Categories
All Countries Sudan

2021 RLLR 101

Citation: 2021 RLLR 101
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 1, 2021
Panel: Sarah Acker
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Stéphanie Valois
Country: Sudan
RPD Number: TC1-08877
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01778
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: We are back on the record. The time is 11:47 a.m. This is the decision for the following claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, who claims to be a citizen of Sudan and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The file number is TC1-08877.

[2]       Mr. XXXX, I have considered your testimony and the other evidence in this case, and I’m ready to render my decision orally. I find that you are a Convention refugee on the grounds of your imputed anti-government political opinion pursuant to s. 96 of the IRPA.

[3]       The details of your claim are set out in your Basis of Claim form and are supplemented by your testimony at today’s hearing. I should add that the details of your claim are also found in the amendments to your Basis of Claim form. In summary, you fear persecution in Sudan at the hands of the Sudanese coup d’état leaders and the Sudanese security forces due to your imputed political opinion. You also allege that there is no state protection or internal flight alternative available to you in Sudan.

[4]       Your country of reference and personal identity as a citizen of Sudan has been established on a balance of probabilities by your testimony and the following supporting document filed in Exhibit 1, namely a certified true copy of your Sudanese passport that was submitted.

[5]       I find there is a nexus between what you fear in Sudan and one of the five grounds enumerated in s. 96 of the IRPA. Therefore, your claim is assessed under s. 96 of the IRPA and there is no need to conduct a s. 97(1) analysis.

[6]       In terms of your general credibility, I found you to be a credible witness with regard to the material issues in your claim. There were no significant inconsistencies or omissions between your Basis of Claim forms, your testimony, and the other evidence before me. You testified in a spontaneous, detailed manner. I therefore believe what you have alleged in support of your claim.

[7]       You testified today from 2010 to 2019 you lived outside of Sudan: first in India to attend university on a student visa, and then in the United Arab Emirates on a work permit that ended with the termination of your employment in 2019. Your university certificate and Indian student visa can be found in Exhibit 11 at pages 6 through 8. Your UAE E visa is found at Exhibit 11 at page 9. When I asked you why you did not live in Sudan after completing your studies abroad, you explained that your mother feared for your life if you returned to Sudan because your father and brothers were both targeted by the Sudanese regime because of their political opinions. You heeded her advice and stayed out of the country. I therefore find on a balance of probabilities you lived outside of Sudan from 2009 through 2019 as a non-permanent resident in India and the United Arab Emirates because you feared being targeted by the Sudanese authorities if you returned to Sudan and lived there.

[8]       You explained that while living outside of Sudan, you only returned to Sudan a handful of times, mostly to look after your mother who was suffering from cancer. This information aligns with the stamps in your passport. You explained that in XXXX of 2017 you were in Sudan to comfort your mother on her deathbed. Her dying wish was that you try to find your two brothers who had been arrested while protesting the Al-Bashir regime in 2013 and had not been seen or heard from since that time. You submitted a letter from your neighbours in Sudan with accompanying identity documents that attest to your brothers’ arrest in 2013 while protesting. This letter is found in Exhibit 11 at page 20. The details of the letter correspond to the details in your Basis of Claim form and the testimony that you provided concerning your brothers’ disappearance. I therefore find this evidence credible. After your mother’s passing on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017 — and you provided her death certificate at Exhibit 11, pages 15 through 16 — you saw to honour your mother’s wish and you started looking for your brothers at different prisons and NISS centres in Sudan. Your testimony explained that on 26th of August 2017 you attended the NISS compound in the Shendi district in search of your brothers. When the NISS official said your brothers were not there and to stop looking for them, you accused the NISS of killing your brothers as they had killed your father who had been active in a Sudanese opposition party in the early 2000s. As a result, you were detained at the station for three days, physically assaulted, and interrogated about your alleged political activities against the Sudanese government and alleged affiliations with Darfuri movements because you are an ethnic Darfuri. Upon your release, you were made to sign empty documents. NISS officials told you to leave Sudan and that if you ever returned, they would fill in the documents with alleged offences and arrest you. You left Sudan a few days later and you never returned. This is confirmed by the stamps in your passport.

