Tag: Political Opinion

2020 RLLR 13

Citation: 2020 RLLR 13
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 18, 2020
Panel: F. Mortazavi
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Vino Shanmuganathan
Country: Venezuela
RPD Number: TB8-00045
ATIP Number: A-2021-00540
ATIP Pages: 000090-000096

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] [XXX], the claimant, is a citizen of Venezuela. She is claiming refugee protection under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the IRPA).¹

NEXUS

[2] The claim is based on political opinion, namely, political dissident.

ALLEGATIONS

[3] The claimant’s allegations are detailed in her Basis of Claim Form (BOC) narrative,² and amended narratives.³

[4] In summary, she alleged that she is a registered member of the Primera Justicia Party (PJC) of Venezuela. She had attended protest against the government of Nicolas Maduro calling for social and financial reforms.

[5] The claimant stated that the PJC believed in democracy, social justice, solidarity, the rescue of human dignity, equal opportunities, and progress. At the time, the claimant supported Juan Pablo Guanipa for a gubernatorial election, who later became the first vice president of the National Assembly.

[6] The claimant alleged that on [XXX], 2017, she was arrested, along with other protesters at a peaceful protest, detained, and interrogated by the Bolivarian National Police. Subsequently, she was further interrogated in [XXX] 2017, and threatened to pay extortion money to have her case dropped.

[7] On [XXX], 2017, the claimant, who was in possession of a visitor visa for Canada, fled the country alone, while her husband remained behind, as he did not have a valid Canadian visitors visa. At a later date, unable to obtain a Canadian visa, her husband, who was also harassed, threatened, and subjected to extortion by the authorities after obtaining his passport through a bribe of an official, fled to Chile.

[8] On December 12, 2017, the claimant sought asylum in Canada. The claimant alleged that she fears the government authorities and the Tupamaros, an armed group associated with the government, if she were to return to Venezuela.

DETERMINATION

[9] The panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee for the following reasons.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[10] The panel finds the claimant, on a balance of probabilities, is a citizen of Venezuela based on the copies of her original passport.⁴

[11] The panel is satisfied that the claimant has no permanent status, either residency or citizenship, beside Venezuela.

Credibility

[12] Notwithstanding the issue of delay in claiming asylum in Canada, the panel finds that the claimant’s evidence is internally consistent, inherently plausible, and is not contradicted by documentary evidence on country conditions in Venezuela and the personal documents submitted by the claimant. The panel therefore, finds her evidence credible, and that the allegations which form the basis of her subjective fear are, on a balance of probabilities, true.

Objective evidence

[13] Having considered the totality of the evidence and counsel’s submissions, the panel finds that there is sufficient credible or trustworthy objective evidence before it to support the claimant’s subjective fear.

[14] The documentary evidence with respect to the current political climate in Venezuela, including freedom to protest and treatment of protesters at the hands of the authorities, indicated the following:

Venezuela is formally a multiparty, constitutional republic, but for more than a decade, political power has been concentrated in a single party with an increasingly authoritarian executive exercising significant control over the legislative, judicial, citizens’ power (which includes the prosecutor general and ombudsman), and electoral branches of government. On May 20, the government organized snap presidential elections that were neither free nor fair for the 2019- 25 presidential term. Nicolas Maduro was re-elected through this deeply flawed political process, which much of the opposition boycotted and the international community condemned.

[… ]

Human rights issues included extrajudicial killings by security forces, including colectivos (government-sponsored armed groups); torture by security forces; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; and political prisoners. The government restricted free expression and the press by routinely blocking signals, and interfering with the operations of, or shutting down, privately owned television, radio, and other media outlets. Libel, incitement, and inaccurate reporting were subject to criminal sanctions. The government used violence to repress peaceful demonstrations. Other issues included restrictions on political participation in the form of presidential elections in May that were not free or fair; pervasive corruption and impunity among all security forces and in other national and state government offices, including at the highest levels…

[…]

… There were continued reports of police abuse and involvement in crime, including illegal and arbitrary detentions, extrajudicial killings, kidnappings, and the excessive use of force. Impunity remained a serious problem in the security forces.

[… ]

In some cases government authorities searched homes without judicial or other appropriate authorization, seized property without due process, or interfered in personal communications. [Special Actions Force] and other security forces regularly conducted indiscriminate household raids.⁵

[15] Amnesty International reports that:

Anti-government protesters and some opposition leaders were accused by the government of being a threat to national security.

[… ]

The right to peaceful assembly was not guaranteed. According to official data, at least 120 people were killed and more than 1,177 wounded – including demonstrators, members of the security forces and bystanders – during these mass demonstrations.

There were also reports from the Attorney General’s Office that groups of armed people with the support or acquiescence of the government carried out violent actions against demonstrators.

[…]

Hundreds of people reported that they were arbitrarily detained during the protests that took place between April and July. Many were denied access to medical care or a lawyer of their choice and in many cases were subjected to military tribunals. There was a notable increase in the use of military justice to try civilians.⁶

[16] With respect to anti government Venezuelans returning from abroad, the documentary evidence indicates the following:

… failed refugee claimants who return to Venezuela may face, among other things, the following consequences: not being able to find employment, having their passport cancelled or being imprisoned [translation] “without a regular trial, since the judicial system is subordinate to the executive power”… According to the same source, a person who opposes the government [translation] “runs the risk of being imprisoned and even disappearing”…

[…]

According to the same source, it is very difficult to obtain a passport from abroad, and the national identity card (cédula), which is required “for everything,” including obtaining a passport, is available only in Venezuela … Similarly, the coordinator from La voz de la diaspora venezolana indicated that the government does not allow Venezuelans in the diaspora to obtain identity documents, including national identity cards and passports…⁷ [footnotes omitted]

[17] In view of the above, the panel finds that the claimant has established that there is more than a mere possibility of persecution should she return to Venezuela, on the grounds of her political opinion.

State protection

[18] The claimant must establish, through clear and convincing evidence, that the state would be unwilling or unable to provide adequate protection if she were to return to her home country, Venezuela.

[19] The panel has taken into consideration the claimant’s profile at the present time, an opponent of the government. The panel has taken into consideration that the claimant fears the Venezuelan authorities. In view of the above noted objective documentary evidence, the panel finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that state protection would be unavailable, as the state is the agent of persecution, if she were to return to Venezuela at the time of the hearing. The panel concludes that the presumption of state protection has been rebutted in this particular circumstance.

Internal flight alternative

[20] As the state is an agent of persecution, and the state authorities are in control throughout the country, there is more than a mere possibility of persecution in all parts of Venezuela. Thus, a viable internal flight alternative is currently not available to the claimant within Venezuela.

CONCLUSION

[21] The panel concludes that [XXX] is a Convention refugee. Thus, the panel need not analyze the refugee protection claim under section 97 of the IRPA.

[22] The panel therefore accepts her claim.

(signed) F. Mortazavi

February 18, 2020

¹ The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C.2001, c.27, as amended, sections 96 and 97(1).
² Exhibit 2, Basis of Claim Form (BOC).
³ Exhibit 6, Amended Narrative received February 7, 2020; and Exhibit 7, Personal Disclosure received February 3, 2020, at pp. 1-2.
⁴ Exhibit 1, Package of Information from the Referring CBSA/CIC, Certified True Copy of Passport.
⁵ Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Venezuela (March 29, 2019), item 2. 1.
⁶ Ibid., item 2.2.
⁷ Ibid., item 14.3.

All Countries Ethiopia

2020 RLLR 12

Citation: 2020 RLLR 12
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: September 23, 2020
Panel: S. Seevaratnam
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Teklemicheal A. Sahlemariam
Country: Ethiopia
RPD Number: TB7-14076
Associated RPD Number(s): TB7-14126, TB7-14127
ATIP Number: A-2021-00540
ATIP Pages: 000076-000089

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] The principal claimant, [XXX] and her daughters, [XXX] and [XXX] (the minor claimants), claim to be citizens of Ethiopia and they are claiming protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)¹.

[2] This matter is a hearing de nova referred back on November 18, 2019, by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD), for redetermination by a differently constituted panel.²

[3] The mother and principal claimant, [XXX], consented to be the designated representative for her minor daughters, [XXX] and [XXX], for the purposes of the hearing.

[4] The principal claimant alleges that she fears returning to Ethiopia because of her perceived political opinion in opposition of the Ethiopian regime since she critiqued the government.³

[5] The minor daughters allege they fear returning to Ethiopia due to their gender.⁴ They are being forced by the family members of their father, who are ethnic Gurages,⁵ to undergo female genital mutilation (FGM)⁶.

[6] The panel has also carefully considered the Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution, prior to assessing the merits of this claim.⁷

ALLEGATIONS

[7] In [XXX] 2016, the principal claimant voiced her criticism of the actions of the Ethiopian government at a meeting held at the Ethiopian consulate in Qatar. High level government officials were present including the Ambassador. The claimant explained that she opposed the killing of innocent civilians who were protesting peacefully. She further explained that she opposed the ethnic divisions among the Tigrayan, Oromo, and Amhara people that were exacerbated by government policies and action. In addition, she opposed the lack of religious freedom and tolerance by the government.

[8] On [XXX], 2017, the principal claimant travelled to Ethiopia to visit her family during Easter. The principal claimant was arrested, detained, and interrogated upon arrival at the airport. The principal claimant and her daughters were terrified and feared for their lives. Ultimately, family members paid an exorbitant bribe for the claimant’s release on the condition that she depart Ethiopia on a specific date authorized by the Ethiopian government and she was denied the right of return.

[9] The principal claimant believes that there is no protection for persons who are critical of the Ethiopian government since political opposition is not tolerated. She fears re-arrest, detention, and even death since the security forces suspect her of being a political opponent of the government of Ethiopia.

[10] The principal claimant further fears that if she is incarcerated by the security forces, her husband’s family would have a larger influence and control over her daughters and subject them to FGM in keeping with their ethnic Gurages traditions. Thus, fearing for their safety, the claimants fled to Canada. The principal claimant testified that she had a strained marital relationship and her husband. He chose to remain in Qatar as a [XXX] and refused to join his wife and children in initiating a refugee claim in Canada. The principal claimant further testified that she and her husband have separated, but he consented to giving her sole custody of their minor daughters.⁸

[11] In Canada, the principal claimant continues to participate in political activities such as demonstrations⁹ in opposition to the Ethiopian government actions and policies.¹⁰

DETERMINATION

[12] The panel finds the claimants to be Convention refugees. The panel’s reasons are as follows.

