further decreased public confidence in the police and prosecutors.²⁵

[33]] The claimant’s brother and common-law partner have both reported their encounters with the stranger to the police. The police did not investigate successfully. The claimant’s mother reported to the police an incident when the claimant’s ex-brother-in-law threatened her; that report was also closed “due to inadequate evidence and lack of witnesses in the case.”²⁶

[34] The claimant’s family members have not received adequate assistance from the police. They have continued to face violence from the stranger and the claimant’s ex-brother-in-law. This is consistent with the documentary evidence that reports Georgian police lack training and resources and do not have the confidence of the public.

Internal flight alternative

[35] I find, considering all of the evidence before me, that the claimant does not have a viable internal flight alternative. I find that the claimant faces a risk to his life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment throughout Georgia.

[36] The stranger has located the claimant’s family members in his home town of Martkopi and in the capital city of Tbilisi. He has demonstrated an ability to locate those connected to the claimant in two locations, including the most populated city in the country.

[37] Georgia is a relatively small country with a population under four million persons. Tbilisi, the capital, has just over one million persons. More than four in ten Georgians live outside urban areas.²⁷ If the claimant relocated, he would likely be obvious as a newcomer to the area.

[38] The Georgian government maintains a civil registry that includes the name, residence, and national ID number of each citizen, and a police officer may be able to access this registry to determine any person’s address.²⁸ A person buying a SIM card in Georgia must register using a form of identification, either a passport, national ID card, or driver’s licence.²⁹ Police have abused surveillance systems with impunity, although primarily for political purposes, and “there are no effective mechanisms for preventing corruption in state-owned enterprises and independent regulatory bodies.”³⁰ The combination of national registration with addresses and official corruption provides a mechanism for someone with sufficient connections or wealth to discover a target’s location.

[39] Considering all of the evidence, I find that the stranger has demonstrated the motivation and ability to pursue the claimant, and may have access to a national database listing the claimant’s address in Georgia. I therefore find that the claimant does not have a viable internal flight alternative.

CONCLUSION

[40] Based on the analysis above, I conclude that the claimant a person in need of protection pursuant to section 97(1) of the IRPA. Accordingly, I accept the claim.

(signed) N. BOWER

August 27, 2020

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

² Exhibit 1.

³ Exhibit 10.

⁴ Febles v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 SCC 68, para. 62.

⁵ Jayasekara v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FCA 404, para. 44.

⁶ Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19, s. 3(a).

⁷ Exhibit 3.2: National Documentation Package, Georgia, 30 June 2020, tab 9.4: Harsh Punishment. The Human Toll of Georgia’s Abusive Drug Policies. Human Rights Watch. 13 August 2018.

⁸ R. v. Park, 2020 ONSC 3941.

⁹ Exhibit 3.2: National Documentation Package, Georgia, 30 June 2020, tab 9.4: Harsh Punishment. The Human Toll of Georgia’s Abusive Drug Policies. Human Rights Watch. 13 August 2018.

¹⁰Exhibit 7, pp. la-5a.

¹¹ Exhibit 6, pp. 24-28.

¹² Exhibit 6, pp. 14-23.

¹³ Exhibit 6, pp. 29-33; exhibit 7, pp. 14a-16a.

¹⁴ Exhibit 6, pp. 38-41.

¹⁵ Exhibit 7, pp. 25a-26a.

¹⁶ Exhibit 6, pp. 34-37; exhibit 7, pp. 19-20.

¹⁷ Exhibit 6, pp. 42-43.

¹⁸ Exhibit 6, pp. 51-55.

¹⁹ Exhibit 6, pp. 58-62.

²⁰ Exhibit 6, pp. 63-66.

²¹ Exhibit 6, pp. 56-57.

²² Exhibit 7, pp. 34a-45a.

²³ Exhibit 3.2: National Documentation Package, Georgia, 30 June 2020, tab 7.1: Georgia. 2020 Crime and Safety Report. United States. Overseas Security Advisory Council. 11 May 2020.

²⁴ Exhibit 3.2: National Documentation Package, Georgia, 30 June 2020, tab 2.1: Georgia. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2019. United States. Department of State. 11 March 2020.

²⁵ Exhibit 3.2: National Documentation Package, Georgia, 30 June 2020, tab 2.2: Georgia. Human Rights in Eastern Europe and Central Asia: Review of 2019. Amnesty International. 16 April 2020. EUR 01/1355/2020.

²⁶ Exhibit 7, pp. 32a-33a.

²⁷ Exhibit 3.2: National Documentation Package, Georgia, 30 June 2020, tab 1.3: Georgia. The World Factbook. United States. Central Intelligence Agency. 17 June 2020.

²⁸ Exhibit 3.2: National Documentation Package, Georgia, 30 June 2020, tab 10.1: Police structure at the national and local levels; whether there exists a national computer system or registry of citizens that police have access to; whether police officers in districts not under their jurisdiction have access to an individual’… Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 25 March 2015. GEO105101.E.

²⁹ Exhibit 3.2: National Documentation Package, Georgia, 30 June 2020, tab 11.1: Georgia. Freedom on the Net 2019. Freedom House. 2019.

³⁰ Exhibit 3.2: National Documentation Package, Georgia, 30 June 2020, tab 2.1: Georgia. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2019. United States. Department of State. 11 March 2020.

All Countries Egypt

2020 RLLR 187

Citation: 2020 RLLR 187
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 20, 2020
Panel: Megan Kammerer
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Thaer Abuelhaija
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: VB9-01049
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 003794-003802

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the “claimant”) as a citizen of Egypt who is claiming refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “Act“).¹

ALLEGATIONS

[2] The claimant is an Egyptian citizen who lived in Saudi Arabia from 2002 to 2018. He alleges that when he returned to Egypt he was arrested and assaulted by members of the police force, who told him that he had to pay them XXXX XXXX XXXX Egyptian pounds or they would fabricate a file on him which demonstrates that he belongs to the Muslim Brotherhood.

[3] The claimant is worried that he will be killed if he returns to Egypt.

DETERMINATION

[4] I find that the claimant is a protected person pursuant to section 97(1) of the Act.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[5] I find that the identity of the claimant as a national of Egypt has been established by his testimony and the supporting documentation filed, including his passport.²

Credibility

[6] When a claimant swears to the truth of his allegations, this creates a presumption that those allegations are true, unless there is reason to doubt their truthfulness. In this case, I have found no reason to doubt the claimant’s truthfulness with respect to the allegations he has made about being detained and beaten by the police when they attempted to extort him. His testimony on this point was straightforward and consistent with his Basis of Claim form and narrative. I accept these allegations as recounted by the claimant during his testimony as true.

[7] I do note that the claimant has provided several documents to corroborate his allegations, including short affidavits written by his mother, his brother, and an individual who says he witnessed the claimant being taken by the Egyptian police to an unknown destination.³ I note that these witness statements are very short, vague, and undated. I therefore attach very little weight to them. The claimant has also provided a police report which indicates only that on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019 his brother reported their mother’s personal supply card had been lost but does not otherwise corroborate his allegation that his mother was beaten and robbed by state authorities who were searching for him.⁴ Again, I attach little weight to this police report. Despite the low probative value of these corroborating documents, I do not find that they detract from the credibility of the claimant with respect to the allegations he has made about the police beating and trying to extort him.

[8] I do have some doubts about the veracity of the claimant’s allegations with respect to his political opinion, which was raised as an issue by his counsel who asked him a series of leading questions about his political involvement and whether he supports the current regime in Egypt. These allegations contradict many of the statements made in the claimant’s narrative, in which he stated that he is “not a member of the Muslims Brotherhood or any other groups,” that he has “nothing to do with politics,” that he “personally was neither with nor against president Morsi, and never belonged to any political groups,” and that he is a “peaceful person who has never been a member of any political group, and never had any political views.” Although I do acknowledge that the claimant wrote in his narrative that he has “always been against injustice, oppression, and poverty” and that he participated in demonstrations against the regime of Husni Mubarak in 2010, I find that his statements about his political opinion during the hearing directly contradicted many of the statements made in his narrative and that his allegations with respect to being vulnerable to persecution due to his political opinion are not credible.

Nexus

[9] I find that the claimant’s fear of state authorities in Egypt is not tied to a Convention ground. Rather, the claimant fears state authorities who tried to extort him due to the perception that he is wealthy and lived abroad. As such, I do not find that there is a nexus between the claimant’s allegations and any of the refugee Convention grounds and I have assessed this claim under section 97(1) of the Act only.

[10] Although counsel argued on behalf of the claimant that there is a nexus to political opinion, the claimant clearly stated in the narrative attached to his Basis of Claim form that he “has never been a member of any political group” and has “never had any political views.” He also stated that when he was arrested by the police, they told him “we know that you have nothing to do with any political parties, and that you are not a member of the group of Muslim Brotherhood, and that you don’t belong to the Party of Light and justice, like your cousin.” I thus find that there is insufficient evidence to establish a nexus to political opinion in this case.

Risk of Harm

[11] To establish his status as a person in need of protection in Egypt, the claimant must show that he would be subjected personally on a balance of probabilities to a risk to life, or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or a danger of torture, if he returned to Egypt. The claimant has submitted that he is being targeted by state authorities who are trying to extort him.

[12] The claimant testified that he moved back to Egypt from Saudi Arabia in XXXX 2018. In approximately XXXX 2018, the claimant visited his cousin, who had been accused of being a member of opposition political parties and who had recently been released after having been detained by state authorities for a year and a half. The claimant was on his way home when he was stopped by police officers who grabbed him and asked him why he had been visiting his cousin. They asked to see his identification and noted that he had managed a restaurant in Saudi Arabia. One of the individuals took a picture of his identification card. The altercation lasted for approximately two hours, following which the claimant was released and told not to visit his cousin again.

[13] In approximately XXXX 2018, the claimant testified that he was sitting at home when he was apprehended by individuals in a police patrol car and taken to The Greater Mahalah’s third police station. He testified that this police station is heavily guarded and has a reputation for being where prisoners are tortured. The claimant testified that he was blindfolded, handcuffed, and made to take off his clothes. He was beaten, insulted, and had cold water thrown over him. At one point, both his feet were tied together and he was hung from the ceiling. Throughout this ordeal, the claimant heard his captors saying “this guy is recommended, this is the guy of Saudi Arabia.”

[14] When the claimant was told to put his clothes back on, he was told that because he possessed an iPhone he would be expected to pay. He was transferred to a different room and recognized one of the individuals who had taken a photograph of his identification card in XXXX. He was told: “we know that you have nothing to do with any political parties, and that you are not a member of the group of Muslim Brotherhood, and that you don’t belong to the Party of Light and justice, like your cousin” but that if he did not pay XXXX XXXX XXXX Egyptian pounds to the police then they would manufacture a full file about him which indicates that he belongs to the Muslim Brotherhood and he would be punished accordingly. The authorities told the claimant that because he has been living in Saudi Arabia for five years they know he has money.

[15] The claimant negotiated with his captors and agreed to pay them XXXX XXXX XXXX Egyptian pounds. He agreed to provide them with the first XXXX XXXX XXXX Egyptian pounds the following morning and indicated that he would be able to make another payment in XXXX 2019.

[16] The following morning, the claimant transferred the first XXXX XXXX XXXX Egyptian pounds as agreed. He finalized plans to travel to Canada and departed from Egypt on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018 prior to the payment of the second installment.

[17] The claimant testified that in XXXX 2019, after the second instalment was due, individuals identifying themselves as government officials went to his mother’s home to ask about his whereabouts. They searched her house, stole her identification documents and valuables, and hit her on the head. The claimant explained that his brother took their mother to the police station to report the incident and was told that if he proceeded further with the claim they would “eradicate” him from “the face of the earth.”