[9]       Your submitted evidence from your friend, XXXX (ph), who had accompanied you on your search for your brothers after your mother passed away and who picked you up from the NISS office in Shendi upon your release from detention. You explained when and how you obtain XXXX letter of support, and its accompanied by an identity document. The letter confirms the details in your BOC narrative and your testimony. I therefore find this letter credible. It can be found at Exhibit 12. The testimony about your detention, how it occurred, when and why it occurred, and what happened during it, all aligned with the details in your BOC narrative. You testified in a spontaneous, clear, and direct manner. I therefore find on a balance of probabilities you were detained by the NISS in August of 2017 while searching for your brothers who were arrested in 2013, that you were interrogated about suspected political affiliations against the Sudanese government, that you were threatened and instructed to leave the country.

[10]     You testified that you avoided involvement in politics in Sudan because you feared the regime’s brutality if you spoke out. You explained that upon arriving in Canada in XXXX of 2019, you felt safe to begin raising your voice against the atrocities committed by the current head of the Sudanese military government, General Al-Burhan and General Hemetti. You have attended rallies in Montreal and Hamilton since arriving here. You post videos on your Facebook profile about protests against the Sudanese regime, including those that took place since the coup d’état of October 25th, 2021, in Sudan. You showed me your Facebook account during the hearing and its contents confirm your testimony. You also submitted photographs of yourself attending protests against the Sudanese regime in Montreal and Hamilton in 2019 and 2021. The photos from these protests are found in Exhibit 11, pages 24 through 27. I therefore find on a balance of probabilities that since arriving in Canada, you have felt safe enough to actively voice your opposition to the Sudanese leadership and its security services as you allege.

[11]     I asked you whether you would continue to speak out against the Sudanese government if you return to Sudan. You testified that you would not because you fear the consequences of voicing your political opinions, especially given the physical and psychological injuries you sustained at the hands of the Sudanese authorities during your detention in August of 2017. I therefore find on a balance of probabilities that in addition to the Sudanese regime perceiving you to be a political opponent, you hold actual political opinions that opposed the current Sudanese regime.

[12]     I noticed that at the time you left the UAE you had a valid United States visitors visa. I asked you why you did not choose to make it an asylum claim in the United States and instead use that US visa in order to travel from the United States immediately to Canada. You explained that you were aware of the former Trump administration’s attitude towards Sudanese asylum seekers at the time and you were worried you would not have a fair asylum hearing. I find this explanation reasonable. I also asked you why you did not seek asylum in Ireland or other parts of Europe, as your passport shows you had valid visas for those locations at the time that you left the United Arab Emirates for Canada. You explained that having done research online, you felt Canada would be the safest option for you, specifically given your profile as a person of colour. I accept that this is your genuine belief and the reason why you came to Canada instead of seeking refuge elsewhere.

[13]     I therefore find on a balance of probabilities that you have a subjective fear of persecution in Sudan because of your real and perceived political opinions. As a result, and as mentioned previously, this claim is being assessed under s. 96 of the IRPA, and I find that you have established a nexus to a Convention ground.

[14]     In addition to your credible testimony and the other evidence before me today, the objective evidence in this case supports your claim. With respect to your detention by the Sudanese security forces in August of 2017, the documentary evidence in the National Documentation Package, the NDP, is quite clear that the Sudanese authorities under the previous Al-Bashir government targeted real and perceived critics of the regime. Security forces detained such critics, often keeping them for days before releasing them without charge. Many were held even longer, facing maltreatment and torture during their detention. This is mentioned in NDP item 1.4 among other items in the NDP. NDP 1.11 also notes the risk you faced as a perceived political critic under the Al-Bashir regime given your identity as a Darfuri. In December of 2018 the regime still described the protests in Sudan as a plot engineered by Darfur rebels backed by the West. In a January 2019 report on “The Risk on Return for Darfuris in Sudan,” the source states that Darfuris were being used as scapegoats and accused of instigating the uprising on instructions from foreign agents. I therefore find on a balance of probabilities that your subjective fear or persecution in Sudan at the time you left the country had an objective basis and was well-founded.