IDENTITY

[13] The claimants submitted copies of their passports issued by the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, which was certified to be true copies by an Immigration Officer with Citizenship and Immigration Canada on July 24, 2017.¹¹

[14] The principal claimant also provided copies of the minor children’s birth certificates,¹² her Ethiopian identification card,¹³ her educational certificates,¹⁴ a letter of employment,¹⁵ letters of support from friends and family,¹⁶ letters from the Ethiopian community association in Qatar, a letter from the Unity for Human Rights and Democracy in Toronto,¹⁷ and photos of the principal claimant participating in protests against the Ethiopian government.¹⁸

[15] The claimants have provided copies of their State of Qatar Residency Permits, which expired on [XXX], 2017.¹⁹ The principal claimant explained that their temporary resident status in the State of Qatar was dependent on the employment of the principal claimant’s husband, [XXX], an Ethiopian national, who was employed on contract as a [XXX]. He was issued a residency permit by the State of Qatar.²⁰ The principal claimant testified that they lived as a family unit in Qatar from 2013 until 2017 when there was a breakdown of their marital union. Accordingly, the principal claimant further explained that she and her daughters have no right of return or legal status in Qatar.

[16] The panel is satisfied that the claimants do not have a right to nationality or permanent status in the State of Qatar. The panel finds that the claimants are citizens of Ethiopia.

CREDIBILITY

[17] The panel is guided by the leading jurisprudence on the issue of credibility. Maldonado stands for the principle that when a claimant “swears to the truth of certain allegations, this creates a presumption that those allegations are true unless there be reason to doubt their truthfulness.”²¹

[18] The principal claimant responded to all questions clearly and directly. Her sworn viva voce evidence was consistent with her Basis of Claim form (BOC),²² her personal documents,²³ letters of support from friends, family, and community organizations,²⁴ as well as the documentary evidence.²⁵

[19] The principal claimant’s brother, [XXX], provided a letter that corroborated the claimant’s arrest in Ethiopia.²⁶ Other Ethiopian nationals who were residents of Qatar, namely, [XXX]²⁷ and [XXX]²⁸ witnessed the claimant’s criticism of the Ethiopian government and are cognizant of her arrest and harsh treatment by the Ethiopian authorities.

[20] The panel finds the principal claimant to be a credible and trustworthy witness. Accordingly, she has established her own subjective fear of persecution and for her daughters.

WELL-FOUNDED FEAR OF PERSECUTION

Imputed Political Opinion

[21] The panel has carefully reviewed reputable, objective, and reliable sources in assessing the objective basis of this claim.

[22] The Ethiopia. Freedom in the World 2020 Report, states in its overview that,

Ethiopia is undergoing a transition set off by the 2018 appointment of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, who came to power after Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn resigned the face of mass protests at which demonstrators demanded greater political rights. Abiy has pledged to reform Ethiopia’s authoritarian state, ruled by the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) since 1991, and is in the process of rewriting the country’s repressive electoral, terrorism, media, and other laws. However, Ethiopia remains beset by political factionalism and intercommunal violence, abuses by security forces and violations of due process are still common, and many restrictive laws remain in force. A major reorganization of the ruling party, growing conflict between ethnic communities, and new claims for self-determination have created a fluid political situation as the country prepares for elections in 2020.²⁹

[23] The United Kingdom Home Office Fact-Finding Mission. Ethiopia: The political situation report dated March 2020 states as follows:

We are trying to make people aware that they are being targeted due to bad politics and their ethnic background, simply for being Amhara. Abiy is not working in a way that he said he would. We had a team of brilliant lawyers who are representing Amhara prisoners of conscience at the courts. They challenged “evidences” by the police and government Attorneys. However, the problem is that the final decision is a political one and not a legal one. The farmers in different parts of Oromia were detained for at least 2 weeks, brought to court, the court investigated and ruled that they should be released with a 5,000 Birr bail. This is a lot of money. It is to discourage them economically, they cannot afford that, if they are arrested again.³⁰

[24] The United State. Department of State (DOS) Ethiopia 2019 Human Rights Country Reports indicates the following:

Significant human rights issues included: reports of unlawful or arbitrary killings by security forces; citizens killing other citizens based on their ethnicity; unexplained disappearances; arbitrary arrest and detention by security forces; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; unlawful interference with privacy; censorship, and blocking of the internet and social media sites; criminalization of same-sex sexual conduct; and child labor, including the worst forms.³¹

[25] The DOS report further states that:

There were numerous reports that the government and its representatives committed arbitrary and unlawful killings. Security forces used excessive force against civilians.³²

The constitution and law prohibit arbitrary arrest and detention and provide for the right of any person to challenge the lawfulness of his or her arrest or detention in court. Authorities, however, detained persons arbitrarily, including activists, journalists, and opposition party members.³³

[26] According to a report by Human Rights Watch titled Ethiopia: Communications Shutdown Takes Heavy Toll indicates as follows:

“The Ethiopian government’s blanket shutdown of communications inOromia is taking a disproportionate toll on the population and should be lifted immediately,” said Laetitia Bader, Horn of Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “The restrictions affect essential services, reporting on critical events, and human rights investigations, and could risk making an already bad humanitarian situation even worse.”

Under Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s administration, communication blackouts without government justifications has become routine during social and political unrest, Human Rights Watch said.

A ruling party regional spokesman told the media in January that the communications shutdown had “no relationship” to the military operations but then said that it had contributed to the operation’s success. The federal government offered no explanation for the shutdown until February 3, when Abiy told parliament that restrictions were in place in western Oromia for “security reasons.”³⁴

Instead of indefinite, blanket shutdowns and repressing peaceful dissent, Ethiopian authorities should use the media to provide transparent information that can discourage violence and direct security forces to act according to international human rights standards, Human Rights Watch said.

“The lack of transparency and failure to explain these shutdowns only furthers the perception that they are meant to suppress public criticism of the government,” Bader said. “Amid ongoing unrest and ahead of critical national elections, the government should be seeking to maintain internet and phone communications to ease public safety concerns, not increase them.”³⁵

[27] In its report titled Ethiopia: Political situation and treatment of opposition, the Danish Immigration Service states that:

…[M]embers of the diaspora community were, “without doubt” monitored closely by the government, wherever they might reside. This is, according to the interlocutor, no secret…

The editor noted that if Ethiopians participate in demonstrations against the Ethiopian regime in a foreign country, be it in Europe or in the USA, would be video-taped to document their activity. This would also be the case if members of the diaspora had gotten foreign nationality. Thus they would fear that they were to return to Ethiopia then something might happen to them upon return. As examples of what might occur, Mr. Giorgis mentioned that they could run the risk of being detained in the airport or jailed.³⁶

Female Genital Mutilation (FGM)

[28] The United States Department of State (DOS) Ethiopia 2019 Human Rights Country Reports indicates the following indicates the following:

Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C): FGM/C is illegal, with punishment including imprisonment and a fine, depending on the crime. The government did not actively enforce this prohibition. The 2016 DHS stated that 65 percent of girls and women ages 15-49 were subjected to FGM/C. The prevalence of FGM/C was highest in the Somali Region (99 percent) and lowest in the Tigray Region (23 percent). It was less common in urban areas. The law criminalizes the practice of clitoridectomy and provides for three months’ imprisonment or a fine of at least 500 birr ($17) for perpetrators. Infibulation of the genitals (the most extreme and dangerous form of FGM/C) is punishable by five to 10 years’ imprisonment. According to government sources, there had never been a criminal charge regarding FGM/C, but media reported limited application of the law.³⁷

[29] According to Ethiopia Social Institutions and Gender Index 2019, 65% of women in Ethiopia have undergone FGM.³⁸

[30] The principal claimant testified that she was also a victim of the traditional cultural practice, and she opposes her minor daughters being subject to this painful and dangerous practice.

[31] The Gender Index 2019 further finds that,

FGM rates have reduced significantly since 2000 for girls aged 0 to 14 years old (Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, 2014). However, despite measures and efforts by the Government and the notable decrease of FGM amongst younger girls and in urban areas, the CEDAW Committee (2011) stresses that FGM is prevalent in rural and pastoralist areas. FGM is a practice embedded in social constructs on gender roles and values and is practiced by different communities in Ethiopia. Its prevalence and the age girls undergo FGM vary across regions and communities. One of the reasons invoked by some communities for the practice of FGM is the preservation of women’ s chastity. It also occurs that parents encourage the practice as uncircumcised girls are likely to be marginalized and socially excluded in some communities, and would face difficulty to be married.³⁹[footnotes omitted]

[32] Counsel’s documentary evidence corroborates the principal claimant’s sworn viva voce evidence that FMG is still practiced among several rural communities including the Gurages.⁴⁰

[33] Based on current country documentary evidence and the credible allegations, the panel finds that the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution in Ethiopia, by reason of the principal claimant’s perceived political opinion and the minor claimants’ gender.

STATE PROTECTION

[34] There is a presumption that except in situations where the state is in complete breakdown, the state is capable of protecting its citizens.⁴¹ To rebut the presumption of state protection, a claimant must provide clear and convincing evidence of the state’s inability to protect its citizens.⁴²

[35] The National Documentation Package (NDP) for Ethiopia states that “[w]here the person has a well-founded fear of persecution from the state, they are unlikely to be able to avail themselves of the protection of the authorities.”⁴³

[36] According to the United Kingdom Home Office Fact-Finding Mission. Ethiopia: The political situation report dated March 2020,

Several sources noted the effect of ethnic politics on regional security services. William Davidson observed “There are complicated federal dynamics at play, we are seeing increasingly assertive administrations in certain regions.” Wondemagegn Goshu Addis Ababa University stated: “Abiy has not consolidated the regional states and their militias, there are some political groups against Abiy and his reforms and this is showing at the regional level… You can see the danger that arises from certain ethnic groups against each other.”⁴⁴ [footnotes omitted]

[37] The Report further indicates that “Information on the effectiveness of security services varied between some regions.”⁴⁵

[38] In addition, the report cites, Wondemagegn Goshu, from Addis Ababa University,

noted that the central government did not have effective control over regional security forces and the senior officials of EZEMA noted that “[t]he government does not have effective control over the local regional states. Wondemagegn Goshu and the Life and Peace Institute considered that regional areas had become increasingly assertive.⁴⁶ [footnotes omitted]

[39] In addition, the report finds that,

The people who were in power previously are still very much there, the very same people who were against the social revolution but when it became reality they are a part of it. What should have happened was more people should have faced justice. If they do not put people before a justice system, the government will lose all the reformation progress they have made. The reformation for the public was always about whether there was rule of law or not. So, if the law is for everyone, including the military and prime minster and the public, let everyone face justice.