[18] The claimant testified that following this incident he has minimized contact with his mother, so as not to endanger her. He worries that phone calls are being monitored. He has asked his mother indirectly if any individuals are still looking for him and believes that they are.

[19] The objective evidence is consistent with the claimant’s allegations and indicates that incidents of arbitrary arrest and detention are “frequent.” In 2018, local activists and rights groups have stated that “hundreds” of arrests did not comply with due process laws. A report issued on December 10, 2018 by the Arabic Network for Human Right Information indicates that the police have gone so far as to refuse to release defendants that the court has ordered must be released. There is also evidence that civilians may be beaten and/or tortured while in detention, as well as reports of suspects being killed in unclear circumstances following their arrest. In 2018, for example, press reports indicated that Abdel Halim Mohamed El-Nahas died following a five-hour interrogation in Tora Prison. In June of that same year, authorities killed 10 persons and arrested two in raids conducted across the country, alleging that those who were killed or arrested were involved in an opposition movement.⁵ The Egyptian Coordination for Rights and Freedoms (ECRF) has identified 30 people who died from torture while being held in police stations and other Interior Ministry detention sites between August 2013 and December 2015. In 2016, the ECRF reported that its lawyers received 830 torture complaints and that a further 14 people had died from torture in custody.⁶

[20] Based on the totality of the evidence before me, including the claimant’s testimony and the objective evidence, I find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant would face a forward-facing risk to his life from state authorities in Egypt. The principal claimant was detained and beaten on two occasions by state authorities who were seeking to extort him. He has now left the country with an outstanding debt to these officers. These state authorities continued to target the claimant’s mother after he left the country.

[21] The next question for me to consider under a section 97 claim is whether, in the context of the allegations, the claimant has provided sufficient evidence of his specific circumstances to establish that his risk is distinct from that of the general population.

[22] Pursuant to section 7(1)(b)(ii) of the Act, claimants are not entitled to protection under the Act if the risk they face to their lives of cruel or unusual treatment or punishment, in Egypt, is a risk that is generally faced by others in or from Egypt. The claimant must establish that he would face a risk different from those risks faced by the general population there.

[23] Consideration of a claim under section 97(1)(b) requires an individualized inquiry on the evidence, in the context of a present or perspective risk for the claimant, to determine if the risk personally faced by the claimant is also faced by others, generally, in Egypt. In this case, the claimant has been targeted, threatened, and subjected to violence by state authorities. This escalated from an encounter on the street, to the claimant’s arrest, and finally to physical assault. This is a specific and personalized risk. I find that these circumstances change the nature of the claimant’s risk to a non-generalized risk that is particular to this particular claimant. In my view, the claimant has established the objective basis of his claims, and has also established that the risk he faces is one that he personally faces and that is not faced generally by the population of Egypt.

State Protection

[24] Given that the state is the agent of harm in this case, I find that the state would not be willing or able to provide protection to the claimant. I find that the state agents who targeted the claimant are not merely rogue officers. The objective evidence indicates that Egyptian state authorities engage in widespread arbitrary arrests, enforced disappearances, and torture against perceived dissidents and that the way they treated the claimant is part of a larger pattern of abuse perpetrated against civilians.⁷

[25] I find that the presumption of state protection has been rebutted.

Internal Flight Alternative (IFA)

[26] The test for a viable Internal Flight Alternative is two pronged. The Board must be satisfied that there is no serious possibility of the claimants being persecuted, or on a balance of probabilities subjected personally to a section 97(1) risk of harm in the IFA location, and conditions there must be such that it would not be objectively unreasonable in all the circumstances, including those particular to the claimants, for them to seek refuge there.

[27] In this case, I find that the state authorities who have demonstrated an interest in the claimant would likely be able to find the claimant anywhere in the country. The evidence in this case indicates that state authorities continue to be motivated to locate the claimant, as they tracked him down, arrested, and beat him while he was in Egypt, and continue to attempt to search for him at his mother’s house now that he has left the country.

[28] I find that state authorities were initially motivated to look for the claimant due to the perception that he has financial resources because he spent a significant amount of time out of the country, and that he became a target once he was drawn to their attention following his visit to his cousin’s house. I further find that following the claimant’s disappearance from Egypt this motivation would have increased due to the perception that he did not abide by the “deal” he made with authorities when he was detained.

[29] State authorities would certainly have the means to locate the claimant throughout the country, as the government maintains effective control across Egypt.

[30] As such, I find on a balance of probabilities that it is more likely than not that the claimant would face a risk to his life throughout the country. In my view, there is no viable IFA available to the claimant.

CONCLUSION

[31] For the foregoing reasons, I find that the claimant is a person in need of protection in Egypt under section 97 of the Act and accept his claim.

(signed) Megan Kammerer

March 20, 2020

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

²Exhibit 1.

3 Exhibit 4.

4 Exhibit 5.

5 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP), Egypt, September 30, 2019, Item 2.1.

⁶ Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 10.1.

⁷ Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 10.1.

All Countries Egypt

2020 RLLR 180

Citation: 2020 RLLR 180
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: July 10, 2020
Panel: D. Willard
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Sherif Ashamalla
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB9-22509
Associated RPD Number(s): TB9-22529, TB9-22563, TB9-22564, TB9-22565
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 001001-001012

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] This is a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claim for refugee protection put forth by Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the principal claimant), Ms. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the female claimant), XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the minor claimants) under sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).¹ The panel has carefully and mindfully considered the claims in their entirety. The principal claimant was appointed as the Designated Representative for the minor claimants.

DETERMINATION

[2] This is a split decision. The panel finds that the claimants who are citizens of Egypt only (that is, all of the claimants except for XXXX) are persons in need of protection as specified under section 97(1) of the IRPA. The panel finds that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as a citizen of the U.S., is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. The reasons are as follows.

[3] In reaching its determination, the panel has taken into consideration the level of education and sophistication of the principal claimant and female claimant, including the stresses in the hearing room. The panel has further taken into consideration Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender Related Persecution.²

ALLEGATIONS

[3] The details of the claimants’ allegations are found in the Basis of Claim (BOC) form narrative.³ In summary, the principal claimant indicates that his family was living in Kuwait for several years. He alleges that because his family was perceived to have lots of money, a neighbour named XXXX XXXX XXXX demanded money from him. Due to the pressure, he agreed to give him some money because of his association with thugs.

[4] In June of 2019, when the principal claimant refused to lend more money to him, Mr. XXXX became very aggressive, verbally insulted and assaulted the claimant. The principal claimant was threatened and the contents of his apartment were destroyed. He sought assistance from the police and moved but the police took no action. Days later, his son XXXX was kidnapped for ransom by Mr. XXXX who called demanding money for his release or else he would be killed. The principal claimant rushed to the police and filed a report. Once he did, a thug associated with Mr. XXXX called to tell the principal claimant that reporting to the police was a mistake and fruitless. The claimant inferred that this was likely because they had connections to the Muslim Brotherhood. The police took no action so the claimant and his father in-law and friends raised money to pay the ransom. They paid the money to the kidnappers. The claimant’s son continues to suffer psychologically from the experience.

[5] The claimants did not know where else to go because his own family do not agree with his decision not to perform FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) on his daughter. He also adds in his amended narrative that his spouse is fearful of living in Egypt because she will be forced to wear the hijab which she does not wish to do and that she will be subjected to sexual harassment and abuse on the streets. The claimants stayed at a hotel and then flew to Kuwait. Upon arrival there, he was informed that his employer would be terminating his work contract. As a result, he no longer had legal status in Kuwait. The claimant made arrangements and he and his family travelled to the U.S. on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. They did not file claims there due to information they received. Rather, they chose to enter Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.

[6] Since their arrival, the principal claimant’s father-in-law has been pursued and threatened for money despite his father-in-law’s relocation to Mansoura. His father-in-law moved to Cairo in XXXX of 2019 and kept a low-profile there until he was able to leave Egypt and move to Kuwait. The claimants seek protection in Canada.

ANALYSIS

Personal identity

[7] The claimants state that they are citizens of Egypt. They provided their Egyptian passports at the time when they filed their claims. Copies are found in Exhibit 1. The panel notes that a U.S. passport was presented for XXXX XXXX XXXX. The claimants indicate that he is a citizen of the U.S. The panel accepts, on a balance of probabilities, their alleged names, dates of birth and citizenships.

Credibility

[8] The panel found the claimants to be generally credible with respect to the allegations related to the principal claimant. Their testimony was spontaneous, fluid, internally consistent and consistent with the documentary evidence they filed. They provided a number of documents to corroborate their allegations, all of which are found in Exhibit 5. These include: police reports, medical reports, attestations, a photograph and proof of receipt of their documents. Accordingly, the panel determines that their allegations are credible, on a balance of probabilities.

Nexus

[9] The principal claimant states that he fears a neighbour named XXXX XXXX XXXX who is associated with thugs and the Muslim Brotherhood. He fears this individual because he refused to continue to lend him money which he states then led to his son’s kidnapping for ransom. Upon being informed that this individual has connections with the police, the principal claimant believes that he is well-connected through the Muslim Brotherhood. The panel determines that this falls within the ambit of section 97 of IRPA.

[10] The principal claimant states that he feared relocating to his own family’s location because they would want him to perform FGM on his daughter. The panel finds that this fear falls within the ambit of section 96 of the IRPA.

[11] In his amended BOC narrative,⁴ the principal claimant states that his spouse only covers her hair with a hijab when she is in Egypt because of her family’s strict expectations and customs and also because she would be subjected to sexual harassment or abuse on the street if she did not wear a hijab. The panel finds that this also falls within the ambit of section 96 of the IRPA.

Subjective Fear – Failure to Claim in the U.S.

[12] The claimants arrived in the U.S. with valid U.S. visas on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. They remained in the U.S. for 4 days before arriving in Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. They indicate that they had heard that the U.S. did not look upon Muslims favourably and separated children from their parents.

[13] The panel notes that the claimants (apart from XXXX who is a U.S. citizen) were in possession of valid visas during their 4 days in the U.S. The panel notes they relied on information they heard to determine that filing their claims in Canada was preferable. The panel finds that they did not remain in the U.S. for a lengthy period, were in possession of valid visas at the time, and intended to come to Canada. Accordingly, the panel determines that their actions are insufficient to impugn their subjective fear.

Claim based on FGM (Daughter)

[14] The principal claimant indicates that he cannot relocate to live with his own family in their village because his own family would forcefully impose FGM on his daughter.

Documentary evidence and Assessment of FGM in Egypt

[15] The claimants submitted evidence on FGM in Egypt.⁵ Similar to an excerpt in the claimant’s own disclosure,⁶ the NDP refers to FGM being illegal in Egypt, that actual criminal convictions have been ordered for some practitioners of FGM in Egypt, to a prison sentence and fines ordered, the law has increased prison sentences, a fatwa has been issued declaring FGM un-Islamic, and the practice of FGM is in decline in Egypt, although it is reported that a majority of women still have traditional FGM done in Egypt.⁷ This evidence does not support the allegation that the minor claimant, in the particular circumstances of the claimants where both parents do not want FGM performed, would be forced to undergo FGM in Egypt, if they did not want it.

[16] In reaching this determination, the panel has been mindful of the principal claimant’s beliefs that his extended family (aunts and uncles) would impose it. He refers to an incident in 1999 (a year after his father passed away), more than 20 years ago, when his paternal and maternal uncles took his sisters and forced FGM on them. He indicated that both of his parents have now passed away, but he believes his uncles and aunts would insist upon it for his daughter. The panel notes that this incident in 1999 after his father died was considered in light of all of the evidence, the panel finds that the circumstances have vastly changed since that time given the change in the law in 2008 and its implementation. Accordingly, the panel does not find the fear of FGM to be a credible or well-founded one.