[15]     However, my risk assessment must be a forward-looking one, so I now turn to the evidence of whether the risk you faced in August 2017 in Sudan is indeed ongoing and forward-looking. In April of 2019 President Omar Al-Bashir was removed from office after decades of authoritarian rule in Sudan and replaced by a military council. Shortly after that, following negotiations between military leaders like Generals Al-Burhan and Hemetti and opposition groups, a transitional government led by a sovereign council of military and civilian members replaced the military council in August 2019. From that time until October of this year, 2021, positive changes were made with respect to human rights in Sudan, including opening space for political opposition and voices critical of the Al-Bashir regime and the improvement of other rights like women’s rights. However, on October 25th, 2021, the military wing of the civilian-led transitional government commandeered by General Al-Burhan staged a coup d’état in Sudan. The Sudanese army arrested key government officials, including President Minister Hamdok. When Sudanese civilians protested the coup, Sudanese military forces, including General Hemetti’s Rapid Security Forces, used excessive and lethal force against peaceful protesters. The individuals who held leadership roles in Sudan state security forces under Al-Bashir, including those who controlled state security forces at the time of your arrest and detention in August 2017, now once again hold power in Sudan. This leads me to find on a balance of probabilities that the positive steps taken by the Sudanese civilian-led transitional government regarding, among other issues, treatment of real or perceived regime critics are not durable. I therefore find on a balance of probabilities that your subjective fear of persecution in Sudan has an objective basis, is well-founded, and is forward-looking.

[16]     While states are presumed to be capable of protecting their nationals, it’s open to a claimant to rebut the presumption of protection with clear and convincing evidence. In this case, the agent of persecution is the state because the forward-facing persecution you would face in Sudan is at the hands of state authorities. Based on your personal circumstances as well as the objective country documentation, I find on a balance of probabilities that you have rebutted the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence. Given that the state is the agent of persecution and there was no objective evidence that shows the state does not have control over the entire country of Sudan, I find on a balance of probabilities that you would face a serious possibility of persecution throughout Sudan, and therefore a viable internal flight alternative does not exist for you.

[17]     Having considered your testimony, the documentary evidence presented, and the objective evidence before me, I find there is a serious possibility that you would face persecution in Sudan at hands of the Sudanese security forces if you return there. For the aforementioned reasons, I conclude that you are a Convention refugee for pursuant to s. 96 of the IRPA, and I accept your claim. This concludes my reasons for decision.

——————–REASONS CONCLUDED ——————–

Categories
All Countries Sri Lanka

2021 RLLR 96

Citation: 2021 RLLR 96
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: September 9, 2021
Panel: Suraj Balakrishnan
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Naseem Mithoowani
Country: Sri Lanka
RPD Number: TC1-02935
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01778
ATIP Pages: N/A

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]       The claimant, XXXX XXXX, alleges that he is a citizen of Sri Lanka, and is claiming refugee protection in Canada pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).

DETERMINATION

[2]       Having considered all of the evidence, the panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant has established that he would face a serious possibility of persecution in Sri Lanka because of his imputed political opinion in support of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).

ALLEGATIONS

[3]       The specifics of the claim are set out in the narrative of the claimant’s Basis of Claim Form, as amended (BOC).[i] The following is a summary of the claimant’s allegations.

[4]       The claimant alleges to be a citizen of Sri Lanka. He fears persecution from Sri Lankan authorities because of his imputed political opinion in support of the LTTE.