But the government have not been proactive in this area, therefore it can be assumed by some that they are against the reformation. There is a lack of commitment from the government.

There has been a high number [level] of corruption. Human rights abusers are still in power, for example at all levels. The public demand they be brought to justice.⁴⁷

[40] The report discusses the extent to which the government has control over the security forces.

They have control but it in an issue of capacity especially security.

The intelligence and military in the past 90% was controlled by TPLF, Abiy purged them so quickly when he came to power, the change should have been more gradual and smarter. There has been no process put in place. This was a security that could not see members of the Army marching to the PM, they didn’t see it coming they weren’t prepared. We needed the structure. The alleged coup would never have happened under previous government.

There has been arise Amhara nationalism and militant groups is concerning. We haven’t seen the security doing anything because of lack of intel – not looking at the issues properly, regional areas have become more assertive.⁴⁸

[41] The report further finds that,

In some cases of arrests or human rights abuses, police try to push their own agenda and avenge past crimes by abusing their power.

We hear about a lot of harassment from the police or security forces, which we think are genuine, but I do not think Abiy is involved in this. When it comes to rule of law, respecting human rights, respect for different languages etc, our culture is awful. There are definitely cases where individuals are arrested, beaten, refused to hold a press conference. The different groups fighting for their own status, for example the Amhara and Oromo.⁴⁹

[42] The DOS report states that “[c]orruption, especially the solicitation of bribes, including police and judicial corruption, remained a problem.”⁵⁰ The report further finds that “[t]he law provides criminal penalties for conviction of corruption. The government did not implement effectively or comprehensively.”⁵¹

[43] According to Ethiopia. Freedom in the World 2020,

The judiciary is officially independent, but in practice it is subject to political interference, and judgments rarely deviate from government policy. The November 2018 appointment of lawyer and civil society leader Meaza Ashenafi as president of the Supreme Court raised hopes for judicial reform, though no major improvements were registered in 2019.”⁵²

[44] The 2020 Human Rights Watch report for Ethiopia indicates that:

Human rights reforms implemented by Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed during his first year in office were threatened in 2019 by communal, including ethnic, conflict and breakdowns in law and order.

The June 22 assassinations of several high-level government officials, which the government linked to an alleged coup attempt in the Amhara region – as well as political unrest and communal violence in the capital, Addis Ababa, and Oromia following an incident with a popular Oromo activist and media owner, Jawar Mohammed-highlighted increasing tensions ahead of Ethiopia’ s scheduled 2020 national elections.⁵³

[45] Counsel’ s most recent country condition package⁵⁴ has a plethora of examples of human rights abuses by the Ethiopian security forces.

[46] The principal claimant was arrested, detained, and interrogated by the Ethiopian security forces in Addis Ababa on [XXX], 2017.⁵⁵ The claimant fears that she would be re arrested, detained, and mistreated upon her return to Ethiopia. Given her previous arrest, the claimant would be perceived to be an opponent of the state, if she were to return to Ethiopia today.

[47] The NDP for Ethiopia⁵⁶ and the documents submitted by the claimant⁵⁷ make clear that the state is the agent of persecution, and in these particular circumstances, is clear and convincing evidence that the state is unable or unwilling to protect the claimant.

[48] Accordingly, the panel finds that the claimants have met the burden of proof, on a balance of probabilities, and the presumption of state protection has been rebutted.

INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE (IFA)

[49] The Federal Court of Appeal established a two-part test for assessing an IFA in Rasaratnam and Thirunavukkarasu:

(1) As per Rasaratnam, “the Board must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that there is no serious possibility of the claimant being persecuted in the part of the country to which it finds an IFA exists”⁵⁸ and/or the claimant would not be personally subject to a risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of torture in the IFA.

(2) Moreover, the conditions in the part of the country considered to be an IFA must be such that it would not be unreasonable in all the circumstances including those particular to the claim, for him to seek refuge there.⁵⁹

[50] The claimants bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that they would be persecuted on a Convention ground, or subject personally, on a balance of probabilities, to a risk to life, or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in all of Ethiopia.

[51] The United Kingdom Home Office Report on Country Policy and Information Note: Ethiopia: Opposition to the Government cautions,

That decision makers must carefully consider the relevance and reasonableness of internal relocation taking full account of the individual circumstances of the particular person. However, where the person has a well-founded fear of persecution from the state, it is unlikely to be reasonable to expect them to relocate to escape that risk.⁶⁰

[52] It is evident that the Ethiopian security forces operate with impunity throughout the country. The documentary evidence corroborates the claimant’s testimony that there is no state protection available to her since the state security forces are her agents of persecution. Regarding the minor claimants, their mother testified that FGM is practiced in the rural areas and there is no effective action by the government forces in prosecuting violations of the FGM prohibition act, As such, there is no safety for the claimants anywhere within Ethiopia.

[53] The principal claimant is a single mother who is perceived as a political opponent by the Ethiopian regime with two minor daughters. The panel finds that an internal flight alternative is not reasonable given the particular profile and circumstances of the claimants.

CONCLUSION

[54] For the above-mentioned reasons, the panel finds [XXX] and her daughters, [XXX] and [XXX] are Convention refugees. The claimants have established that there is a reasonable chance of persecution if they were to return to their country of nationality Ethiopia, today.

(signed) S. Seevaratnam

September 23, 2020

¹ The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), S.C. 2001, c.27, as amended, sections 96 and 97(1).
² Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) Decision – TB8-13557, TB8-13558, and TB8-13559, dated November 18, 2019.
³ Exhibit 2, Basis of Claim Form (BOC) – TB7-14076, received July 28, 2017.
⁴ Exhibit 9, BOC Narrative Amendment, received September 4, 2020, at para. 3 – 4.
⁵ Exhibit 10, Personal Documents and Documentary Evidence, received September 4, 2020, at p.14 [XXX] of [XXX].
⁶ Exhibit 9, BOC Narrative Amendment dated August 28, 2020, received September 4, 2020, at para. 3 – 4.
⁷ Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution: Update, Guideline Issued by the Chairperson Pursuant to section 65(3) of the Immigration Act, IRB, Ottawa, November 25, 1996, as continued in effect by the Chairperson on June 28, 2002, under the authority found in section 159(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
⁸ Exhibit 11, Letter from [XXX] received August 17, 2017.
⁹ Exhibit 10, Personal Documents and Documentary Evidence, received September 4, 2020, at pp. 55 – 60.
¹⁰ Exhibit 12, Letter from Ethiopian Human Right and Community Organizations, 3 pages, received September 10, 2020.
¹¹ Exhibit 1, Package of information from the referring CBSA/CIC, Certified True Copy of Passport, received July 28, 2017.
¹² Exhibit 10, Personal Documents and Documentary Evidence, received September 4, 2020, at pp. 1 – 10.
¹³ Exhibit 13, Identity Documents, received August 30, 2017, item 4.
¹⁴ Exhibit 10, Personal Documents and Documentary Evidence, received September 4, 2020, at pp. 17 – 25.
¹⁵ Ibid., at p. 26.
¹⁶ Ibid., at pp. 27 – 44.
¹⁷ Exhibit 12, Letter from Ethiopian Human Right and Community Organizations, 3 pages, received September 10, 2020.
¹⁸ Exhibit 10, Personal Documents and Documentary Evidence, received September 4, 2020, at pp. 55 – 60.
¹⁹ Exhibit 13, Identity Documents, received August 30, 2017, items 6 – 9.
²⁰ Exhibit 10, Personal Documents and Documentary Evidence, received September 4, 2020, p. 2
²¹ Maldonado, Pedro Enrique Juarez v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-450-79), Heald, Ryan, MacKay, November 19, 1979. Reported: Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1980] 2 F.C. 302 (C.A.); 31 N.R. 34. (F.C.A.), at para 5.
²² Exhibit 2, BOC, received July 28, 2017; Exhibit 9, BOC Narrative Amendment, received September 4, 2020.
²³ Exhibit 10, Personal Documents and Documentary Evidence, received September 4, 2020.
²⁴ Ibid., Letters of Support, at pp. 27 – 44; Exhibit 12, Letter from Ethiopian Human Right and Community Organizations, 3 pages, received September 10, 2020.
²⁵ Exhibit 5, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Ethiopia (June 30, 2020); Exhibit 10, Country Documents, received September 4, 2020, at pp. 61 – 136.
²⁶ Exhibit 10, Personal Documents and Documentary evidence, received September 4, 2020, at pp. 27 – 28.
²⁷ Ibid., at p. 34.
²⁸ Ibid., at pp. 40 – 44.
²⁹ Exhibit 5, NDP for Ethiopia (June 30, 2020), item 2.4, s. Overview.
³⁰ Ibid., item 4.21, at p. 109.
³¹ Ibid., item 2.1, s. Executive Summary.
³² Ibid., s. 1 (a).
³³ Ibid., s. 1 (d).
³⁴ Ibid., item 11.1, at pp. 1 – 2.
³⁵ Ibid., at p. 3.
³⁶ Ibid., item 4.4, at paras. 140 – 141.
³⁷ Ibid., item 2.1, s. 6.
³⁸ Ibid., item 5.2, at. p. 1.
³⁹ Ibid., s. 2(e).
⁴⁰ Exhibit 10, Personal Documents and Documentary evidence, received September 4, 2020, at pp. 131 – 136.
⁴¹ Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, 103 D.L.R. (4th) 1, 20 Imm. L.R. (2d) 85.
⁴² Flores Carrillo, Maria Del Rosario v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-225-07), Létoumeau, Nadon, Sharlow, March 12, 2008, 2008 FCA 94. Reported: Flores Carillo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2008] 4 F.C.R. 636 (F.C.A.), at para. 38.
⁴³ Exhibit 5, NDP Ethiopia (June 30, 2020), item 1.10, at para. 2.5.1.
⁴⁴ Ibid., item 4.21, at para. 8.4.5.
⁴⁵ Ibid., at para. 8.4.6.
⁴⁶ Ibid., 8.4.2.
⁴⁷ Ibid., at p. 112.
⁴⁸ Ibid., at p. 126.
⁴⁹ Ibid., at p. 131.
⁵⁰ Ibid., item 2.1, s. 4.
⁵¹ Ibid.
⁵² Ibid., item, 2.4, s. F1.
⁵³ Ibid., item 2.3, at p. 1.
⁵⁴ Exhibit 10, Personal Documents and Documentary Evidence, received September 4, 2020, at pp. 61 – 130.
⁵⁵ Exhibit 2, BOC, Narrative, lines 44 – 78, received July 28, 2017.
⁵⁶ Exhibit 5, NDP for Ethiopia (June 30, 2020).
⁵⁷ Exhibit 10, Personal Documents and Documentary Evidence, received September 4, 2020, at pp. 61 – 130.
⁵⁸ Rasaratnam, Sivaganthan v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-232-91), Mahoney, Stone, Linden, December 5, 1991. Reported: Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (C.A.), at para 9.
⁵⁹ Thirunavukkarasu, Sathiyanathan v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-81-92), Heald, Linden, Holland, November 10, 1993. Reported: Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (C.A.); (1993), 22 Imm. L.R. (2d) 241 (F.C.A.).
⁶⁰ Exhibit 5, NDP for Ethiopia (June 30, 2020), item 1.10, at para. 2.6.1.