Claim Based on Gender in Egypt (Female Claimant and Daughter)

[17] The female claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, states in the amended BOC at Exhibit 7 that she is fearful for herself and her daughter, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, because of verbal assaults, harassment and mistreatment that she received and fears her daughter would receive in Egypt. The documents in the National Documentation Package for Egypt (NDP)⁸ mention discrimination, harassment and violence against women in Egypt.

[18] Regarding violence or attacks against women outside of domestic or family violence, in the amended narrative found in Exhibit 7, the principal claimant added reference to his spouse not wishing to wear the hijab in Egypt and fearing sexual harassment on the street if she chooses not to wear one in Egypt.⁹ The panel notes that wearing a hijab is not mandatory by operation of law in Egypt. The harassment the female claimant states she has been exposed to in Egypt occurred when she wore a hijab. She stated that she feels forced to wear one because of harassment. She stated she does not wish for her daughter to wear a hijab either.

[19] According to the United Kingdom Home Officer report in the NDP:¹⁰

8.1.1 The 2017 DFAT report observed that:

‘Sexual harassment is a frequent occurrence for women across the socioeconomic spectrum. A 2013 UN Women study found 99.3 per cent of Egyptian women had experienced sexual harassment, while 91.5 percent reported experiencing unwanted physical contact. Sexual harassment was found to be particularly prevalent during mass street celebrations such as religious feasts, or political demonstrations. The study found that most sexually assaulted women would not report the crime to the police or tell their families.’⁴⁵

8.1.2 The USSD reported sexual harassment as a serious problem and that ‘Media and NGOs reported sexual harassment by police was also a problem, and the potential for further harassment further discouraged women from filing complaints’.⁴⁶

[20] According to another NDP source:

[… ]a study conducted by the Egyptian Center for Women’s Rights that “showed that a woman’s dress had no effect on whether she was molested; in fact, the majority of victims were veiled.¹¹

[21] The same source further states:

According to a poll conducted by the Thomson Reuters Foundation, in which 336 gender experts in 21 Arab League states as well as Syria were surveyed, Egypt is “the worst country in the Arab world to be a woman” (Thomson Reuters Foundation 12 Nov. 2013). The report states that sexual harassment contributed to this ranking (ibid.).

The same source quotes a representative from HarassMap as saying that women “regularly ‘have to fight with the police to actually make the report, in the street, and at the police station'” (ibid.).

[22] A New York Times article submitted by the claimants via their counsel states:¹²

A 2017 survey by two groups that promote gender equality, Promundo and UN Women, found that sexual harassment is rampant on Egyptian streets, particularly in urban areas. More than 60 percent of Egyptian men reported in the survey that they had sexually harassed a woman or girl on the street, and more than three-quarters of male respondents cited a woman’ s “provocative” dress as a legitimate reason for harassment. And in a 2013 study by UN Women, 99.3 percent of Egyptian women and girls in a survey said they had been the victims of some kind of sexual harassment, from unwanted advances to rape. Ms. Orman [a human rights lawyer in Cairo] said the proliferation of security cameras in Cairo may have helped discourage some sexual assaults in the city, but the problem remains common at festivals and other large public gatherings. She said the civil and legal authorities across Egyptian society still need to take the issue more seriously.

[23] The panel notes that the female claimant’s personal circumstances are highly relevant in the panel’s assessment as to what she has experienced or would experience upon return to Egypt as well as her daughter. The female claimant testified to being mistreated in public, even while wearing a hijab. She testified that there is a culture or tradition of viewing women without a hijab as “sluts”. She stated that while there is no law requiring her to wear a hijab, she wears one because she believes it would be worse for her if she did not. She testified to “always” receiving verbal assaults. When asked to clarify, she referred to women wearing a tight hijab refusing to talk to her. When asked about approaching the police, she stated that if she did, they would tell her that she is the cause of the harassment. She stated that there is no protection nor safe place to reside.

[24] The panel finds the female claimant’s statements to be credible and trustworthy and consistent with the objective documentary evidence. However, the panel finds that verbal accosting by women wearing tight hijabs does not amount to persecution, even on a cumulative basis. The female claimant neither testified to being the subject of sexual harassment in the past, nor did she refer to having experienced it in the past in her BOC narrative amendment at Exhibit 7. Given the documentary evidence cited above which states that the absence or presence of a hijab is not determinative in how a woman is treated, the panel finds that while she may feel she cannot wear a hijab, she has not established that she has been persecuted nor would be on this basis in Egypt. Accordingly, the panel finds that she has not established that she or her daughter would be persecuted on this particular basis in Egypt.

Claim based on Section 97 Fear- Well-Foundedness, State Protection and IFA

Well-Foundedness and State Protection

[25] The principal claimant testified credibly regarding the threats, kidnapping and maltreatment he and his family experienced at the hands of their neighbour who has police connections and who he believes may have Muslim Brotherhood connections. He explained that this individual and his associates have marked him and his spouse’s family as having money because of the time they have spent in Kuwait. He explained that his son was kidnapped for ransom and continues to suffer psychologically as a result. He explained that his father-in-law relocated to Mansoura City, a distance away from Belkas City and was found there by the agent of persecution. Furthermore, he explained that the agent of persecution was informed by an insider at the police station when the claimant filed a police report in Belkas. The agent of persecution persisted in seeking the family and then his father-in-law and the claimant believes it is due to their anger because the claimant reported them to the police.

[26] The principal claimant testified that he approached the police on more than one occasion and they did not assist him. Rather, they informed the persecutor that the claimant had filed a report. Taking into consideration the objective evidence on rampant corruption in Egypt,¹³ combined with the claimant’s own efforts to seek state protection, the panel finds that the claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection in his particular circumstances.

Internal Flight Alternative

[27] The test for assessing an IFA is two-pronged and is set out in the Federal Court of Appeal decision in Rasaratnam:¹⁴

The Board must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that there is no serious possibility of the claimant being persecuted in the part of the country to which it finds an IFA exists and/or the claimant would not be personally subject to a risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of torture in the IFA.
Moreover, the conditions in the part of the country considered to be an IFA must be such that it would not be unreasonable in all the circumstances, including those particular to the claim, for him to seek refuge there.¹⁵

[28] Both prongs must be satisfied to find that a claimant has an IFA. Once the issue of IFA has been raised and the potential IFAs have been identified, the burden of proof rests with a claimant to show that they do not have an IFA. The finding of an IFA must be based on an analysis of the region proposed, taking account of a claimant’s personal circumstances. An IFA must be realistic and attainable. The claimant cannot be expected to encounter great physical danger or undergo undue hardship in travelling there and staying there.

[29] The Australian Government confirms that the Egyptian constitution guarantees freedom of movement, residence and emigration and there is no legal impediment to internal movement.¹⁶ The UK Home Office Country Information and Guidance report for Egypt states that where the person fears non-state agents internal relocation is likely to be reasonable but “will depend on the nature and origin of the threat, as well as the person’s circumstances and profile.¹⁷

[30] The panel proposed the cities of Cairo, Port Said and Alexandria as potential IFAs. Taking into consideration the particular circumstances of the claimants at hand, the panel determines that they have met the burden of demonstrating that there is no viable internal flight alternative for them in Egypt. In the case at hand, the agent of persecution was both motivated and able to successfully locate the claimant, abduct his son and locate his father-in-law and continue threatening him beyond Belkas City. The agent of persecution was also able to learn that the claimants had filed police reports.

[31] Based on the actions of the agent of persecution and their determination to seek out the claimant and his family in retribution for approaching the police, being able to reach and locate members of the family in different regions, the panel determines that the claimants have, in their particular circumstances, demonstrated that they cannot relocate to other parts of Egypt safely. Therefore, the panel finds that a viable IFA is not present for them in Egypt.

Claim of U.S. Minor

[31] The claimants indicated that they have no section 96 or section 97(1) claim against the U.S. on behalf of the minor child, XXXX XXXX XXXX. Accordingly, the panel determines that as he is a citizen of the United States, he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

CONCLUSION

[32] Having considered all of the evidence, the panel determines that there is not a serious possibility that the claimants would be persecuted in Egypt as per section 96 of the IRPA.

[33] The panel does find, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimants XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, would be personally subjected to a danger of torture or face a risk to life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in their country as per section 97. Their claims are accepted.

[34] The panel further finds that XXXX XXXX XXXX, a citizen of the U.S., is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. His claim is rejected.

(signed) D. WILLARD

July 10, 2020

1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (as amended).

2 Guidelines issued by the Chairperson pursuant to Section 65(3) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, Effective date: November 13, 1996.

3 Exhibits 2 and 7.

4 Exhibit 7, Claimant’s Documents, Amended Narrative, Lines 74-80.

5 Exhibit 6, Claimants’ Disclosure, Country Condition Documents, pages 1-5 and 8-21.

6 Exhibit 6, Claimant’s Disclosure, The Daily Mail “Girl 12, dies after genital mutilation in Egypt as her parents and the doctor are arrested over illegal practice” at page 1W.

7 National Documentation Package, Egypt, 30 September 2019, tab 5.10: Country Policy and Information Note. Egypt: Women. Version 2.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. June 2019.

8 Exhibit 3, NDP for Egypt, version September 30, 2019.

9 Exhibit 7, Claimant’s Documents, Amended BOC Narrative, lines 74-80.

10 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Egypt, 30 September 2019, tab 5.10: Country Policy and Information Note. Egypt: Women. Version 2.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. June 2019.

11 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Egypt, 30 September 2019, tab 5.1: Treatment of women who do not conform to Muslim practices and traditions, including wearing a veil (head covering), in rural and urban areas; state protection available to victims of mistreatment (June 2013-November 2014). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 26 November 2014. EGY105005.E.

12 Exhibit 6, New York Times, “Video Showing Sexual Assault by Mob in Egypt Draws Outrage”, page 6.

13 Exhibit 7, Claimant’s Documents, pages 22-35 and Exhibit 3, NDP for Egypt version September 30, 2019, Item 2.1 United States Department of State Report for 2018 on Egypt.

14 Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1992 1 FC 706.

15 Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1994 1 FC 589.

16 Exhibit 3, Archive – National Documentation Package, Egypt, 30 September 2019, tab 1.4: DFAT Country Information Report: Egypt. Australia. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 17 June 2019, page 44, section 5.32.

17 National Documentation Package, Egypt, 30 September 2019, tab 1.5: Country Information and Guidance. Egypt: Background information, including actors of protection and internal relocation. Version 2.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. July 2017.

All Countries Nigeria

2021 RLLR 5

Citation: 2021 RLLR 5
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: June 23, 2021
Panel: David Jones
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Johnson Babalola
Country: Nigeria
RPD Number: VC1-00847
Associated RPD Number(s): VC1-00848, VC1-00849, VC1-00850
ATIP Number: A-2022-00210
ATIP Pages: 000195-000201

DECISION

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

[1] MEMBER: So, we are now on the record. So, this transcript constitutes the Member’s written reasons for decision, as the decision was not given orally at a hearing.

[2] This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada of the claims of the principal claimant, XX XXXX, her adult son, XX XXXX, her adult daughter, XXXX XXXX, and her minor son, XXXX XXX, who are all citizens of Nigeria seeking refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The principal claimant was appointed as a designated representative for her minor son. I have also reviewed and applied the chairperson’s guideline on women refugee claimants fearing gender-related persecution and the chairperson’s guideline on child refugee claimants’ procedural and evidentiary issues.

Allegations

[3] The claimants fear risk to their lives from the principal claimant’s husband’s former business partner, namely a XXXXXXXX (ph), if they were to return to Nigeria. During the hearing, the principal claimant also testified that she feared that her husband’s family would harm her if she returned because they believe that she is responsible for his disappearance. The female claimants also raised fears of being — of persecution because of their gender if they were to return.