IDENTITY

[5]       The claimant’s identity has been established, on a balance of probabilities, through his testimony, as well as documentation filed; namely, copies of his Sri Lankan passport,[ii] national identity card,[iii] and birth certificate.[iv]

NEXUS

[6]       The panel finds that there is a nexus between the harms that the claimant fears and his imputed political opinion in favor of the LTTE. The claim will therefore be assessed pursuant to section 96 of IRPA. The test under section 96 is whether there is a serious possibility of persecution should the claimant return to Sri Lanka and the panel has found that the claimant has met that test.

CREDIBILITY

[7]       When a claimant affirms to tell the truth, this creates a presumption of truthfulness unless there is evidence to the contrary. The claimant’s testimony was consistent with his BOC, detailed, and forthright. When asked about details not set forth in his BOC, the claimant provided spontaneous detail.

[8]       The claimant testified that in 2000, the claimant, his father, and about 80-100 other males were detained and beaten by the Sri Lankan Army on suspicion of being an LTTE supporter. On June 15, 2019, the claimant was approached by Sri Lankan Army personnel at his shop, detained, and taken to a camp for questioning. The Sri Lankan authorities accused the claimant of using his shop to support a war memorial monument, which was raising funds in honor of the LTTE and Tamil families killed during a massacre in May of 2009. The authorities accused him of providing support by donating money and other items from his shop. The authorities physically assaulted the claimant. The claimant acknowledged that he had sold 100 bags of school supplies to one of two people shown by Sri Lankan authorities to the claimant, but told them that he was unaware what it would be used for and that it was not given for free. The claimant was released on June 19, 2019, but was requested to return on July 1, 2019 and then July 20, 2019. After being detained and beaten again on July 20, 2019, the claimant was released on the same day and instructed to return to the camp every two weeks. This prompted the claimant to leave Sri Lanka. Since leaving Sri Lanka, the authorities in Sri Lanka have followed up with the claimant’s family inquiring about the claimant’s whereabouts on multiple occasions.

[9]       The claimant produced extensive documentation in support of his claim. This includes (i) multiple letters of support from the claimant’s family;[v] (ii) a letter of support from a neighboring shopkeeper;[vi] (iii) a letter of support from a Justice of Peace in Sri Lanka;[vii] (iv) documentation related to the claimant’s shop, including a certificate of registration and bank statements;[viii] and (v) documentation from his interactions with U.S. border authorities on his way to Canada.[ix]

[10]     These submissions help corroborate key events in the claimant’s narrative. There is no reason for the panel to cast doubt on the veracity of these submissions and as such the panel places significant weight on these submissions to support the claimant’s allegations and overall claim.

[11]     In specific, the claimant established on a balance of probabilities that Sri Lankan authorities detained and beat him on two occasions because they suspected him of having supported a war memorial monument and, by extension, the LTTE.

OBJECTIVE BASIS

[12]     The objective documentary evidence generally indicates that individuals suspected of supporting LTTE and politically sensitive memorials are targeted by authorities, and that those who are detained face mistreatment. An Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Response to Information Request, citing other sources, notes that “Tamils, particularly in the North and East, reported that security forces “regularly monitored and harassed” community members, especially activists, journalists, and former or suspected former LTTE members.”[x] The source goes on to note that:

Australia’s DFAT states that Tamil community members reported monitoring by authorities of public gatherings and protests in the North and East, and “targeted surveillance and questioning of individuals and groups” (Australia 4 Nov. 2019, para. 3.11). The same source reports that people connected to “politically-sensitive” war-related issues, such as “missing persons, land release and memorial events,” are “most likely” to be monitored (Australia 4 Nov. 2019, para. 3.11). Based on his visit to Sri Lanka from 18 to 26 July 2019, a UN Special Rapporteur indicated that he “frequently” received reports of “intimidation and surveillance” in relation to peaceful protests, particularly concerning memorial services for disappeared persons in the North and East (UN 5 May 2020, para. 52). The same source provides the example of soldiers destroying and removing banners and decorations at a memorial ceremony held on 18 May 2019 by the Ampara branch of the Families of the Disappeared Organization at the Thrikovil Manikka Pillayar temple, as well as threatening to arrest and detain demonstrators (UN 5 May 2020, para. 52).[xi]