All Countries Palestine

2020 RLLR 9

Citation: 2020 RLLR 9
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: September 22, 2020
Panel: Linda Doutre
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Me Jessica Lipes
Country: Palestine
RPD Number: MB9-20414
ATIP Number: A-2021-00540
ATIP Pages: 000060-000065

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] The refugee protection claimant, [XXX], is a citizen of Palestine (Occupied Palestinian Territories), specifically living in the Gaza Strip. He is claiming refugee protection under section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).

ALLEGATIONS

[2] The claimant fears Hamas. He lived in the Gaza Strip and was the subject of false accusations made by Hamas. In addition to the insecurity in the region, his apartment was destroyed in the war. Because of that group, the claimant stopped going to the mosque. There is no freedom of expression there, and he does not subscribe to their way of practising Islam.

[3] The claimant’s problems began in 2008, when he was dating a girl who had brothers in Hamas.

[4] In [XXX] 2010, the brothers found out about their relationship and disapproved of it. That was when the claimant’s problems began. His girlfriend’s brothers tried to keep her and the claimant from seeing each other. However, one year later, they continued to be in touch with each other.

[5] In [XXX] 2012, the claimant received a notice to appear from the police in relation to accusations of illicit relations with women in the community. His girlfriend’s brothers were behind the accusations. The claimant was released.

[6] On [XXX], 2012, some men attacked the claimant after he was tricked by one of his girlfriend’s brothers.

[7] Because of the constant harassment, the claimant stopped speaking to his girlfriend.

[8] In [XXX] 2016, he received a call from his ex-girlfriend, who told him that she still loved him and that she did not want to marry the man that her parents had introduced her to.

[9] Her brothers held this against him and blamed him for the breakdown of their sister’ s marriage.

[10] On [XXX], 2016, the claimant received a notice to appear from the police, in which he was accused of trying to turn his ex-girlfriend against her family. He was released and went to the hospital to receive treatment.

[11] On [XXX], 2017, the claimant had to report to the police station, where several accusations were discussed. He began to consider fleeing the country.

[12] In [XXX] 2017, he applied for a Chinese visa. He was granted the visa, but he realized that Hamas had forbidden him from leaving the country.

[13] On [XXX], 2018, the claimant was attacked. He managed to flee Gaza via Egypt with the help of an uncle.

[14] He took steps to obtain a Chinese visa. However, in order to obtain the document, he had to apply for it in Gaza, which forced him to go back. He was arrested upon his arrival in Gaza.

[15] The claimant then obtained his Chinese visa and again fled with the help of his uncle.

DETERMINATION

[16] Having analyzed all the evidence on the record, the panel determines that the claimant is a “Convention refugee” under section 96 of the IRPA by reason of his imputed political opinion and religion.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[17] The panel is satisfied as to the claimant’s identity, which was established by means of the photocopy of the travel document he was issued by the Palestinian authorities¹ and his testimony.

Credibility

[18] The claimant testified relatively well at the hearing. His testimony was spontaneous and forthright. He explained the reasons for his problems with his ex-girlfriend’s brothers. Relationships between men and women are difficult to maintain in Palestine. He gave a good account of the problems that this caused him. He clearly explained the situation he would find himself in if he returned to the Gaza Strip. He made several clarifications for the panel and did not seek to embellish his story. No contradictions were noted between the testimony he gave at the hearing, the statements he made to the immigration authorities, and the documents he filed. The panel is of the opinion that the claimant’s testimony was credible.

[19] Furthermore, the documentary evidence, including that contained in the package on the Occupied Territories² and the documents filed by the claimant, namely, the medical certificates,³ notices to appear issued by the authorities⁴ and emails,⁵ and the objective documentation on the Islamist radicalization of Gaza and honour crimes,⁶ corroborate the claimant’s allegations:

2.1

In Gaza the terrorist organization Hamas exercised de facto authority. The security apparatus of the Hamas de facto government in Gaza largely mirrored the West Bank. [… ] In some instances the Hamas de facto “civilian” authorities utilized the Hamas movement’ s military wing to crack clown on internal dissent.⁷

4.8

Hamas’ primary base of operation is in the Gaza Strip, the coastal enclave of 1.7 million Palestinians, where it has remained the de facto authority since shortly after Israel’s unilateral withdrawal in 2005.⁸

State protection

[20] The claimant sought to obtain the help of a lawyer to defend himself against the state, to no avail. Given that the agents of persecution are also potentially members of the security forces, it is understandable that the claimant had difficulty obtaining state protection:

2.1

With respect to Hamas: reports of unlawful or arbitrary killings, systematic torture, and arbitrary detention by Hamas officials; political prisoners; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; restrictions on free expression, the press, and the internet, including violence, threats of violence, …⁹

[21] Considering the evidence in this case, the panel is of the opinion that the claimant would be unable to obtain assistance from the authorities, and therefore concludes that the state would be unable to provide him with adequate protection.

Internal flight alternative

[22] The panel assessed whether a viable internal flight alternative is available to the claimant, that is, whether there is another part of the country where he would not face a reasonable fear of persecution; then, if the first prong is not satisfied, the panel must assess whether it is objectively unreasonable for the claimant to seek refuge by moving to another part of the country.

[23] Given the documentary evidence indicating all the problems experienced by Palestinians fearing Hamas and given the claimant’s particular circumstances, the panel concludes that no internal flight alternative would be available to him should he return there.

[24] The panel is of the opinion that the claimant would face a serious possibility of persecution if he returned to the Gaza Strip.

CONCLUSION

[25] The panel allows the refugee protection claim and determines that the claimant is a “Convention refugee.”

DECISION

[26] The refugee protection claim filed by [XXX] is allowed.

(signed) Linda Doutre

September 22, 2020

¹ Document 1 – Information package provided by the Canada Border Services Agency / Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.
² Document 3 – National Documentation Package on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, March 31, 2020.
³ Document 4- Exhibits E-1, E-2 and E-4.
⁴ Document 4 – Exhibits E-3, E-7 and E-8.
⁵ Document 4 – Exhibit E-24.
⁶ Document 4- Exhibits E-14 and E-20.
⁷ Document 3, Tab 2.1: United States, Department of State, March 11, 2020, Israel, West Bank, and Gaza – West Bank and Gaza. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2019.
⁸ Document 3, Tab 4.8: Council on Foreign Relations, August 1, 2014, CFR Backgrounders: Hamas.
⁹ Supra, footnote 7.

All Countries Burundi

2020 RLLR 7

Citation: 2020 RLLR 7
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 28, 2020
Panel: Jacqueline La
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Cynthia Niteka
Country: Burundi
RPD Number: MB7-24231
ATIP Number: A-2021-00540
ATIP Pages: 000044-000049

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

[1] The claimant, [XXX], born on [XXX], 1967, is a citizen of the Republic of Burundi. He is claiming protection in Canada under section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).

ALLEGATIONS

[2] The claimant is of Tutsi ethnicity. From 1986 until his retirement in 2010, the claimant worked [XXX].

[3] In 2015, when Burundian president Pierre Nkurunziza declared that he wanted to run in the elections, even though he knew that a third presidential term violated the provisions of the Constitution, which set the limit at two terms, Burundi was plunged into a serious crisis marked by ethnic clashes. The Tutsis were accused of trying to destabilize the government, and former members of the Tutsi-dominated Burundian armed forces (ex-FAB) were apparently targeted by the Burundian authorities.

[4] When he realized that several of his former colleagues had been victims of targeted killings, and after becoming a person of interest to the police, the claimant started sensing that his own safety was at risk.

[5] Accordingly, the claimant left Burundi on [XXX], 2017, and after a brief two-week stay in the United States, he came to Canada and claimed refugee protection.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[6] The claimant’s identity was established to the panel’s satisfaction by a copy of his passport issued by the Burundian authorities that was entered on the record.¹ The panel concludes that it is an acceptable document establishing identity within the meaning of section 106 of the IRPA.

Credibility

[7] In general, no contradictions, omissions or implausibilities were identified in the claimant’s testimony. In support of his allegations about his lengthy career in the Burundian [XXX], the claimant filed a photograph of himself [XXX],² a certificate of service issued by the [XXX],³ and his bank: statement showing deposits of his retirement pension from the [XXX].⁴

[8] In short, the panel finds that the claimant is a credible witness.

[9] So, what does the documentary evidence on the ex-FAB say?

[10] For decades, the Tutsis were given preferential treatment over their Hutu compatriots in the FAB.