[4] Details of the claimants’ allegations can be found in the principal claimant’s Basis of Claim form and attached narrative, including the amendments which are found at Exhibit 7 and 8. The following is a summary of their allegations and testimony. The principal claimant and her husband were married in 2002 and they had five children together. Three of the children are part of this claim. The principal claimant’s husband had his own business XXX and XXXX XXXXX XXXX. In XXX 2017, the principal claimant’s husband received a large contract and he needed to borrow XXXXXX naira from his associate XXXXXXXXX to in order to pay for the XXXXX. Around XXX 2017 the principal claimant’s husband came home and said that the man he was to buy the XXXXX from had collected payment and had now disappeared, and that he was afraid of XXXXXXXX. In XXX 2017, XXXXXXXXX and some thugs came to the claimants’ home and demanded money. The principal claimant’s husband was beaten up and asked them for two months to pay back the money. After the men left, the principal claimant’s husband went to the police but they just accused the husband of trying to steal the money. A month later, the principal claimant’s husband and their oldest son were beaten up by some thugs on their way home. They were told that if XXXXXXXXX did not get his money soon they would both be killed. The principal claimant’s husband was scared and he and the eldest son left a few days later. The principal claimant has only received one call — phone call from them, which occurred a few days after they left, and her husband apologized for leaving her and the other children. The principal claimant started receiving threatening phone calls at home after her husband left, saying that her husband should pay or else.

[5] In XXXXX 2017, XXXXXXXX and some thugs appeared at the claimants’ house asking for the husband. When the principal claimant said that he no longer lives there, they became angry and the claimants were all blindfolded and put into a van. They were taken to an abandoned warehouse. The principal claimant was told they would be released if her husband turned himself in or repaid the debt. The claimants were only fed one meal a day. On the third day, the principal claimant was taken away from where her children were held and she was raped by three men. The claimants were beaten daily. On the sixth day the principal claimant’s youngest child XXXX was crying and he would not stop. One of the men started beating XXXX, and XXXX became quiet and stopped moving. The man told the principal claimant that XXXX was dead, and they took him away. On the 10th day, the claimants were alone in the warehouse when they heard a noise outside. They started shouting and some hunters broke down the door and untied them. The hunters took them — oh, sorry, told them where to go to the police station, and they went there and made a report. Afterwards, the claimants went to a chemist for treatment and then they went to the church for help. The claimants stayed at their church until they left Nigeria. A few days later, the principal claimant heard from her neighbour that some men, including XXXXXXXXXX, had come to their house with the police looking for the claimants and saying that they had stolen some money. The principal claimant called the police, and they said there is no report on file and that they had probably made the whole thing up. The claimants already had a valid US visa from a planned holiday in 2016 that never happened, and with the help of their neighbour, who retrieved their passports, and their church, who arranged for the plane tickets, the claimants left Nigeria on XXXXXXX, 2017. On XXXXXXX, 2017 the claimants arrived in the US, and three days later they made their way to Canada. In XXXX 2018, the claimants applied for refugee protection.

Determination

[6] I find that the claimants are persons in need of protection.

Analysis

Identity

[7] The claimants’ identities as citizens of Nigeria have been established on a balance of probabilities by their Nigerian passports, located at Exhibit 1.

[8] The allegations likely support a nexus to a Convention ground for the claimants, including, for the female claimants, a nexus to their membership in a particular social group based on their gender, but given my determination, I find it unnecessary to assess this claim under s. 96.

S. 97 Analysis

[9] I find that the claimants are persons in need of protection, as their removal to Nigeria would subject them personally to a risk to their lives, to cruel — or to a risk of cruel and [inaudible] punishment under subsection l(b) of the IRPA.

Credibility

[10] For the reasons below, I find that the adult claimants are credible witnesses. In making that finding, I am relying on the principle that a claimant who affirms to tell the truth creates the presumption of truthfulness unless there are reasons to doubt their truthfulness. In this regard, the principal claimant provided the vast majority of the testimony, as the other adult claimants were minors at the time of the incidents. The claimants all had some difficulties with details, including dates, during their testimony. As said, I do not make a negative credibility finding, given the personal characteristics of the claimants. The principal claimant never completed primary school. She is illiterate, and there is a XXXXXX report at Exhibit 5 that describes the principal claimant as suffering from XXXX that creates cognitive problems for her, including inability — an inability to retrieve specific details of her past, including dates. The other adult claimants, as mentioned before, were minors during the events that occurred. Given the claimants’ particular circumstances and Jack of sophistication, I make no negative credibility findings based on their difficulties with some of the details, including dates. While the adult claimants who testified had some difficulties, as noted above, in the end, their testimony was consistent with their Basis of Claim forms, supporting documents, and each other. The claimants were able to clearly describe their fears for returning. to Nigeria. The principal claimant described details of how they escaped the warehouse and their travel back to the church. She also described the people she has been in contact with since leaving Nigeria, who have told her about how her agent of harm is continuing to pursue them. The claimants were all able to directly respond to questions asked. There were no relevant inconsistencies in the claimants’ testimony or contradictions between their testimony and the other evidence. I find that the claimants who testified were credible witnesses.

[11] The claimants also provided documents to support their claim. These documents can be found in Exhibits 5 through 2.11. They include, at Exhibit 5, photographs of the claimant’s family including XXXX. Exhibit 7 contains documents such as a birth certificate for XXXX. I have no reason to doubt the genuineness of these documents and since they relate to significant part of the claimants’ allegations, the unfortunate loss of their son, I put significant weight on these documents to support their allegations and overall claim. The claimants also provided some letters of support from different people in Canada. During the hearing, I asked the principal claimant why she did not provide letters of support from anyone in Nigeria, such as her neighbour. The principal claimant testified that she had asked people to provide letters and had expected them to come. She had also followed up with them when they didn’t arrive, and she was told that they had been mailed. These letters never arrived in time for the hearing. I accept the claimants explanation, as the documents are outside of her control, and she has made reasonable efforts to try and obtain them. As such, I make no negative credibility finding as a result.

[12] I also find the claimants have a subjective fear of returning to Nigeria even though they first went to the US before coming to Canada and make a claim. The principal claimant testified that her son had found a video showing Nigerian claimants coming to Canada, and given the Trump administration at the time, they decided to come to Canada to claim protection. I accept this explanation, especially given the claimants only spent three days in the US prior to coming to Canada, and I find that the claimants have a subjective fear of returning to Nigeria.

Country Condition Evidence

[13] I find that the country condition documents support the claimants’ fears of returning to Nigeria. As background, the 2020 US Department of State report in item 2.1, the national documentation package for Nigeria found in Exhibit 3, describes numerous human rights concerns in the country, including unlawful and arbitrary killings by both governments and non-state actors, forced disappearances by government, terrorists, and criminal groups, torture in cases of cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment, arbitrary detention by government and non-state actors, serious acts of corruption, trafficking in persons, and inadequate investigation and accountability for violence against women. A 2020 report on Nigeria’s security situation found at item 7.7 indicates that organized criminal forces in the southern and middle parts of the country committed abuses such as kidnappings, that while the level of violence declined in 2009, it had been — it has been rising since then. A 2020 crime and safety report found at item 7.28, while directed at a US audience, states that, and I quote, “Crime is prevalent throughout Nigeria. Most crime directed towards US travellers and private security entities in the southern Nigeria seeks financial gain. US visitors and residents have been victims of a wide range of violent crime, including armed robbery, assault, burglary, carjacking, rape, kidnapping, and extortion. The most commonly reported crimes are armed robbery, kidnap for ransom, and fraud,” end quote. Other reports in the NDP, for example, item 7.37, also describe the prevalence of financially motivated kidnappings throughout Nigeria. The claimants also provided three articles, found in Exhibit 4, that describe the risk — sorry, the rising risk of kidnappings throughout Nigeria.

[14] Numerous reports in the national documentation package also indicate that discrimination and violence against women is prevalent in Nigeria. See, for example, items 1.4, 1.8, 2.1, 2.9, 5.1, and 5.3. For example, a 2019 OECD report found at item 5.1 describes how Nigeria has taken steps to reduce gender based violence. However, the report states that, and I quote, “Despite these national efforts, violence against women is endemic in Nigeria,” end quote. This is also indicated in the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs reported in item 1.8, that states that, and I quote, “Women and girls frequently experience gender-based discrimination and violence in Nigeria. Nigeria remains a highly patriarchal society and cultural traditions, including forced child marriage, female genital mutilation, and so-called widowhood practices,” end quote.

[15] I find on a balance of probabilities that the agent of harm has targeted the claimant as a result of a debt incurred by the principal claimant’s husband. I further find on a final balance of probabilities that the debt has not been repaid, and as such, it has created a risk for the claimants that is not faced generally by others Nigeria. Finally, given that the debt is still unpaid and the principal claimant’s testimony that she has been advised by people including her former neighbour in Nigeria that XXXXXXX is continuing to look for the claimants, I find that the claimants face an ongoing risk if they were to return to Nigeria. As such, I find on a balance of probabilities that claimants face a personalized risk to their lives that is not faced generally by others in Nigeria.

State Protection

[16] With respect to state protection, a state is presumed capable of protecting its citizens, and a claimant must establish on a balance of probabilities, through clear and convincing evidence, that a country’s protection is inadequate. Simply asserting a subjective belief that state protection is not available is not enough to rebut the presumption. The more democratic a state’s institutions, the more a claimant must do to exhaust the options available to them. As discussed below, I find that the claimants have rebutted this presumption.

[17] The objective evidence indicates that while the Nigerian government has taken steps to legislate protection, there remains no adequate state protection available for women fleeing gender-based violence. For example, a 2020 US Department of State report found at item 2.1 states that, and I quote, “Police often refuse to intervene in domestic disputes or blame the victim for provoking the abuse,” end quote. That report lists one of the significant human rights issues in Nigeria as the inadequate investigation and accountability for violence against women. In addition, the 2018 DFAT report at item 1.8 indicates that while Nigeria passed the Violence against Persons Act that criminalized sexual violence and provided support for domestic violence victims, that the government’s shelters are poorly equipped and do not provide adequate protection. Finally, a 2017 corruption report found at item 7.11 indicates that corruption is pervasive throughout all institutions in Nigeria. The report indicates the judicial system is perceived as corrupt and bribes to obtain favourable judgments is common, that almost — the report also indicates that almost all Nigerians believe that the police are corrupt, and the police are also considered very unreliable in enforcing the law, and that police officers continue to operate with impunity. This lack of adequate state protection can be found elsewhere in the national documentation package, including at the items noted previously. [inaudible] in the response — sorry, this is also shown in the response that the principal claimant received from the police when she tried to follow up on the two reports she made in person and they denied having any reports [inaudible]. Based on the evidence, I find on a balance of probabilities that there is no operationally effective state protection available to the claimants in their circumstances.

Internal Flight Alternative

[18] The test for internal flight alternative is well-established. I must be satisfied that one, the claimant would not face a serious risk of — sorry, face a serious possibility of persecution or be subject personally to a danger of torture or to a risk of life or a risk of cruel and unusual punishment in the proposed internal flight alternative, and two, that conditions in that part of the country are such that it would be objectively reasonable in all the circumstances, including those particular to the claimants, for them to seek refuge there. For the reasons below, I find that the claimants do not have an internal flight alternative.