[13]     The UK Home Office notes that there is a “shocking prevalence” of torture and ill-treatment of detainees.[xii]

[14]     The claimant also produced country conditions documents, which, among other things, generally indicate that the situation in Sri Lanka has deteriorated for the Tamil minority since the election of Gotabaya Rajapaksa in 2019.[xiii]

[15]     Based on the claimant’s testimony and the documentary evidence cited above, the panel finds that his fear of returning to Sri Lanka has an objective basis. The claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution in Sri Lanka.

STATE PROTECTION

[16]     The panel finds that the Sri Lankan government is the agent of persecution in this case. The country conditions cited above confirm that the state is in fact persecuting individuals like the claimant.

[17]     The panel therefore finds that the claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection in Sri Lanka.

INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE (IFA)

[18]     The panel considered whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for the claimant. The agent of persecution is the Sri Lankan government. The documentary evidence cited above regarding the persecution faced by Tamils suspected of supporting politically sensitive memorials and the LTTE is not restricted to any one region of Sri Lanka, although exacerbated in the North and East of the country. The panel finds that there is a serious possibility of persecution for the claimant throughout Sri Lanka and therefore finds that there is no viable internal flight alternative.

CONCLUSION

[19]     Having considered all of the evidence, the panel finds that there is a serious possibility of persecution by Sri Lankan authorities if the claimant returns to Sri Lanka. The panel finds the claimant to be a Convention refugee and accepts his claim.

(signed) Suraj Balakrishnan

September 9, 2021


[i] Exhibits 2 and 5.

[ii] Exhibit 4.

[iii] Id.

[iv] Id.

[v] Exhibit 5.

[vi] Id.

[vii] Id.

[viii] Id.

[ix] Id.

[x] Exhibit 3, NDP 31 May 2021, Item 13.1, LKA200298.E, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, 17 August 2020.

[xi] Id.

[xii] Exhibit 3, NDP 31 May 2021, Item 4.11, Country Policy and Information Note. Sri Lanka: Tamil Separatism. Version 6.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. May 2020.

[xiii] Exhibits 6 and 7.

Categories
All Countries Hong Kong

2021 RLLR 95

Citation: 2021 RLLR 95
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: July 22, 2021
Panel: Robert Bafaro
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Daniel Martan Woods
Country: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China
RPD Number: TC1-01408
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01778
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: Now ready to give my decision. These are the reasons for the decision in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX, who claims to be a citizen of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, SAR, People’s Republic of China, and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to s. 96 and 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[2]       The allegations that form the basis for this refugee claim are set out in the claimant’s Basis of Claim form and narrative, which is in evidence before me at Exhibit number 2. The claimant’s allegations are also contained in the claimant’s testimony, which he gave here this afternoon in response to a series of questions which I asked and posed to the claimant.

[3]       The claimant also provided a supplementary narrative, which is part of Exhibit 4, to further elaborate and explain the basis for his refugee claim, and that is found at page 57 and 58 of the materials at Exhibit 4.

[4]       In summary, the claimant is alleging a fear of persecution by the People’s Republic of China because of his pro-democracy activism during the Umbrella Movement in Hong Kong in 2014 and also because of his pro-democracy and anti-government activities here in Canada. The claimant alleged that he has been attending protests, demonstrations, regularly every year, there are many people showing up, hundreds at least on average, speaking out against the national security law against Hong Kong government’s implementation of this law, complaining and criticizing the Chinese Communist Party and its interference in the affairs of Hong Kong. He has been attending — he alleges he has been attending protests where people wave flags, calling for the independence of Hong Kong and condemning Hong Kong and the Chinese Communist Party for its repressive measures and excessive force used against pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong.