[11] However, following the Arusha peace agreement and the election of President Nkurunziza, a Hutu, in 2005, the FAB had to integrate thousands of former Hutu rebels into the corps. As a result, many Tutsi soldiers from past military regimes were quietly retired from their commands, transferred or dispersed to isolated provincial locations.⁵

[12] In 2015, there was strong opposition to President Nkurunziza’s decision to run in the presidential elections because it violated the constitution, which limited the presidency to two terms.

[13] Divisions between the ethnic groups in Burundi started to manifest themselves, especially within the security forces.⁶ The movement against the third term became more ethnically driven against the Tutsis and became more about the military.⁷ Since the beginning of the crisis and especially since January 2017, the army has been the target of a purge and reprisal campaigns mainly against the ex-FAB, both active and retired.⁸ The Burundian authorities have been accused of being involved in dozens of targeted murders, forced disappearances and arbitrary arrests of former soldiers and police officers in the Tutsi-dominated Burundian armed forces. The evidence also indicates that the bodies of ex-FAB soldiers, both active and retired, are often found in rural or urban areas.⁹ The ex-FAB are considered to be disloyal elements in the army and likely to tum against President Nkurunziza because of their ethnicity.

[14] So, after learning that two of his former [XXX] had been arrested by the police, the claimant decided not to respond to the summons from the commissioner general¹⁰ and to leave the country.

[15] Given those circumstances, even though the claimant was not personally targeted before he left his country, the evidence shows that ex-FAB members are persecuted by the current regime by reason of their real or imputed political opinion. As Justice Shore eloquently stated in Matore,¹¹ “Something must certainly be done before we see the corpses in the media.”

State protection

[16] The evidence is clear: opponents of the regime, or people perceived as such, as in the case of the ex-FAB, cannot expect to obtain protection from protection and security services, who are politicized in favour of the Nkurunziza regime.¹²

[17] Therefore, at this time, it is simply unreasonable to expect that the claimant could obtain adequate protection from the authorities, when they are his agent of persecution. Accordingly, the panel is of the opinion that the presumption of state protection has been rebutted.

Internal flight alternative

[18] As mentioned, in this case, the agent of persecution is the entire state apparatus, which has the interest and the necessary resources to find the claimant no matter where he is, especially in a small country like Burundi. Therefore, the panel concludes that there is no internal flight alternative.

CONCLUSION

[19] Having considered all the evidence, the panel concludes that the claimant has discharged his burden of establishing that there is a serious possibility that he would be persecuted on one of the five Convention grounds. The panel determines that he is a “Convention refugee.”

DECISION

[20] The refugee protection claim is allowed.

(signed) Jacqueline La

January 28, 2020

¹ Document 1 – Information package provided by the Canada Border Service Agency and/or Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: Passport.
² Document 4 – Exhibit P-11: Photograph of [XXX] in a [XXX]. Document 4 – 3
³ Exhibit P-1: Certificate of service.
⁴ Document 4 – Exhibit P-7: Cooperative statement (for [XXX] retirement pension).
⁵ Document 3 – National Docupentation Package, Burundi, March 29, 2019 (NDP on Burundi), Tab 13.1: Response to Information Request, BD1105750.FE, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, March 6, 2017.
⁶ Supra, footnote 5.
⁷ Idem.
⁸ Document 3 – NDP on Burundi, Tab 2.7: Burundi on the Brink: Looking Back on Two Years of Terror, International Federation for Human Rights; Ligue burundaise des droits de l’homme [Burundian human rights league], June 2017, p.12.
⁹ Idem.
¹⁰ Document 4 – Exhibits P-2 and P-3: Convocations de la police nationale du Burundi [summonses from the Burundi national police].
¹¹ Matore v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 1009.
¹² Document 3 – NDP on Burundi, Tab 2.1: Burundi. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2018, United States, Department of State, March 13, 2019.

All Countries Democratic Republic of Congo

2020 RLLR 6

Citation: 2020 RLLR 6
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 13, 2020
Panel: Kristelle De Rop
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Russell L Kaplan
Country: Democratic Republic of Congo
RPD Number: MB7-18074
ATIP Number: A-2021-00540
ATIP Pages: 000037-000043

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

[1] [XXX] (the claimant) is a citizen of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and is claiming refugee protection under section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).

ALLEGATIONS

[2] The claimant’s complete allegations are set out in his Basis of Claim Form (BOC Form).¹ The following is a short summary.

[3] The claimant alleges that he joined a not-for-profit organization (NGO) entitled Congo Handicap in [XXX] 2013 as a [XXX].

[4] The claimant alleges that the NGO’s goals are to advocate and stand up for persons with disabilities in South Kivu and to fight against all crimes, including rape.

[5] The claimant states that, on [XXX], 2017, he was summoned to the national intelligence agency office (ANR), where he was detained and criticized for his involvement in a report exposing [XXX] who allegedly committed rape.

[6] The claimant alleges that he fears he will be arrested again and killed should he return to his country as a result of his involvement in the NGO and in published reports exposing [XXX].

DETERMINATION

[7] For the reasons set out below, the panel concludes that the claimant is a Convention refugee by reason of his imputed political opinion as a result of his involvement in an NGO that exposed military officers for their crimes against persons with disabilities.

Identity

[8] The claimant’s identity was established to the panel’s satisfaction by means of a copy of his passport issued by the Congolese authorities filed on the record.²

ANALYSIS

Credibility

[9] The panel finds that the claimant was a credible witness. The panel did not identify any serious contradictions, omissions or inconsistencies that could not be reasonably explained during his testimony. The panel considers that the claimant gave credible testimony on the essential aspects of his claim. As a result, the panel believes that the claimant’s allegations in his BOC Form are truthful, on a balance of probabilities.

[10] The panel considers that the claimant gave credible testimony on his involvement and role in Congo Handicap and in reports exposing armed forces officers. The panel also considers that the claimant gave spontaneous and credible testimony on his and his parents’ detention at the ANR.

[11] The panel notes that the claimant submitted as evidence the following documents that corroborate his testimony: Congo Handicap membership card with proof of payment, [XXX] card, letters from the ANR, article from the awareness campaign held in [XXX] 2015, and a number of photographs taken at events related to his duties.³

[12] The claimant explained that, before his detention, he presented a detailed and complete dossier at his NGO’s quarterly meeting concerning cases of rape by officers in the DRC’s [XXX], the FARDC, including [XXX], [XXX], [XXX], [XXX] and [XXX]. He explained that his role in the NGO was to [XXX] in the community of persons with disabilities and to identify information likely to bring the culprits to justice.

[13] The claimant testified that [XXX] wanted to use him as a spy in his NGO and that he had an informer in his group and should be smart and accept the offer.

[14] While the claimant was already in Canada to attend a work-related conference, his brother called to inform him that a convoy of soldiers visited their home, that the soldiers were looking for him and that, after searching his room, they left with all his personal effects. The soldiers also took his parents away with them. After being detained for two days, his parents were released on a promise to report to the ANR every two weeks until the claimant returned home.

[15] The claimant testified that another report exposing cases of abuse and rape was supposed to be released when he returned from Canada in [XXX] and that the soldiers left with his information.

[16] The claimant also referred to the murder of Dr. [XXX]⁴ on [XXX], 2017. The claimant had worked with this [XXX] when persons with disabilities were raped and needed care. The claimant testified that the doctor’s cause of death was never disclosed. The claimant is convinced that the doctor was killed because of his involvement with victims and his possible possession of incriminating information regarding certain [XXX].

Change of circumstance

[17] At the hearing, the panel asked the claimant why he thought that he would be at risk should he return to the country, given the change in circumstances, namely, the election of the new president in January 2019. He explained that only the leader changed, but that all the rest remains unchanged. He stated, as an example, that the security service and police [XXX] remain the same. He added that the new president does not have a majority in either parliament or the serrate.

[18] The panel notes that, on December 30, 2018, Félix Tshisekedi, the leader of the UDPS party, was elected president. However, sources state that the transfer of real power is debatable. The former president Kabila is now Senator-for-Life, and his party won sweeping majorities in the parliament and provincial assemblies.⁵ Some contest the legitimacy of the elections.⁶ The post-election demonstrations turned violent, and the security forces responded with excessive force.⁷ The authorities are still being accused of political killings and arbitrary arrests. After Tshisekedi’s election, student demonstrations against power and water cuts and rising tuition fees led to an intervention in which the police shot and killed demonstrators.⁸

[19] The panel notes that the documentary evidence⁹ states that an [translation] “easing” of political tensions occurred. The same document states that the country had a [translation] “new openness,” that opposition radios reopened, that exiled politicians returned to the country and that political prisoners were released. However, the same evidence also states that, after the release of some political prisoners, human rights advocates were still waiting for the conditional release of the 700 prisoners who had been pardoned.¹⁰

[20] In light of the foregoing and in the claimant’s specific case, the panel concludes that the claimant would not be safe in the DRC, which remains unstable despite the recent change in government. The claimant stated that he would continue to face a risk since the same repressive structures remain in place and that, despite the change in leader, the situation remains unchanged. On the basis of the claimant’s testimony and the documentary evidence, the panel concludes that the claimant established that he faces a risk of persecution by reason of his imputed political opinion linked to his role and involvement in the NGO.

State protection

[21] In light of the objective evidence, the panel concludes that the presumption of state protection is rebutted. The claimant would not obtain adequate state protection in the DRC because the agents of persecution are part of the state.

[22] According to the objective documentary evidence, sources indicate that the state security forces, including the police, are undisciplined and corrupt.¹¹ They are often accused of arbitrary, political and extrajudicial killings.¹² State security forces are also accused of having weak leadership, low capacity and a lack of training and of engaging in extortion.¹³

[23] The panel concludes that the objective evidence constitutes clear and convincing evidence that rebuts the presumption of adequate state protection in the DRC for the claimant.

Internal flight alternative

[24] The panel also assessed whether the claimant had an internal flight alternative (IFA).

[25] In this case, the agents of persecution are state agents, namely, the Congolese government intelligence agency. According to the objective documentary evidence, people in situations similar to that of the claimant face the same difficulties throughout the country. The claimant has reason to fear the authorities because the police and military forces are present and in control throughout the country. The panel considers that the claimant would face a serious possibility of persecution throughout the DRC. As a result, the panel considers that it would be unreasonable to expect the claimant to return to the DRC.