[19] The issue of whether Abuja would be a viable internal flight alternative for the claimants was identified at the start of this hearing. The principal claimant testified that she would be at risk in Abuja because of Boko Haram, being unable to obtain employment as a single mother, and that XXXXXXX was able to locate the claimants — or would be able to locate the claimants through his connections with the police. XXXX also described fearing Boko Haram because he is a practicing Christian and described how he would be unable to find work or accommodations. Finally, XXXXX described her fears based on how women are treated in Nigeria

[20] The country condition documents support the claimants’ belief that it would not be reasonable for them to relocate to another part of Nigeria, including Abuja. For example, a 2019 response to information report at item 5.9 indicates that single women may encounter difficulties, including with respect to education, employment, and housing. With respect to housing, the report indicates that Nigeria has a lack of adequate housing, that prejudice exists against women, that landlords reject — that causes landlords to reject their applications. With respect to housing in Abuja, the report indicates that there is a deficit of 600,000 houses, and the report quotes a source who states that, and I quote, “The majority of women without support from male counterparts or family members have to engage in commercial sex work in order to pay for their rent,” end quote. The report also indicates that women, particularly unmarried women, experience discrimination with respect to economic opportunities, wages, and conditions of work. It quotes two sources who indicate that female heads of household will be subject to sexual exploitation. Further, the report indicates concerns with the ability of women from out of state accessing public services, and that women not from the state would have to be married or reside in state for over 10 years to be eligible to access government welfare services. [inaudible] also states that the Nigerian government has no general support for women in need. Finally, the claimants are Christian, and a response to information request found at item 12.5 indicates that violence against Christians from Boko Haram occurs in Abuja and that Boko Haram has attacked churches, masques, and public spaces in Abuja. The claimants also provided, at Exhibit 4, a Human Rights Watch report that indicates the challenges faced by people trying to relocate to cities where they are not originally from, including the discrimination they face when it comes to education and employment. As noted previously, the principal claimant did not complete primary school. The other adult claimants have not completed high school. None of the claimants have significant work experience. The principal claimant has worked as a XXXX before leaving Nigeria, and XXXX has started working at an XXX XXXXX, but his experience is minimal. Given the country conditions noted above, I find that it would be objectively unreasonable in their particular circumstances for the claimants to relocate to Abuja or elsewhere in Nigeria. Given my finding under the section — second prong of the test, I find it unnecessary to consider the first prong. Accordingly, the claimants do not have a viable internal flight alternative available to them.

Conclusion

[21] For the reasons above, I find that the claimants are persons in need of protection within the meaning of s. 97(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and accordingly the Board accepts their claim.

(signed) David Jones

– – – – – – – – – – REASONS CONCLUDED – – – – – – – – – –

All Countries Colombia

2020 RLLR 141

Citation: 2020 RLLR 141
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 3, 2020
Panel: Isis Van Loon
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Simon Trela
Country: Colombia
RPD Number: VB9-03954
Associated RPD Number(s): VB9-03929, VB9-03968, VB9-04026, VB9-04033, VB9-04034
ATIP Number: A-2021-01106
ATIP Pages: 000158-000162

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: [XXX] the principal claimant, [XXX] and [XXX] her adult sons, [XXX] her adult daughter and the mother of and designated representative for the minor claimants [XXX] and [XXX] seek refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I maintained the designation of [XXX] as the designated representative for the two minor claimants pursuant to subsection 167(2) of the Act and Rule 20 of the Refugee Protection Division Rules. These claims were joined according to Rule 55 of the Refugee Protection Division Rules.

[2] The claimants allege that FARC will murder them if they’re returned to Colombia because they’ve refused to pay the FARC’s extortion demands. The FARC has murdered the principal claimant’s uncle on [XXX] the [XXX] 2018 after their first written demands for payment were not met. I find the claimants have established on a balance of probabilities that they would personally be subjected to a danger of torture or face a risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment upon return to Colombia. My reasons follow, the claimants’ identities and citizenship as nationals of Colombia were established by their testimony and the supporting documentation filed, including certified true copies of their passports in Exhibit 1.

Credibility

[3] When a claimant swears to the truthfulness of certain facts, there is a presumption that what they have said is true, unless there’s sufficient reason to doubt the truthfulness. The claimants testified in a straightforward manner with no inconsistencies in their testimonies or contradictions between their testimonies and other evidence before me. I found the adult claimants to be credible witnesses and therefore accepted as true the facts that they have alleged in support of their claim. The minor claimant’s-, actually one did testify a little bit, the other one did not testify. The claimants provided the following relevant and prohibitive documents in their Exhibit 4. Their corporate documents showing the family owned the [XXX], a [XXX] corporation located in Bogota. Their two threatening letters referred to as pamphlets from the FARC dated [XXX] of 2018 and [XXX] of 2019. There are various reports of crime-, of the crime related to the FARC to the police, including the ones made after [XXX] 2018 and on [XXX] 2019. As well as the homicide investigation documents from the police with respect to the murder of the uncle and these include photos and a description of gun-, of his cause of death as a gunshot wound to his face. There’s a copy of the-, of an advice letter from the Minister of Defense from [XXX] of 2019, which is outlining to the claimants steps that they personally should take to try to be safe.

[4] There’s a dep-, depositions from three former employees that state that they were aware that the FARC had been threatening their employers and the FARC also demanded extortion payments from the workers. I found these documents were relevant and served to corroborate the claimant’s allegations that the family owned a company that was being extorted by the FARC. That they refused to pay the demand and reported the crimes to the police and that their uncle had been murdered for failure to pay the FARC. Victims of crime corruption or vendettas generally cannot establish a link between their fear of persecution and one of the Convention grounds. Although the claimants are clearly politically opposed to the FARC, they were not targeted by the FARC on the basis of their political opinion, but they were targeted for criminal extortion. So, there is no information before me indicating that FARC targeted the claimants by reasons of a Convention ground and accordingly I’ve assessed these claims under Section 97(1) of the Act.

[5] In order to be considered a person in need of protection under Section 97(1), claimants must demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that they would be subjected personally to a risk to their life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if they’re returned to Co-, Columbia in this case. In addition, in accordance with 97(1)(b)(ii), the risk that the claimant faces must not be one that is faced generally by other individuals in or from Colombia. The claimants have established that they’ve personally been targeted by the FARC group, in fact, the first FARC threat in the form of a pamphlet specifically named the principal claimant, her adult sons, and daughters, and includes the children that is her grandchildren, the minor claimants, in that first pamphlet. The risk the claimants face, I find, is unique to them and it’s significantly greater than the risk faced by others generally within Colombia. On [XXX] of 2018, the first threatening extortion pamphlet from the FARC was delivered to the claimants while they were en route to their summer place about four hours from Bogota. Two men on motorcycles stopped them in their car about an hour away from this summer house to deliver the threat, on [XXX] they noticed motorcycles around their business in Bogota and they informed the police. They also informed police of the first threat, the claimants went to hide at their summer house on [XXX] around 7 o’clock that evening, armed men came to demand the extortion payment and their uncle refused and they murdered him and threatened the entire family, if the payments weren’t made. The claimants reported this to the police and a homicide investigation was opened, the claimants received a number of threatening phone calls over time, where people identifying themselves as being from the FARC, said the claimants should pay or be killed like the uncle and there was nowhere they could hide. And the FARC gave specific details about the family that made the family believe that the FARC was monitoring them.

[6] The claimants attempted to hide in [XXX] from [XXX] to [XXX] of 2019, this is the same province as the city of [XXX]. They continued to receive threats and warnings to pay, they then returned for a short time to Bogota, never staying long in one place, as there were legal documents with respect to the business that had to be signed. On [XXX] 2019 they received a second pamphlet from the FARC which named them as military objectives and warned their employees and they-, sorry they warned their employees, closed the business, and went to the police that same day to report this new threat. The police warned them that as the threats specified they were now considered FARC military objectives, there is nowhere safe in Colombia and they should leave the country. The police did provide them advice on how to be safe but essentially, it’s a self-protection type of advice that was provided, such as avoiding travel routines, routes used for transportation, et cetera, carry with you an effective device of communication, if you’re at a traffic light, when you’ve had to stop or stop signs et cetera, look around to see if there’s anything suspicious and be ready to keep driving, and share these safety measures that you adopt yourself with your-, your family.

[7] So clearly, the police themselves were not willing or able to more than to just give advice on what the claimants themselves could do to try to stay safe. The claimants fled to hide with a friend in Cartagena, the designated rep for the two minor claimants, their mother, was separated from her former husband and it took some time for her to locate him and get his permission to take the minor claimants out of the country. This delayed the family’s departure, they received the authorization from the ex-husband on [XXX] the [XXX] of 2019 and left for Canada on [XXX] of 2019. The minor claimant’s mother said that she had notarized documents giving her ex-husband’s permission to remove the children from the country and that it’d been necessary for her to show these documents while exiting Colombia and entering Canada. She did not have these notarized documents with her at the hearing but offered to provide them as she had them at home in Canada. On a balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that she did have authorization from the minor claimant’s father to take the two minor claimants out of Colombia.

[8] The NDP 7.2 talks about the criminal groups and says that they pursue function of ter-, functions of territorial, social and economic control exerted by violent means. Their activities include murders, smuggling, drug trafficking, kidnapping, human trafficking and so on. They’re known to establish illegal checkpoint, enter private homes, and monitor private communications. NDP 7.18 states that initially the November 2016 peace process with the FARC brought over 11,000 members back to civilian life. At that time there were around 1,000 FARC dissidents who refused to cooperate and were acting in fact as de facto rulers in their desperate territories. Despite their origins, many of these dissident groups were even more abusive than the predecessors as they compete among themselves, sometimes brutalizing local communities to maintain their control. After the peace accord, the situation has worsened and there are more FARC members leaving the peace process, in spite of a concerted effort by the Colombian government with over 10 billion in U.S. assistance over the past 15 years. The rebel FARC group still operated in a large proportion of Colombia’s 32 departments and currently was estimated to have about 8,000 gorillas in its ranks, and this is more, this is a post peace accord document NDP 4.5. I note also maps showing dissident elements of FARC scattered throughout the country and NDP 1.2 stated that following the demobilization of the FARC in 2017 dissidents formed groups throughout Colombia. So, there’s plenty of evidence that indeed these FARC dissident groups are operational widely in Colombia.

[9] NDP 7.21 states that the FARC is known to issue threats declaring people military objectives. When a person is declared a military objective, it means that they’ve been issued a threat to be killed. When a person is a military objective their life, physical integrity, and freedom are endangered and this threat also extends to their family. These declarations can come in many forms, including the pamphlets or-, or essentially, they appear to be letters from the FARC, that the claimants received. Based on the claimants’ testimony and supporting documents and the country conditions documents, I’m satisfied on a balance of probabilities the claimants would be subjected personally to a risk to life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment at the hands of the dissident FARC if they return to Colombia.

[10] Now except in situations where state is in complete breakdown, states are presumed capable to protect their citizens. To rebut this presumption the onus is on the claimant to establish on a balance of probabilities with clear and convincing evidence that their State’s protection is inadequate. So, we look at country documentation, it states that a citizen, not in a position of power or in the judiciary, might not receive protection from the police or other forces, this is NDP 7.21. The a-,which is a response to information request from the IRB, one of the people the IRB spoke to was an assistant professor who said relocation within Colombia is not an option for those who’ve been declared a military objective because paramilitary and guerilla structures have extended vertical organizations and large networks. As previously discussed, the FARC has wide reach in the country despite the State’s efforts, after they received the first FARC pamphlet and reported it to the police, the claimant’s uncle was murdered and the murder has not been solved. The FARC was able to locate the claimants in a number of places previously, the claimants describe how they were advised by police to leave the country after they were declared military objectives in the second pamphlet from the FARC. And this is in line with the country documentation that states that there is nowhere internally they can relocate and this would be despite the fact that there is a functioning state with some degree of state protection. The claimants also provided an Exhibit for that copy that I’ve referred to previously on the standardized advice police give to people at risk such as the claimants and it’s basically just self-care. The claimants had already been taking similar measures before they received the second pamphlet from the FARC, while stopped at an intersection in Bogota.