[5]       The claimant alleged that although he did participate in the Umbrella Movement protests, he was providing more or less logistical support, he was not in the front lines, he was not a public speaker at those protests or demonstrations, that he was providing more of kind of logistical support, water, towels, so to help protestors who were in need of assistance, if there was tear gas, they could wipe their eyes. So he was essentially providing them with support but not on the front lines. He was kind of working behind the scenes to support the protestors, and he alleged that he was not arrested during these protests and that his activism or his anti-government activism or pro-democracy activism, for the most part, has taken place here in Canada, where there have been many groups getting together in parks, outside of government buildings, outside of shopping malls, where they have been expressing their opinions against the national security law, condemning the Hong Kong police, condemning the Chinese government for its interference in Hong Kong affairs and trying to raise awareness in the public eye about how, essentially, life in Hong Kong has unravelled to such a degree that there is no longer any freedom of expression, freedom of the press, or freedom of assembly, and that as the claimant said in his own testimony, the situation is pretty dire and has become very much hopeless.

[6]       So, those are the main allegations that form the basis for this refugee claim. The determinative issue, as I outlined at the beginning of the hearing, was the claimant’s credibility. In the Canadian refugee law, it is — there is a presumption that if a claimant gives sworn testimony, it is presumed that everything the claimant said was true unless there is persuasive evidence to the contrary. I find that in this case, based on the claimant’s testimony, there was no — and all of the evidence before me, there was no persuasive evidence to the contrary. I find that there were no major contradictions or inconsistencies or omissions in his evidence or testimony or between his testimony and other evidence before me. The claimant’s testimony here this afternoon was to a great extent consistent with the detailed allegations set out in his Basis of Claim form narrative at Exhibit 2 and the supplementary narrative he provided at Exhibit 4.

[7]       I found the claimant testified in a very straightforward manner, I did not find that he tried to exaggerate or embellish his evidence, even though, clearly, he had the opportunity to do so. For instance, he could have said that he was involved in many more demonstrations throughout the years in Hong Kong and he could have said he was arrested multiple times in Hong Kong, but he did not. He — I found that his testimony had the ring of truth because, in fact, he downplayed his activism in Hong Kong during the Umbrella Movement, saying he was not in the front lines, he was not actually a speaker, so he could have exaggerated and said those things, but he did not, and I think that speaks volumes in terms of establishing his credibility.

[8]       The claimant not only just relied on his own testimony to establish his claim, but he also provided documentation which I find corroborates core elements of his refugee claim. So, for instance, at Exhibit 4, he provided many photographs, social media postings, photographs of himself in a parking lot in Scarborough holding up a sign, calling for the independence of Hong Kong and on social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, WhatsApp, WeChat, as the claimant said, he shared a lot of information and sometimes he would put in his own editorial comments about what he was posting, but to a large extent, he was sharing information that was critical of the national security law that was condemning the Chinese government for its interference in Hong Kong affairs and this is reflected in the many social media posts that are part of the claimant’s evidence in Exhibit 4.

[9]       The claimant also provided some documents, which I find is a very good indicator and a strong indicator of what might happen to him if he goes back to China. As the claimant said, after having been involved in all of these activities here in Canada against the Chinese government, these protests, these demonstrations, these group gatherings, sharing these critical — these anti-government commentary on social media, he actually received threats via social media and he has actually provided the social media postings that the claimant referred to in his testimony and they are a part of Exhibit 4 and specifically, there is a couple of postings on Facebook where they essentially say that the — threaten the claimant and say that he should stop posting fake news about — against China, and that if he does not, there is going to be consequences.

[10]     The claimant also provided photographs of the many protests and demonstrations that he has been attending with other people that are Hong Kongers that are supporting the cause of Hong Kong, and there is many photographs of him in front of the old city hall, in front of the criminal — old criminal courts here in downtown Toronto, in Markham, in Scarborough, Pacific — outside Pacific Mall, of demonstrations calling for a free Hong Kong, calling for the independence of Hong Kong and telling the Chinese authorities to stop persecuting Hong Kongers.