[26] The panel therefore concludes that an IFA is not available to the claimant.

CONCLUSION

[27] In light of the foregoing and after reviewing all the evidence, the panel determines that the claimant, [XXX], has established that he faces a serious possibility of persecution in his country of origin, the DRC. Therefore, the refugee protection claim is allowed.

(signed) Kristelle De Rop

February 13, 2020

¹ Document 2 – 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, Claimant’s Congolese passport.
³ Document 5 – Evidence submitted by the claimant (exhibits 1 to 14).
⁴ Document 5 – Exhibits 12 and 13 (articles concerning the death of Dr. [XXX]).
⁵ Document 3 – National Documentation Package (NDP), Congo, Democratic Republic of the (DRC), July 31, 2019, Tab 4.3: Democratic Republic a/Congo: Background and US. Relations. United States. Congressional Research Service. April 30, 2019.
⁶ Document 3 – NDP, DRC, Tab 4.11: DR Congo: Post-Election Killings Test New President. Human Rights Watch. February 14, 2019.
⁷ Idem.
⁸ Idem.
⁹ Document 3 – NDP, Tab 4.2.
¹⁰ Idem.
¹¹ Document 3 – NDP on the DRC, March 29, 2019, Tab 2.1: Democratic Republic of the Congo. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2018. United States. Department of State. March 13, 2019.
¹² Idem.
¹³ Idem.

All Countries Sri Lanka

2020 RLLR 4

Citation: 2020 RLLR 4
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: October 20, 2020
Panel: A. W. Chin
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Meghan Wilson
Country: Sri Lanka
RPD Number: TB9-16354
ATIP Number: A-2021-00540
ATIP Pages: 000028-000032

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: This is a decision for the claimant [XXX] file number TB9-16354. The hearing date is October the 20th, 2020.

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

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

[4] I find that you are a Convention refugee on the grounds of your imputed political opinion for the following reasons:

Allegations:

[5] Your allegations are found in your Basis of Claim Form and related narrative which are found in Exhibit 2.

[6] You alleged that you lived in the Vanni area during the civil war which was an LTTE controlled area. You then moved to Jaffna under army control where they grew to be suspicious of you since you had come from Vanni. You moved to Columbo in 2006.

[7] You … you allege that on [XXX] of 2008, the police raided a market where you were located. They checked your ID and found that you were found from Vanni and then you were detained and abused for two days. They asked you questions about your involvement in the LTTE and you were released.

[8] On [XXX], 2009, you allege that you moved to Chani, India on a tourist visa and registered as a refugee there and subsequently got a degree in [XXX] there. During this time you allege that you’d taken interest in Tamil refugees and started work on a documentary outlining the challenges that they face.

[9] Sometime in [XXX] of 2017, you allege that you mailed a portion of the documentary to a Tamil leader in Jaffna. You then returned to Columbo on [XXX] of 2017.

[10] Upon returning at the airport, you allege that you were detained where you were questioned, abused, and accused of spreading anti-government propaganda and being a supporter of the LTTE. You were held for [XXX] days and then released after you learned that your mother had bribed the police.

[11] You allege that on [XXX] of 2018, when you were [XXX] for a [XXX] you were approached and detained by at TIB Head Office in Columbo where you were beaten and questioned again.

[12] You allege that you managed to escape while left unattended at the [XXX] hospital. You fled to your aunt’s house for three months after which point an agent arranged for your departure to Canada.

[13] You allege that you’ll be harmed or killed anywhere throughout Sri Lanka since you were found in Columbo and you will not be protected.

Identity:

[14] With respect to your identity, I find your identity has been established, on a balance of probabilities, as a national of Sri Lanka by your testimony and the supporting documents you provided, namely your expired passport, birth certificate, and national ID card.

Nexus:

[15] I find there is a nexus between what you fear in Sri Lanka and Section 96, namely on the ground of imputed political opinion for the reasons that follow.

Credibility:

[16] In terms of your general credibility I found you to be a credible witness and therefore accept what you have alleged in your oral testimony and your Basis of Claim Form.

[17] In support of your claim you provided or rather counsel provided a country conditions document which supports what I’ve noted in the objective evidence.

[18] You also provided education records and evidence of your prior refugee registration in India, a letter from your mother, a letter from your aunt which supports where you were hiding, a letter from your friend who attested to your detainment in [XXX], is [XXX] 2018, and a letter from a member of parliament in Jaffna. You also provided a photo of your injuries.

[19] I’ve reviewed that evidence and I found it to be consistent with the testimony that you’ve given today.

[20] You testified in detail about the detainments and abuses that you had to endure, specifically, the [XXX] detainment where you were at the market, the [XXX], 2017 detainment when you were coming back from the airport, and the [XXX], 2018 detainment when you were preparing for the memorial service.

[21] I found your testimony in this regard to be credible. Therefore, I find that you’ve established your subjective fear, on a balance of probabilities.

[22] With respect to the objective evidence, it indicates that there’s an ongoing risk for Tamils who are suspected of supporting the LTTE. These supporters, whether real or perceived, are still subject to abuses at the hands of Sri Lankan authorities, including arbitrary arrest and detention where torture and other human rights infringements are known to occur.

[23] I further note that the objective evidence indicates that the majority of victims of enforced disappearances have been male.

[24] COUNSEL: Sorry, can you lift your … your mask up?

[25] INTERPRETER: Yeah, sorry.

[26] COUNSEL: Thank you.

[27] MEMBER: Thank you.

[28] Item 1.8 indicates that the Sri Lankan military police and intelligence services have continued to practice torture, including other forms of sexual torture in the years of peace since the end of the armed conflict.

[29] Those at a particular ongoing risk of torture includes Tamils with real or perceived associations with the LTTE at any level and whether or not it’s current or historic.

[30] Torture and sexual violence have occurred under the new government in known army camps throughout the north of Sri Lanka and there are secret camps that are still operating in unknown but diverse places throughout Sri Lanka.

[31] I’ve also found there to be evidence of detainments at airports. Item 1.4, specifically Section 8.2.5, indicates that there … arbitrary detentions still occurs for Tamils returning to Sri Lanka from abroad and that these individuals are monitored. More information can be found in Item 13.5.

[32] I found this evidence to be consistent with the testimony that you gave today and what’s in your narrative and therefore I find that your subjective fear has an objective basis. Therefore, I find that you’ve established a well-founded fear within the meaning of Section 96, on a balance of probabilities.

[33] Therefore, on a balance of probabilities, I find that those three detainments that I had mentioned earlier had occurred in the manner that you allege.

State Protection:

[34] I find your agent of persecution is the Sri Lankan police and military groups which are Federal institutions. Therefore, I find it objectively unreasonable for you to seek out protection and that State protection could not be seen as being reasonably forthcoming. I find the presumption of State protection is rebutted.

[35] I’ve also considered whether there is a viable internal flight alternative for you. Given that the agent of persecution is also the State, I also find that the claimant’s IFA analysis fails at the first prong of the test and therefore an IFA is not available to this claimant, as you’d be located by the police or authorities throughout Sri Lanka.

[36] In conclusion I found you to be credible in relation to the material elements of your claim. You testified in a straightforward and spontaneous manner and you didn’t embellish your story.

[37] Therefore, on the basis of the totality of the evidence I accept your claim pursuant to Section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and I find that you’re a Convention refugee. Your claim is accepted.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

All Countries Tanzania

2020 RLLR 2

Citation: 2020 RLLR 2
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 30, 2020
Panel: Marshall Schnapp
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Deryck Ramcharitar
Country: Tanzania
RPD Number: TB9-35424
Associated RPD Number(s): TB9-35456, TB9-35472
ATIP Number: A-2021-00540
ATIP Pages: 000015-000019

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

[1] These are the reasons for the decision in the claims of [XXX] and his wife and child, who claim to be a citizens of Tanzania, and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[2] These claims were heard jointly pursuant to Rule 55 of the Refugee Protection Division Rules. In addition, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act requires the designation of a representative for all claimants less than 18 years of age. The tribunal designated [XXX] as representative for his minor child included in the claim, being [XXX].

ALLEGATIONS

[3] The claimants’ allegations are set out in a common Basis of Claim Form (BOC)¹, The claimants’ allegations are that the principal claimant and his wife fear persecution by the government and others because of the principal claimant’s political opinion and involvement with ACT, a political opposition party.

[4] The principal claimant is a 47-year-old man. He stated in his BOC and his oral testimony that he fears he and his wife will be detained, tortured and killed at the hands of state authorities and other members of different political parties for his political opinion and involvement with ACT, a political party in opposition to the ruling party.

[5] Specifically, he stated how in 2007 when he was in hiding, his wife was attacked at their home when unknown people came looking for him. He also explained how his family had to move due to threats and from 2016 through 2019 he received threatening phone calls and messages to stop supporting ACT, an opposition party to the government. In 2019, [XXX] the associate claimant and brothers of the principal claimant also started receiving threatening text messages from unknown individuals warning them that the principal claimant should stop supporting ACT, the opposition political party

DETERMINATION

[6] The panel finds that the Claimants are Convention refugees pursuant to section 96 of the Act because they face a serious possibility of persecution by reason of the principal claimant’s political opinion.

ANALYSIS

[7] The determinative issue in this case is credibility.

Identity

[8] The panel finds the identity of all the claimants as nationals of Tanzania is established by their testimony and the supporting documentation filed including their passports.²

Credibility

[9] When claimants swear to the truth of certain allegations, this gives rise to a presumption that those allegations are true unless there is valid reason to doubt their truthfulness. The panel finds no valid reason to doubt the truthfulness of the claimants’ allegations, as found in their BOC.

[10] The panel accepts their narratives, and find, on a balance of probabilities, that their alleged fear of persecution is consistent with the objective evidence available about present conditions in Tanzania. Further, the claimants have corroborated their allegations through documentation, including copies of the principal claimants’ ACT membership documents, medical documentation, and supporting affidavits and letters from family members and individuals aware of the principal claimant’s political activities.³

[11] The panel finds the principal and associate claimants to be credible witnesses and therefore believe what they allege in support of their claims. They both testified in a straightforward manner and there were no relevant inconsistencies in their testimony or contradictions between the testimony and the other evidence before the panel which has not been satisfactorily explained.