[11] Satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the State of Colombia is unable to provide adequate protection to these claimants, if they return to Colombia and accordingly, I find that there is no adequate state protection for these claimants. Now, an internal flight alternative arises if a claimant who otherwise meets all the elements of a definition of someone who needs protection in their home area of a country, nevertheless, couldn’t-, could live safely elsewhere in that country and therefore would not be in need protection. There is a legal test which has two prongs, on the first prong I’d have to be satisfied that there would be a place in the country where the claimants could safely relocate. As well, conditions in that part of the country would have to be such that they weren’t unreasonable, in all circumstances, including those particular to the claimants for them to go there and seek refuge there. Well, the FARC has shown persistence in tracking these claimants over a period of time, twice finding them while traveling on the roads, and the FARC have indicated that they have details about the family members. Furthermore, they did not hesitate to kill the uncle when he refused their extortion demands, I’m satisfied that FARC has both motivation and means to harm the claimants. Furthermore, the country documents as previously discussed, shows that FARC is widely active in Colombia in spite of the 2016 peace accord. As well, the country documents previously discussed showed that for those declared military objectives, as these claimants have been, there is no viable IFA. They are not safe anywhere in Colombia.

[12] Therefore, I find on a balance of probabilities, the claimants would be subjected personally to a risk of life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, if returned to Colombia. And accordingly, I’ve accepted their claims.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

All Countries Jordan

2020 RLLR 135

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

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

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

Determination

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

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

Allegations

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

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

Analysis

Identity

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

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

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

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

Credibility

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Objective Basis

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

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

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

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

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

State protection

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

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

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

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

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

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

Internal Flight Alternative

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

^[3] Ibid.

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

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

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

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

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

^[9] Ibid.

^[10] Ibid.

^[11] Ibid.

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

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

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

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

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

^[17] Ibid, Item 5.10.

All Countries Mexico

2020 RLLR 119

Citation: 2020 RLLR 119
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: July 7, 2020
Panel: Camille Theberge Ménard
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Mabel E. Fraser
Country: Mexico
RPD Number: MB7-12502
Associated RPD Number(s): MB7-12711, MB7-12712, MB7-12789
ATIP Number: A-2021-01106
ATIP Pages: 000001-000006

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

[1] These are the reasons for decision in the refugee protection claims filed by [XXX] and [XXX], who are alleging that they are citizens of Mexico and who are claiming refugee protection under section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).

[2] [XXX], you were appointed as the designated representative for the minor children.

ALLEGATIONS

[3] You fear senior leadership of the [XXX] department of the State of Tabasco, Mexico.

[4] [XXX], you stated that after you were hired, you reported many anomalies and indicators pointing to corruption to your supervisor, whom you trusted. However, she was ultimately cooperating with the individuals you had reported. You stated that you received many veiled threats.

[5] An altercation then took place on [XXX] 2017, in which your wife was followed in a vehicle and stopped by an armed man who appeared to be a soldier. She stated that he was surprised to see her with a child; she attributed his surprise to the fact that you are the one who usually drives the truck she was using that day.

[6] You then stated that some men entered the shop run by you and your wife. They asked for you and demanded that you pay them so they could ensure your safety.

[7] You then lost your job without any justification and you received death threats in connection with your shop, which prompted you to seek refuge in Quintana Roo.

[8] After arriving there, you received text messages on your cellphone containing death threats. You tried to settle there. However, after a job interview, a company higher-up from Mexico City mentioned you could not be hired due to problems you had had with influential individuals. You again feared even more for your life and your family’s lives and decided to leave the country.

[9] You believe that you have neither a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) nor access to state protection.

DETERMINATION

[10] I determine that, on a balance of probabilities, you would be personally subjected to a risk to your life or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if you were to return to Mexico, for the reasons that follow.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[11] I find that your identities have been established by means of your testimony and the copies of your passports filed on the record.^[1]

Credibility

[12] I find that you are credible witnesses; therefore, I believe your main allegations in support of your refugee protection claims.

[13] Your testimony was sincere and did not contain any relevant inconsistencies. There were no relevant contradictions between your testimony and the other evidence before me that were not satisfactorily explained.

[14] You indicate in the first version of your written account that the senior leadership, whom you fear, sent you polite messages but you specified during the hearing that they were veiled threats. You explain the content of the messages, with details, in an amended written account filed after you changed lawyers. Given the circumstances in your file, I find that the details you brought forward during the hearing and in the amendment to your written account explain this difference between your testimony during the first hearing and your first written account.

[15] You also failed to discuss the threatening text messages you received on your cellphone after you arrived in Quintana Roo. You first explained that you had focused on the elements you were able to demonstrate and that there had been a lack of communication between you and your first lawyer. Given the very specific circumstances of your case, the reasons why you were forced to find a new lawyer and the fact that you provided numerous documents to support your allegations as a whole, I find that this omission is reasonably justified.

[16] As for the documents you filed to support your claims, you filed a note indicating that you had indeed been hired by the [XXX] department. You also filed examples of official letters that you had sent to your supervisor to report the irregularities and acts of corruption that you kept track of at work.^[2]

[17] You also submitted photographs^[3] of the shop you ran, as you stated, while you also worked at the [XXX] department. You also provided photographs of the shop’s closing^[4] and the threats you stated you received, written across it. Finally, you also filed photographs of the truck^[5] in which the female claimant was threatened.

[18] The panel has no specific reason to doubt the credibility of these documents and finds that they are probative in supporting your allegations of fear.

[19] In order to establish that you are a “person in need of protection,” you must demonstrate that there is a serious possibility that you would be subjected, on a balance of probabilities, to a risk to your life, to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or to a danger of torture if you were returned to Mexico.

[20] I find that the evidence submitted in support of your allegation establishes that there are, on a balance of probabilities, serious reasons to believe that you would be subjected to persecution or the other alleged harm.

[21] You received many threats from influential [XXX] department personnel whom you had tried to report. Meanwhile, you were getting visits from criminal group members who were extorting money from you. During the hearing, you indicated that the people visiting your shop addressed you by the title you had at the [XXX] department. You also alleged that these individuals were paid by the influential personnel of the department and you consider that this demonstrates that the area’s criminal groups are connected to the department.

[22] Not only did those people threaten you and your family, but they also followed your wife while she was driving your truck, which suggests the threats were becoming increasingly serious.

[23] Furthermore, the objective evidence in the National Documentation Package (NDP) on Mexico confirms that corrupt federal officials and their ties to various criminal groups are a significant and ongoing reality in Mexico.^[6]

[24] The city of Tabasco, where you lived, is in the lowest tier of safe cities, which means it is one of the cities in Mexico with one of the highest crime rates and impunity rates for both crime and human rights abuses.^[7]

[25] I find that it would be objectively unreasonable for you to seek state protection considering the particular facts of your refugee protection claim. In addition to the previously cited documentary evidence confirming the high impunity rate, the individuals who threatened you and whom you fear hold important public administration positions and they therefore have significant influence and resources that enable them to be informed of your undertakings if you were to try to file a complaint against them.

Internal flight alternative

[26] I also assessed whether you have an IFA available to you. I find that there is nowhere in the country where you would not face, on a balance of probabilities, a risk to your lives or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

[27] When you sought refuge in Quintana Roo with your family, you continued to receive threatening messages on your cellphone. The content of these messages indicated that the individuals who were looking for you were aware that you had left the area for the location where you were hiding. After that, you tried to find a job in that region and you were told that you must have been having problems with important individuals, because the head office of the company you were applying to had decided not to hire you. This situation demonstrates that your name had been given to an organization, with significant reach beyond the city of Tabasco and influence in Mexico City. That was when you learned that you would not be safe anywhere in Mexico. The panel agrees.

CONCLUSION

[28] For the above-mentioned reasons and after analyzing all of the evidence, I determine that you are “persons in need of protection” within the meaning of paragraph 97(1)(a) or 97(1)(b) of the IRPA.

[29] I therefore allow your refugee protection claims.

^[1] Document 1 — Information package provided by the Canada Border Services Agency and/or Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: passports.

^[2] Document 6 — Exhibits P-6 to P-9.

^[3] Document 6 — Exhibit P-11.

^[4] Document 6 — Exhibit P-12.

^[5] Document 6 — Exhibit P-14.

^[6] Document 3 — National Documentation Package (NDP), Mexico, August 30, 2019, Tab 2.1: Mexico. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2018, United States, Department of State, March 13, 2019; Document 3 — NDP, Mexico, August 30, 2019, Tab 1.5: Mexico Peace Index 2019, Institute for Economics and Peace, April 2019, page 74/98.

^[7] Idem, Tab 1.5.

All Countries Jordan

2020 RLLR 87

Citation: 2020 RLLR 87
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 16, 2020
Panel: Preeti Adhopia
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Anu Kumar
Country: Jordan
RPD Number: VB9-05302
Associated RPD Number(s): VB9-05311, VB9-05316
ATIP Number: A-2021-00800
ATIP Pages: 000175-000185

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claims of [XXX] (the “principal claimant”) and his daughter, [XXX] (the “minor claimant”), as citizens of Jordan, and his wife, [XXX] (the “associated claimant”) as a former habitual resident of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) who are all claiming refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “Act“).^[1]

ALLEGATIONS

[2] The principal claimant is a [XXX]-year-old Palestinian who was born to Jordanian parents in Kuwait. Since there is no birthright citizenship in Kuwait, he does not have any status there. He and his family moved back to Jordan in 1990. After finishing university in 1999, the principal claimant took a job in the United Arab Emirates and has lived there ever since.

[3] The associated claimant is a [XXX]-year-old stateless Palestinian who was born in a refugee camp in Syria. Her family moved to the UAE when she was two months old because her father was politically active and faced arrest by the Syrian government. She has lived in the UAE ever since then. In 2004, the associated claimant married the principal claimant.

[4] In [XXX] 2011, the associated claimant travelled to Syria for a visit. During this visit, the war broke out and she was detained along with other family members because authorities were seeking her uncle. They beat her and questioned her about the political activities of her father

and uncle. After this event, the associated claimant returned home to the UAE.

[5] In [XXX] 2017, the principal claimant visited Jordan. He had been having a dispute with his cousins concerning inheritance from their grandfather and wanted to resolve it. When it could not be resolved, his cousins resorted to threats to have the principal claimant jailed or killed. The principal claimant’s cousins contrived a plan to harm him by provoking an honour crime. During university, he had a relationship with a woman and proposed marriage to her. The proposal was refused by her family. The principal claimant ran into the woman on this trip to Jordan and so they decided to meet up again. His cousins photographed these encounters and provided the pictures to the woman’s husband. The cousins convinced the woman’s husband that the principal claimant was having an affair with her. The husband and his wife’s family vowed to kill the principal claimant to restore their honour. When the principal claimant complained to the police, they refused to take a report. That same day, he was attacked by three armed men who vowed to kill him. As a result, the principal claimant fled Jordan and returned home to the UAE.

[6] When the principal claimant lost his job in 2019, it cancelled the claimants’ residency status in the UAE. Not wanting to return to Jordan or Syria, the claimants came to Canada. They fear that if they return to Jordan or Syria, they will face persecution and other risks.

DETERMINATION

[7] I find that, pursuant to section 97(1) of the Act, the principal claimant is a person in need of protection as he faces a risk to his life or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in Jordan, on a balance of probabilities.

[8] I find that the minor claimant is not a Convention refugee as she does not have a well- founded fear of persecution related to a Convention ground in Jordan. I also find that the associated claimant is not a person in need of protection, in that her removal to Jordan would not subject her personally to a risk to life or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. There are also no substantial grounds to believe that her removal to Jordan would subject her personally to a danger of torture.

[9] I find that the associated claimant is not a Convention refugee as she does not have a well-founded fear of persecution related to a Convention ground in the UAE. I also find that the associated claimant is not a person in need of protection, in that her removal to the UAE would not subject her personally to a risk to life or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. There are also no substantial grounds to believe that her removal to the UAE would subject her personally to a danger of torture.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[10] The principal and minor claimants’ identities as nationals of Jordan are established by testimony and their passports in evidence.^[2] The associated claimant’s identity is substantiated by her Syrian travel document for Palestinians in evidence.^[3] I am satisfied of the claimants’ identities by these documents.

Country of Former Habitual Residence

[11] I have considered the test for stateless claimants as set out by the Federal Court of Appeal in Thabet:

In order to be found to be a Convention refugee, a stateless person must show that, on a balance of probabilities he or she would suffer persecution in any country of former habitual residence, and that he or she cannot return to any of his or her other countries of former habitual residence.^[4]

A country of former habitual residence refers to “a situation where a stateless person was admitted to a given country with a view to continuing residence of some duration, without necessitating a minimum period of residence,” and where there is a “sufficient period of de facto residence.”^[5]

[12] The associated claimant is stateless. She was born in the Yarmouk refugee camp in Syria to stateless parents. Palestinians in Syria, even if they were born there, are not granted Syrian citizenship “in order to preserve their original nationality.”^[6] Her travel document is not a passport and does not entitle her to the rights of a citizen, residency, or even a right of entry to Syria.^[7] Although the associated claimant only made allegations against Syria, and it was submitted that Syria is her only country of habitual residence, no explanation for why this is the case was provided. I disagree that Syria is the associated claimant’s country of former habitual residence. She only resided there for the first two months of her life. Her father was the first in the family to leave Syria before the rest of the family joined him shortly after she was born. This indicates that there was likely no view to continuing residence once the associated claimant was born because she and her other family members joined her father after her birth. Also, two months out of the associated claimant’s [XXX] years does not constitute a sufficient period of de facto residence in my view. Although she visited Syria since her birth, she never lived there again.

[13] It was argued that the UAE is not a country of former habitual residence in the associated claimant’s case, but the only argument presented in support of this is that she has no status there. I note that she does not have status in Syria either, yet it was argued that Syria is a country of former habitual residence. In any case, the fact that a claimant has no status in a country is not relevant to the issue of whether or not it is a country of former habitual residence. The test for determining habitual residence has been stated above. Since the associated claimant resided in the UAE for a significant period of time – [XXX] years – with a view to continuing residency, including going to school and working, I find that the UAE is her only country of former habitual residence.

Credibility

[14] At the hearing, both claimants gave testimony that was generally clear and direct. The principal claimant provided a number of details to flesh out information in his narrative, which gave weight to his allegations. He also clarified a few issues, including that he does not know if his former girlfriend has been killed; this was speculation on his cousin’s part. There were no material inconsistencies or contradictions within the claimants’ evidence that were not reasonably explained or that undermined their credibility in respect of their central allegations.

[15] The claimants submitted evidence to corroborate some of their allegations. This includes 11 statements from his family, relatives, neighbors, a friend and a colleague.^[8] Together, they substantiate the principal claimant’s past relationship in university, his cousins’ plan to make it look like he was having an affair, his assault, and that people continue to seek his whereabouts. The associated claimant also submitted seven statements from her family members, though they all relate to her risk in Syria, which I have found is not a country of reference. Based on the presumption of truthfulness, the claimants’ consistent testimony and the corroborative evidence, I accept the claimants’ allegations as credible.

Well-Founded Fear of Persecution & Risk of Harm

Principal Claimant – Jordan

[16] In this case, I do not find that the principal claimant’s allegations form a nexus to the Convention. That is to say, he does not fear his former girlfriend’s family on the basis of his race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. Rather, he fears them because they mistakenly believe he had an affair that violated their honour. As such, this claim must be assessed under section 97(1) of the Act.

[17] I find that the principal claimant faces a risk to his life or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment on a balance of probabilities. His cousins led his former girlfriend’s family to believe that he was having an affair with her by showing them pictures of the pair meeting up. In fact, the principal claimant had not seen her in about 20 years when he ran into her and they were simply catching up on each other’s lives. Nonetheless, the principal claimant received information from a cousin he is on good terms with that other cousins had concocted the plan and the woman’s family vowed to kill him. The principal claimant was so fearful of the threat, that he pre-emptively reported that he was a potential victim of an honour crime to police. He was then beaten by three armed men who vowed to kill him to restore their honour, until bystanders intervened. After he left the country, individuals have persistently sought his whereabouts from his family.

[18] The country condition evidence on Jordan is replete with information about the serious problem of so called “honour” crimes. However, all of the same sources indicate that women are generally the victims of these crimes. Whether it is labelled an honour crime when committed against a man or not, the fact is, the woman’s husband and family are furious; they assaulted him and vowed to kill him. They are also still interested in locating him. Based on the death threats against the principal claimant, his assault, the ongoing interest of the perpetrators, and the fact that Jordan has a culture of honour crime, I find that the principal claimant faces a likely risk of section 97 harm.

Minor Claimant – Jordan

[19] The principal claimant testified that he fears that if his daughter returns to Jordan, his agents of harm might kill her. I do not find sufficient evidence that this is so. There is no indication that the woman’s family has threatened to harm his family members in order to punish him. Were this the case, his family members who have been approached for the principal claimant’s whereabouts would have accordingly been harmed. But, there is no evidence that this was the case. In addition, there is no evidence to indicate that perpetrators of honour crimes harm family members of the person who dishonoured them. Thus, the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the minor claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution or risk of harm on this basis.

[20] Although the adult claimants did not raise any gender-based fears for their daughter if she returns to Jordan, I have nonetheless considered it in accordance with the Chairperson’s gender guidelines. I find that women in Jordan experience discrimination in a number of areas such as inheritance, divorce, child custody, citizenship, pension, social security benefits, the workplace, and, in certain circumstances, the value of their testimony in Sharia court.^[9] While there is discrimination against women in Jordan, even when taken together, I do not find sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it rises to the level of persecution or poses section 97 risks in the minor claimant’s particular case.

[21] Overall, I find that there is insufficient evidence that the minor claimant would face a serious possibility of persecution or likely risk of harm if she returns to Jordan. As such, there is no need to assess state protection or an Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) in her case.

Associated Claimant – UAE

[22] I find that the associated claimant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution or a risk of section 97 harm on a balance of probabilities in the UAE. She did not make any allegations against the UAE in her Basis of Claim form. At the hearing, she was asked whether she has any fear of returning to the UAE, notwithstanding the fact that she no longer holds valid residency there. She testified that she has no fear and would still be living there if her husband had not lost his job. His employment was tied to their residency because “work sponsorship is an essential pre-requisite for becoming a legal resident” and the loss of employment would result in a loss of status in the country.^[10] She was also asked if she faced any kind of problems in the UAE. Again, she replied that she did not and that she was able to go to school, attend university, and work for 12 years. She had to stop working because employers give preference to citizens over foreign nationals. She was also asked about any obstacles she faced in her life. She only referred to delays in getting passports and residency permits. I do not find that any of this treatment rises to the level of persecution or section 97 risks. A requirement for non-citizens to have sponsored employment to maintain residency is unrelated to a Convention ground.^[11] A state is entitled to enact and enforce its own citizenship and residency laws. While I acknowledge that the associated claimant no longer has valid residency in the UAE and would likely be denied entry, the Convention is only applicable to her circumstances if the refusal of entry is based on a Convention ground, and not related to immigration laws of general application,^[12] as in the case here.

[23] Despite the fact that the associated claimant did not make allegations against the UAE on the basis of her gender, I nonetheless considered this in accordance with the Chairperson’s guideline on gender. The evidence reveals that the penal code allows men to use physical violence against female family members; that domestic violence is a serious problem; and that domestic violence laws are not enforced.^[13] But, there is no evidence of violence by anyone with whom the associated claimant has had a domestic relationship. The evidence also indicates that there is gender discrimination in the law and practice with, for example, family law.^[14] While there is discrimination against women in the UAE, even when taken together, I do not find sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it rises to the level of persecution or poses section 97 risks in the associated claimant’s particular case.

[24] Overall, the associated claimant has not adequately established that she would face a serious possibility of treatment amounting to persecution based on a Convention ground. Similarly, the evidence is not indicative of a likely risk to life, cruel and unusually treatment or punishment or torture. There is no need to assess state protection or IFA in her case either.

State Protection

Principal Claimant

[25] In this case, there is insufficient evidence to indicate that the principal claimant is likely to obtain adequate state protection. He attempted to report the threat against him to the police, but they rejected it arguing that as an honour issue, it was a private matter. The officer also questioned the claimant about trying to complain against such a venerable tribe. When asked why he did not report his assault, the principal claimant testified that given the response he

received earlier, he did not believe police would assist him. He also testified that the Bani Hassan tribe is an extremely large tribe – often known as the tribe of a million people – widely known to hold positions in security and government and to be well-connected with each other. As such, he believes the police would not assist him, particularly since he is Palestinian and because the issue relates to honour.

[26] The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) notes that Palestinians face some discrimination in Jordan, and relatively few are in the public sector.^[15] It states that individuals and groups have disproportionate access to power and influence, which in Jordan and the broader Arab world, is referred to as ‘wasta.’ Wasta can affect business, bureaucratic, political and social dealings. According to DFAT, most Palestinians in Jordan have little wasta when dealing with government bureaucracy. The public service is largely made up of tribes with a great deal of wasta. In DFAT’s assessment, wasta is not evidence in and of itself of official or societal discrimination against Palestinians, but a central component to understanding how Jordanian society operates. It goes on to state that:

Despite being a numerical minority, the majority of the security forces, including the police, are East Bankers. DFAT assesses that there is no official policy for security forces to make life more difficult for Palestinians. However, personality-driven discrimination by individual officers against Palestinians and others can and does occur. It is unlikely that any complaints made by Palestinians of abuse by law enforcement agencies would result in legal redress. As is the case in much of Jordan, the individual’s wasta would likely determine the quality of redress.

[27] This evidence confirms the principal claimant’s testimony indicating that because he is Palestinian, he is unlikely to obtain adequate state protection, particularly against a large and powerful tribe that occupies positions in government and police. It should be noted that according to the Department of State, although citizens may complain against police abuse and corruption, it is “rarely investigated” in Jordan.^[16] It states that officials engage in corrupt practices with impunity and the use of family, business, and other personal connections to advance personal interests is widespread. Based on the principal claimant’s failed attempt to obtain protection, the profile of the agents of persecution, the low wasta of Palestinians, and widespread corruption with impunity, I find that there is no state protection

Internal Flight Alternative

[28] I also do not find that the principal claimant could live safely elsewhere in the country. Jordan is an exceptionally small country in size and population. Given the corruption in Jordan and that the claimants’ agents of harm belong to a tribe that is heavily represented in public service, they are likely to have access to government information that would reveal the principal claimant’s whereabouts. For example, they have been able to locate a number of the principal claimant’s family members to demand his whereabouts. Based on these factors, I find that there is no IFA in this case.

CONCLUSION

[29] Having considered all of the evidence, I find that the principal claimant is a person in need of protection as set out in section 97(1) of the Act. His claim is therefore accepted.

[30] I find that the minor and associated claimants are neither Convention refugees as set out in section 96, nor persons in need of protection within the meaning of subsection 97(1) of the Act. Their claims are therefore denied.

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

^[2] Exhibit 1.

^[3] Exhibit 1.