[12] Having accepted the claimants to be credible, the panel accepts they have a subjective fear persecution by reason of political opinion.

Nexus

[13] There is a clear nexus between the claimants’ fear of persecution in Tanzania and the Convention ground of political opinion. Accordingly, the claims will be assessed under s. 96 of IRPA.

Objective fear

[14] The claimants subjective fear is well-founded. It accords with the National Documentation Package (NDP) version September 30, 2020. The documentary evidence before the panel indicates that the current regime has escalated a campaign of intimidation, violence and arrests against political opponents, activist, and others since 2015.⁴ There are reports of people who are critical of the government going missing, some have returned badly beaten and others have been killed and the ruling party using militias to engage in violence and intimidation around election time.⁵

[15] The panel finds that the minor claimant is also at risk by virtue of the principal claimant’s political opinion.

[16] Based on the evidence, the panel finds there is more than a mere possibility that the claimants will be persecuted if they return to Tanzania.

State Protection

[17] The panel find that it would be objectively unreasonable for the claimants to seek the protection of the state considering in their circumstances the state of Tanzania is the agent of persecution.

Internal Flight Alternative (IFA)

[18] The panel has considered whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for the claimants. Based on the evidence, the panel finds that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Tanzania because it is the government that the claimants fear.

CONCLUSION

[19] Based on the analysis above, the panel concludes that you are all Convention refugees. Accordingly, the panel accept your claims.

(signed) Marshall Schnapp

December 30, 2020

¹ Exhibit 2.1, 2.2, 2.3,
² Exhibit 1
³ Exhibit 7.
⁴ Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP), Tanzania, September 30, 2020.2.1
⁵ Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.1.

All Countries Venezuela

2020 RLLR 1

Citation: 2020 RLLR 1
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 3, 2020
Panel: Josée Bouchard
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Amedeo Clivia, Maritza Sierra Vasquez
Country: Venezuela
RPD Number: TB9-12556
Associated RPD Number(s): TB9-12599, TB9-30737
ATIP Number: A-2021-00540
ATIP Pages: 000001-000014

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] [XXX] (the principal claimant), her daughter [XXX] (the minor claimant) and her brother [XXX] (the associate claimant) are citizens of Venezuela and claim refugee protection pursuant to ss. 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).¹

ALLEGATIONS

[2] The claimants’ allegations are fully set out in their basis of claim (BOC) forms.²

[3] To summarize, the principal claimant and associate claimant allege a serious possibility of persecution at the hands of the Venezuelan authorities and “colectivos” because of their political opinion, namely their anti-government affiliation and activities.

[4] The associate claimant and minor claimant allege a serious possibility of persecution at the hands of the Venezuelan authorities and “colectivos” because of their membership in a particular social group, namely their familial relationship as the brother and daughter, respectively, of the principal claimant.

Designated Representative

[5] The principal claimant was appointed as the Designated Representative for the minor claimant. She provided a special power of attorney signed by the minor claimant’s father on [XXX] 2020³ giving her the power to take the minor claimant to Canada.

DETERMINATION

[6] The claimants are Convention refugees, as they have demonstrated a serious possibility of persecution in Venezuela on Convention grounds by virtue of their political opinion, namely their anti-government affiliation and activities, or their membership in a particular social group, namely the associate and minor claimants’ familial relationship as the brother and daughter respectively of the principal claimant.

Identity

[7] The claimants’ personal identities as citizens of Venezuela have been established by the testimonies of the principal and associate claimants and the supporting documents, namely the principal, associate and minor claimants’ valid passports issued by the government of Venezuela.⁴

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

ANALYSIS

Credibility

[9] In terms of the principal and associate claimants’ general credibility, I have found them to be credible witnesses and I therefore believe what the claimants have alleged in their oral testimonies and their basis of claim forms. Their evidence was detailed and consistent, both internally and with their documentation. Throughout the hearing, the principal and associate claimants were articulate, responsive, and forthright. They were able to elaborate on their narratives and gave detailed explanations to the questions. Their claims were well supported, and I noted no material inconsistencies or omissions such that the presumption of truthfulness could be rebutted.

[10] I turn now to the findings as they relate to the principal and minor claimants.

The principal claimant and the minor claimant

[11] Based on the credible testimonies and overall evidence, I make the following findings of fact as they relate to the principal claimant and the minor claimant:

a. The principal claimant is a member of the political party Conciencia de Pais, a political party that is in opposition to the regime. She participated in the party’s monthly meetings of professionals and participated in the logistics to prepare demonstrations, such as preparing pamphlets and placards. The principal claimant testified that the regime knew of her membership in the political party Conciencia de Pais.

b. The principal claimant is a [XXX] by profession. From [XXX] 2000 to [XXX] 2018, the principal claimant worked for the [XXX], which is a governmental organization. She provided documentary evidence in support of her claim that she worked for that organization. She was, for most of her tenure there, the [XXX]. Beginning in 2013, a new director and strong sympathizer with the regime was appointed as the head of the organization. She made it mandatory for employees to attend political meetings, marches, and events in support of the regime.

c. The principal claimant’s political opinion was known within the organization she worked for. The principal claimant was harassed and threatened by colleagues and the director for refusing to attend events and demonstrations in support of the regime. The principal claimant testified that there were lists of those who refused to participate. When the principal claimant refused to participate, she was called miserable; someone who is against the regime. She testified that she was perceived as a traitor to the regime.

d. The principal claimant also had disagreements with the director. She testified that she refused to approve renovations in her laboratory because in her view the renovations were unsafe and used as a money laundering scheme. The director proceeded without her approval.

e. While on a medical leave, there was a theft at the principal claimant’s workplace: a chair, a box with supplies and laboratory equipment were stolen. She later found out that she faced criminal charges of “unlawful embezzlement” for the theft. She testified that this was done because of her anti-government political opinion and refusal to cooperate with the director in the renovation that she characterised as money laundering.

f. As a result of the charges, the principal claimant required medical attention for stress. Her physician recommended a change of position to one with less supervisory responsibilities. Consequently, the principal claimant moved to another department as [XXX]. She testified that even with that change, the director and colleagues continued to harass her.

g. The principal claimant finally resigned from the [XXX] to work for a private company. Her responsibilities included [XXX]. She required approval from the government before [XXX] and the government or her former director refused or delayed such approvals.

h. The principal claimant attended several preliminary hearings in her legal proceeding, including a hearing on [XXX] 2018 when the judge dismissed the charges against her for lack of evidence. The principal claimant testified that the judge was immediately removed before signing the decision.

i. On [XXX] 2019, while the principal claimant was leaving her house with her daughter, two men on motorcycles stopped and hit her window with firearms. Their heads were covered, and they said, “prepare yourself for what is coming”. The principal claimant, with the minor claimant, fled to her parent’s house and remained there until she left Venezuela. The principal claimant did not go to the police because she had been trying to get justice for three years and none was forthcoming.

j. The principal claimant left for Canada on [XXX] 2019.

k. The principal claimant filed a statement from her parents dated [XXX] 2019 indicating that that they had gone to her apartment to recover documents and the principal claimant was still receiving threats through phone calls to her home. The principal claimants’ parents stated that they remained indoors and were very anxious.

l. The principal claimant also filed a lettedated [XXX] 2019, from the friend who looked after her apartment in Venezuela. The friend confirmed that she often heard calls while in the principal claimant’s apartment but found it unwise to answer.

m. On [XXX] 2019 the Court of Appeal of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas (Venezuelan Appellate Court) dismissed the charges against the principal claimant due to lateness in filing the appeal. The principal claimant testified that she remains fearful of returning to Venezuela. The principal claimant also fears for her daughter as she believes she is in danger because of her. The principal claimant testified that her daughter is at risk of being kidnapped as a means of revenge from the regime. The principal claimant believes that if she returns to Venezuela, she will be immediately detained at the border and charged. She testified that the regime does not forgive.

[12] I find that the principal claimant is seen by Venezuelan authorities as opposing the regime and she faces danger because of it. I find that, because of her familial relationship with the principal claimant, the minor claimant also faces danger from the authorities and “colectivos”. She was a victim in the [XXX] 2019 attack and the fact that she is the daughter of the principal claimant, who is wanted by the regime, puts her at an increased risk of violence and kidnapping as a means of retaliation against the principal claimant.

[13] I turn now to the associate claimant.

The associate claimant

[14] Based on the credible testimonies and overall evidence, I make the following findings of fact as they relate to the associate claimant:

a. The associate claimant was an active participant in anti-government activities starting in 2004 when he was a university student. He was part of the group that submitted the collection of signatures to request a referendum against Hugo Chavez Frias. He received threats through phone calls as a result.

b. The associate claimant completed a bachelor’s degree in [XXX] and a master’s degree at the [XXX]. Despite his level of education, the associate claimant had difficulty finding employment in Venezuela. When he found employment, it was below his level of education and knowledge and in a different area of expertise than his degrees. Employers tried to force him to attend marches in support of the regime. When he refused, he was terminated. At his last employment in Venezuela, the associate claimant believes that his employer was making lists and taking pictures of people who refused to attend events in support of the regime. He believes that this information was shared with the “colectivos”.

c. In 2017, the associate claimant found employment in Buenos Aires, Argentina. He worked for 2 years, until his contract ended. After two years, he returned to Venezuela. Upon his return, the associate claimant was stopped and detained by the Venezuelan national guard for 9 hours because he was considered his sister’ s accomplice. The officers hit him with weapons, took his clothes out of his luggage and took gifts he brought back. After his release, while still in Venezuela, the associate claimant felt he was being followed.

d. Between [XXX] 2019 and [XXX] 2019, the associate claimant was confronted twice by men on motorcycles. The last confrontation resulted in the associate claimant being brutally beaten. One of the six assailants took a revolver and put it in his mouth, saying that the next time he was a dead man, and to tell his sister to return to Venezuela. The associate claimant left Venezuela a few weeks later for Canada.

[15] I find that the associate claimant is seen as a political dissident and is being targeted as a result. I also find that the associate claimant is seen as an accomplice to the principal claimant’ s actions and he is being targeted as a result.