^[4] Thabet v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 4 F.C. 21 (C.A); 48 Imm. L.R. (2d) 195 (F.C.A.).

^[5] Maarouf v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration). [1994] 1 F.C. 723 (T.D.), (1993), 23 Imm. L.R. (2d) 163 (F.C.T.D.)

^[6] Exhibit 3.2, National Documentation Package (NDP), Syria, September 30, 2019, Item 3.6 Response to Information Request (RIR) SYR104658.E.

^[7] Exhibit 3.2, NDP, Item 3.6.

^[8] Exhibit 4.

^[9] Exhibit 3.1, NDP, Jordan, August 30, 2019, Items 2.1, 2.4 and 5.5.

^[10] Exhibit 3.3, NDP, United Arab Emirates, February 28, 2020, Item 14.2 RIR ZZZ106014.E.

^[11] Alusta, Khahil v. ME.I. (F.C.T.D., no. A-779-92), Denault, May 16, 1995.

^[12] Arafa, Mohammed v. ME.I. (F.C.T.D., no. A-663-92), Gibson, November 3, 1993.

^[13] Exhibit 3.3, NDP, Item 2.1.

^[14] Exhibit 3.3, NDP Items 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4.

^[15] Exhibit 3.1, NDP, Item 13.1.

^[16] Exhibit 3.1, NDO, Item 2.1.

All Countries Nigeria

2020 RLLR 64

Citation: 2020 RLLR 64
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 26, 2020
Panel: Angelina Guarino
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Eric Freedman
Country: Nigeria
RPD Number: MB8-01156
Associated RPD Number(s): MB8-01171, MB8-01221
ATIP Number: A-2021-00800
ATIP Pages: 000030-000037

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] The principal claimant, [XXX], his wife, [XXX] (the female claimant), and their minor child, [XXX] (the minor claimant), are citizens of Nigeria. They are claiming refugee protection in Canada under section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).

[2] The panel appointed the principal claimant as the designated representative of his minor child, [XXX].

[3] The wife and minor child are basing their refugee protection claims on the principal claimant’s written account in the Basis of Claim Form (BOC Form).^[1]

ALLEGATIONS

[4] The principal claimant alleges that he fears his deceased father’s third wife, named [XXX], as well as his police officer half-brother, named [XXX], born from that relationship, who threatened to kill the male claimant and go after his family after he refused to give them the major share of the inheritance from his father.

[5] According to the will, the inheritance was to be divided equally between all the children of the male claimant’s father, and [XXX] request was very poorly received by the other heirs. Following their refusal, [XXX] threatened to kill the claimant and his brothers and sisters.

[6] The male claimant also alleges that two of his brothers were killed after receiving death threats from [XXX]. According to the male claimant, it was [XXX] who ensured that her threats were carried out. She was questioned by the police after the death of the male claimant’s brothers because people had witnessed her uttering threats. However, the investigation quickly ended as her son [XXX], a [XXX], intervened to have her released. The male claimant alleges that [XXX] has many influential contacts among the Nigerian authorities and that he is involved in shady dealings.

[7] Consequently, the male claimant fears that he will be the next victim of violence at the hands of [XXX] and her son owing to this conflict, especially since the issue of the inheritance has not yet been resolved and the other heirs do not want to agree to an unequal split.

DETERMINATION

[8] The panel concludes that the refugee protection claimants are “persons in need of protection” for the reasons set out below.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[9] The panel is satisfied as to the refugee protection claimants’ identity, which was established, on a balance of probabilities, by means of the testimony of the adult claimants and by the submission on the record of the certified true copy of their respective Nigerian passports.^[2]

Analysis under paragraph 97(1)(b)

[10] In his BOC Form and during the hearing, the principal claimant stated that he feared being mistreated or even killed because of the conflict with his father’s wife and with his half-brother [XXX], a conflict involving the estate of his deceased father. He also feared that his agents of harm could go after members of his nuclear family, as the threats targeted them as well. Refugee protection claims involving a physical risk from family members in Nigeria because of an inheritance fall under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA since there is no nexus to the Convention.^[3]

[11] It is also clear that, in relation to the claimants’ fears toward Nigeria, this refugee protection claim does not involve any danger of the claimants’ being subjected to a danger of torture within the meaning of paragraph 97(1)(a) of the IRPA.

[12] The panel has therefore analyzed this refugee protection claim under paragraph 97(1)(b) of the IRPA, that is, whether the claimants would be personally subjected to a risk to their lives or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if they were to return to Nigeria.

Credibility

[13] The male claimant gave frank and sincere testimony before the panel about the conflict between [XXX] his half-brother [XXX], and himself, regarding the inheritance left by his deceased father.

[14] First, the male claimant provided detailed information about the way the inheritance was split between his father’s three wives. Subsequently, he explained the reasons that led [XXX] to insist on an unequal split–according to her, she was his father’s favourite wife–and stated that she had demonstrated her desire to appropriate the largest share of the inheritance by not hesitating to threaten the other heirs. The male claimant provided details on relationship dynamics within his family and the difficulty he had getting along with his half-brothers on his father’s side.

[15] The male claimant explained how the threats had escalated over time, with the murder of his two brothers. The male claimant also described the various means he had used to try to resolve the conflict. He testified that he had asked the police to intervene following the murder of his brothers, but said that the investigation had been sabotaged by the intervention of his half-brother, the [XXX]. The male claimant also asked the other heirs to agree to [XXX] demands in order to end the conflict, but they refused. The male claimant indicated that he had finally left the inheritance under the management of a company. This implies not only that it became more difficult for [XXX] and the claimant’s half-brother to appropriate the inheritance, but also that their desire for revenge grew.

[16] The male claimant testified that, on [XXX] 2017, he moved with his wife and child to the home of an uncle in Ogun State, as he felt that his life was in danger in Lagos. Nevertheless, he was found by men sent by [XXX] and his half-brother [XXX]. On [XXX] 2017, the claimants were informed by neighbours that some men had been asking about them, and it was because of this suspicious visit that the claimants decided to leave Nigeria for good.

[17] The principal claimant spontaneously answered every question he was asked. His answers were consistent not only with his written account but also with the various affidavits submitted in support of his claim.^[4]

[18] In addition to his credible testimony, the principal claimant provided several pieces of evidence to corroborate his allegations. He submitted into evidence his father’s will,^[5] his brothers’ death certificates^[6] and posters announcing their funerals,^[7] the contract stipulating that the inheritance is being managed by a management company,^[8] as well as evidence that his half-brother [XXX] is a [XXX].^[9] The male claimant’s attempts to obtain protection from the Nigerian authorities following the murder of his brothers are corroborated by a police report.^[10]

[19] The panel notes that the claimants arrived in the United States on [XXX] 2017. They finally left that country on [XXX] 2018. The principal claimant specified that he did not claim asylum because of the hostile climate toward asylum seekers in the United States. The panel considers this an unreasonable explanation for the failure to claim asylum. Nevertheless, as the claimants had valid status and given the duration of their stay, which lasted a few months, the panel is of the opinion that this behaviour is not determinative to undermine the credibility of the alleged facts taken as a whole.

Objective basis of the fear

[20] The objective documentation on Nigeria reports that violence related to inheritance issues is common. Indeed, in a European Union report, the Director of the Initiative for Equal Rights in Nigeria states that this is a major problem in Nigeria and that quarrels can happen between several family members; the violence that follows can go as far as killing.^[11]

State protection

[21] Objective documentation indicates that the Nigeria Police Force is perceived as corrupt and ineffective.^[12] The reports also highlight problems in the judicial system, which is reported to be short-staffed, underfunded, ineffective, subject to political intervention, corrupt, and lacking training and resources.^[13]

[22] The panel also notes that the male claimant testified that he reported some of the incidents to the police. He submitted a police report^[14] into evidence and testified about the time he went to file a complaint. He explained that the police officers questioned [XXX] but that they quickly released her. The male claimant thinks that [XXX] son, [XXX], himself a [XXX], may have bribed the police. The male claimant explained that he knew about his half-brother’s illegal trafficking in cars. The half-brother told the male claimant about his activities and influence within the police when he threatened him.

[23] For all these reasons, the panel is of the opinion that the male claimant has established, through clear and convincing evidence, that he would not have access to adequate state protection.

Internal flight alternative

[24] The panel considered the Jurisprudential Guide dealing with the various internal flight alternatives in major cities in southern and central Nigeria for claimants fleeing non-state actors.^[15] Having considered the profile of the male claimant’s agents of harm, the analysis in the Guide is not applicable in this case.

[25] The panel questioned the male claimant about the possibility of relocating to Port Harcourt in order to escape [XXX] and his half-brother [XXX]. Asked to explain why [XXX] and his half-brother would want to find him in the proposed IFA, the male claimant stated that they are motivated by their desire for revenge as well as by the fact that the male claimant is the last male heir standing in the way of management of the inheritance passing into the hands of his half-brother [XXX]. Asked about the ability of [XXX] and his half-brother to find him in Port Harcourt, the male claimant answered that, regardless of where he went in Nigeria, his agents of harm would be able to find him because of his half-brother’s duties as a [XXX] and his access to personal information banks. The male claimant’s agents of harm found him when he moved to his uncle’s home with his family, which demonstrates a strong and sustained interest in him. The principal claimant added that his agents of harm are capable of committing very violent acts, as they have demonstrated with the murder of his brothers.

[26] The panel takes note of the male claimant’s testimony regarding the means at the disposal of his agents of harm. The panel has also taken into account their potential interest in finding the claimant with a view to eliminating him from the line of inheritance and taking revenge on him for standing in the way of their demands as well as for having filed a complaint with the police against [XXX] regarding the murder of his brothers.

[27] Consequently, the panel is of the opinion that, on a balance of probabilities, the claimants face a risk to their lives or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment throughout Nigeria.

[28] In light of the above and taking all the evidence into account, the panel is of the opinion that the claimants have established that, should they return to Nigeria, they would be personally subjected to a risk to their lives or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment within the meaning of subsection 97(1) of the IRPA.

CONCLUSION

[29] For all these reasons, the panel concludes that the refugee protection claimants are “persons in need of protection” and allows their refugee protection claim under paragraph 97(1)(b) of the IRPA.

^[1] Document 1 — Basis of Claim Form.

^[2] Document 1 — Information package provided by the Canada Border Services Agency and/or Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, formerly Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

^[3] Njeru v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) (F.C., No. IMM-2258-09), Russell, December 16, 2009, 2009 FC 1281; Kang, Hardip Kaur v. MC.I. (F.C., No. IMM-775-05), Martineau, August 18, 2005, 2005 FC 1128.

^[4] Document 4 — P-20 to P-23.

^[5] Document 4 — P-13.

^[6] Document 4 — P-15 and P-18.

^[7] Document 4 — P-14.

^[8] Document 4 — P-23.

^[9] Document 5 — P-24: Nigerian [XXX] ID card for [XXX].

^[10] Document 4 — P-16 and P-17.

^[11] Document 3 — National Documentation Package on Nigeria, November 29, 2019; Tab 1.3: European Union, European Asylum Support Office, August 2017, EASO COI Meeting Report: Nigeria.

^[12] Document 3, Tab 1.4: European Union, European Asylum Support Office, June 2017, EASO Country of Origin Information Report: Nigeria. Country Focus.
Document 3, Tab 16.2: United Kingdom, Home Office, 2016, Country Information and Guidance. Nigeria: Background information, including actors of protection and internal relocation. Version 2.0.

^[13] Document 3, Tab 1.4: European Union, European Asylum Support Office, June 2017, EASO Country of Origin Information Report: Nigeria. Country Focus, p. 29.

^[14] Supra footnote 10.

^[15] Jurisprudential Guide, decision TB7-19851, May 17, 2018.