Documentary evidence

[16] The claimants also provided documents in support of their claims, including:

a. A psychological report dated [XXX] 2016 and made contemporaneously to the events, showing the hardship that the charges of embezzlement caused to the principal claimant.⁵

b. Attestation that the principal claimant is a member of the Conciencia de Pai, an anti-government political party.⁶

c. Documents relating to the principal claimant’ s employment in Venezuela supporting her claim that she worked for the [XXX] a governmental organization.⁷

d. Excerpts from court documents and decisions relating to the legal proceeding against the principal claimant. The documents include the decision of the Venezuelan Appellate Court of [XXX] 2019 dismissing the charges against the principal claimant. The documents support the claim that the principal claimant was unjustly charged of the crime of “unlawful embezzlement” in Venezuela.⁸

e. A report from the principal claimant’s lawyer in Venezuela providing the lawyer’s position on the proceedings against her.⁹

f. A 2019 medical report written by a psychologist in Ontario supporting the principal claimant’s claim that she still suffers from serious psychological conditions because of what happened in Venezuela.¹⁰

g. Statements by friends and family members supporting the claims that the principal and associate claimants were persecuted in Venezuela and are still at risk.¹¹

[17] There is no reason to cast any doubt on the veracity of these documents and as such I place great weight on these documents to support the claimants’ allegations and overall claims.

Nexus

[18] Based on the above facts, I find that, because of their refusal to support the regime, the principal and associate claimants were the victims of physical and emotional abuse by the authorities and those acting for them. As such, I find that both the principal claimant and associate claimant have a nexus to the Convention by virtue of their political opinion.

[19] I also find that the minor claimant and the associate claimant have a nexus to the Convention as family members of the principal claimant. They were both attacked because of their relationship with the principal claimant. As such I find that both the associate claimant and minor claimant have a nexus to the Convention by virtue of their membership in a particular social group.

Subjective fear

[20] The principal claimant was harassed through degrading comments from the director of her former employer, a governmental organization, because she refused to participate in the regime’s activities. She was persecuted through the laying of false charges against her, which remained unresolved for several years. This culminated in the attack on her and her daughter in [XXX] 2019 when she was in her car leaving her house.

[21] The principal claimant fled to her parents’ house on [XXX] 2019 and remained there until she left with the minor claimant for Canada the next month. She provided testimony that even after her departure from Venezuela, the authorities or “colectivos” mandated by the authorities were still looking for her. Her brother’s detention by the national guard when he returned from Argentina and the attacks on him between [XXX] 2019 and [XXX] 2019 are further evidence of that.

[22] I find that the Venezuelan Appellate Court’s dismissal of the principal claimant’s charges against her does not diminish her subjective fear. The use of the penal system against her was one of several forms of persecution she experienced due to her anti-government political opinion. It does not mean that the government will not seek other ways to repress the principal claimant, such as detaining her upon entry into Venezuela or employing the “colectivos” to threaten and harm her as they have done in the past.

[23] The minor claimant also experienced an attack by armed masked motorcyclists while in the car with the principal claimant. She is at risk largely for the same reasons as the principal claimant and could be targeted by the government or those acting for the government as reprisal aimed toward the principal claimant.

[24] The associate claimant was detained and interrogated because of his relation to his sister. He was called an accomplice of someone who has fled Venezuela. He was forced to flee after two brutal attacks by unknown assailants, assumed to be part of the “colectivos”, between [XXX] 2019 and [XXX] 2019. During the last attack he received death threats while a revolver was placed in his mouth. He fled to Canada a few weeks later.

[25] I find that the claimants’ subjective fear is established by their credible testimonies and I believe what they have alleged, on a balance of probabilities.

Objective Basis

Country documentation

[26] The objective country reports are consistent with the claimants’ evidence about the violence suffered by dissidents of the regime in Venezuela.

[27] The National Documentation Package (NDP) for Venezuela, dated September 30, 2020, refers to the Human Rights Watch, World Report 2016: Events of 2015¹², which states as follows:

[u]nder the leadership of President Hugo Chavez and now President Nicolas Madura, the accumulation of power in the executive branch and erosion of human rights guarantees have enabled the government to intimidate, censor, and prosecute its critics, leading to increasing levels of self-censorship.

[28] Freedom House, in Venezuela, Freedom in the World 2020¹³, notes that “the authorities have closed off virtually all channels of political dissent, restricting civil liberties and prosecuting perceived opponents without regard for due process.”

[29] The United Nations Human Rights Council, in its August 23, 2016 report prepared by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights¹⁴ also notes that “fundamental guarantees for the exercise of freedom of expression and the right to freedom of opinion have been eroded, with an increase in attacks, censorship, arbitrary detentions, police surveillance, arbitrary interception of communications and abuse of power by State authorities”.

[30] Having been the subject of false charges, the principal claimant testified that she could again be subjected to false charges if she were to return to Venezuela. The United States, Department of State, in its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2019, remarks on the practice of making false charges against political dissidents in Venezuela. It talks about corruption and political influence throughout the justice system. Reports from the International Commission of Jurists states that as many as 85 percent of all judges had provisional appointments and were subject to removal at will by the judicial committee. Provisional and temporary judges, who legally have the same rights and authorities as permanent judges, allegedly were subjected to political influence to make pro regime determinations.¹⁵

[31] The May 17, 2017 Response to Information issued by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada discusses the influence of “colectivos” in Venezuela. It notes that “many of the country’s “colectivos” are becoming criminalized and violent, extorting the communities they often claim to protect […] the “colectivos” have grown in power and influence, and in many cases have become linked to organized crime and have evolved into “partly criminal organizations”. It further states that “the “colectivos” have been supplied with weapons from the government and they have received training in urban warfare […] They act as enforcers in the barrios (neighbourhoods) and in general act to intimidate the population to discourage them from doing anything the government would dislike”.¹⁶

[32] The December 19, 2017 Response to Information Request issued by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada supports the claimants’ claims that employees who refuse to attend activities in support of the regime are punished for such refusals. It states that “[t]here is no rule of law in Venezuela [ … ] there is little recourse for someone who refuses to participate in a rally during the election period [… ] if an individual works for a state enterprise and refuses to participate in a rally when the employer wants them to join, they will be accused of siding with the opposition [… ] it is rare that individuals will contact the police willingly to file a complaint because the police m Venezuela have a bad reputation and are known to commit robberies themselves”.¹⁷

[33] Country documentation also suggests that family members of opponents of the regime are at risk. The Office of the United High Commissioner for Human Rights observed that “persecution had extended to the families of opposition members, social activists or human rights defenders. Family members have been subjected to surveillance, threats, intimidation, and reprisals, solely on the basis of their family ties.”¹⁸

[34] As the claimants have established their subjective fear and an objective basis for that fear, I find that they have established a well-founded fear of persecution.

State Protection

[35] When making a refugee claim, a claimant must establish, on a balance of probabilities, that adequate state protection is not available. There is a presumption that state protection is available, and the onus is on the claimant to provide dear and convincing evidence to rebut such protection. A claimant is required to approach the state for protection if protection might reasonably be forthcoming or, alternatively, if it is objectively reasonable for the claimant to have sought protection. The evidence that state protection is not adequate must be reliable and probative. It must also satisfy the panel, on a balance of probabilities, that state protection is inadequate.

[36] In this case, the agents of persecution are the state and state sanctioned “colectivos”. The persecution the claimants would face should they return to Venezuela is at the hands of the authorities. Accordingly, I find there is no state protection available to the claimants.

Internal Flight Alternative

[37] I have also considered whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for the claimants. The principal and associate claimants both testified that their employers were making lists of political dissidents. As a result, their names would have been included on those lists. The associate claimant was identified at the border as the brother of the principal claimant and he was detained as a result. I find on a balance of probabilities that both the associate and principal claimants are on lists of individuals known to be opponents of the regime and that the authorities have access to those lists. In addition, the evidence reviewed above confirms that the agent of persecution is the state and the persecution is nationwide. I find that there is a serious possibility of persecution for the claimants throughout Venezuela and therefore find that there is no viable internal flight alternative for them.

CONCLUSION

[38] Based on the totality of the evidence, I find all three claimants to be Convention refugees pursuant to s. 96 of IRPA. The principal claimant and associate claimant have demonstrated a serious possibility of persecution at the hands of the Venezuelan authorities and “colectivos” because of their political opinion, namely anti-government affiliation and activities. The minor claimant and associate claimant have demonstrated a serious possibility of persecution at the hands of the Venezuelan authorities and “colectivos” because of their membership in a particular social group, namely their familial relationship as the daughter and brother, respectively, of the principal claimant. I accept their claims.

(signed) Josée Bouchard

November 3, 2020

¹ Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), SC 2001, c 27, as amended.
² Exhibits 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3.
³ Exhibit 5.3.
⁴ Exhibit 1.
⁵ Exhibit 5.1.
⁶ Exhibit 5.1.
⁷ Exhibit 5.1. The Venezuelan name of the institute is [XXX].
⁸ Exhibits 5.1 and 5.3.
⁹ Exhibit 5.1.
¹⁰ Exhibit 5.1.
¹¹ Exhibits 5.2, 6.1 and 6.2.
¹² Exhibit 3, item 4.6.
¹³ Exhibit 3, item 2.4.
¹⁴ Exhibit 3, item 2.8.
¹⁵ Exhibit 3, item 2.1.
¹⁶ Exhibit 3, item 4.16,
¹⁷ Exhibit 3, item 4.6
¹⁸ Exhibit 3, item 2.9.

All Countries Turkey

2019 RLLR 33

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

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

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

Allegations

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

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

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

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

Determination

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

Identity

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

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

Credibility

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well-Founded Fear of Persecution

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

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

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

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

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

[21] Also:

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

[22] The National Documentation Package also reports that:

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

[23] There is also considerable evidence that:

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

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

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

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

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

State Protection

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

Internal Flight Alternative

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

– – – DECISION CONCLUDED – – –

All Countries Turkey

2019 RLLR 30

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

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

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

Allegations

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

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

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

Determination

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

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

Analysis

Identity

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

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

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

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

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

Credibility

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[21] Item I.7 indicates that,

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

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

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

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

State Protection

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

Internal Flight Alternative

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

Conclusion

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

DECISION CONCLUDED