[11]     The claimant also provided his Hong Kong passport and his permanent residence identity card, which I find establishes, on a balance of probabilities, that he is who he claims to be, that he is a resident of Hong Kong, that that is where he was born and raised and that is where he — and it is with respect to China that he is still recognized as a citizen and of no other country. So, the claimant’s personal and national identity was established to my satisfaction on a balance of probabilities.

[12]     And some of these other photographs that, again, demonstrate the high level of activism of the claimant and the many demonstrations and protests he attended here in Toronto are found at Exhibit 12 and then there is further photographic evidence at Exhibit 13 and there are photographs of the claimant himself, in fact, attending a protest just the other day, very recent photographs of protests at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, where there is a pretty large number of people assembled and it is clear that this is like a — some kind of a commemoration or peaceful kind of protest or to commemorate what has been happening in Hong Kong, they are all wearing t-shirts to commemorate the cause in Hong Kong.

[13]     So, in light of all of this evidence, I find that the claimant has established that he does have a valid subjective fear of persecution in Hong Kong. I also find that he — his subjective fear in Hong Kong at the hands of the Hong Kong police, at the hands of the Chinese authorities, since the national security law was passed in 2020, that his fear of persecution in the country is objectively well-founded. I find that there is a reasonable chance, a serious possibility that he would face persecution if he returned to the country based on his political opinions and his political activities against the government of Hong Kong. And I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to s. 96, as there exists a serious possibility of persecution should he return to Hong Kong, China, on account of his political opinion.

[14]     Clearly, I find that there is also a nexus between his subjective fear and one of the grounds set out in s. 96, under the 1951 Convention, that being the ground of political opinion. Considering that I find that the claimant is a credible witness and that he testified credibly coupled with the documentary evidence that he provided as well as the country documentation in evidence, which is before me, I find that the claimant has established a future risk of persecution should he return to the country, and I find that he faces a serious possibility of arrest, detention and — or even worse, state violence.

[15]     Now, one of the reasons why I find that the claimant’s fear of persecution in Hong Kong is objectively well-founded and why I find that he has good grounds to fear persecution in Hong Kong has to do with the fact that he has been here in Canada since 2015, he has been involved in all these different anti-government groups, been attending all these protests, speaking out against the government on social media by sharing these posts, going to demonstrations where flags are being raised, calling for the independence of Hong Kong, that these activities are more likely than not have come to the attention of the authorities. And even in the evidence, which is before me here this afternoon, there is a very strong indication that the authorities in China already know about what the claimant has been doing here in Canada, he has received threats via social media telling him to stop spreading fake news about the Chinese government and that if he does not stop doing this, there is going to be consequences.

[16]     The — there is evidence in the National Documentation Package, and, I mean, this is a matter public knowledge, it is very well-known that the Chinese government, the Communist Party of China, that they spy on their nationals who are living abroad, they engage in espionage, they use sophisticated software to monitor and keep people under surveillance in order to suppress political dissent, and the objective country information supports this. I was reading in a report, it is the Department of State report on Hong Kong, item 2.1 in the NDP, and it says activists claim that the SAR increasingly used legal tools such as denial of bail and pursuing minor charges to detain pro-democracy figures. In one such case, the courts denied Jimmy Li (ph) bail for fraud charges, which is a civil offence. While in custody, security forces charged Li with foreign collusion under the national security legislation, a provision that is not well-defined, and then it goes on to say that the government of China is actually carrying out politically motivated reprisals against individuals who are not even inside the country, that are outside the country. It goes on to say that the national security law is not restricted to the Hong Kong area or its residence, but instead, claims jurisdiction over any individual regardless of location deemed to be engaging in one of the four criminal activities under the national security law. Suasions, subversion, terrorist activities or collusion with a foreign country or external elements to endanger national security.

[17]     In August, the national security forces reportedly issued warrants for six individuals, all residing abroad, one of whom had foreign citizenship and had resided outside of Hong Kong in mainland China for more than 20 years. Although reported in state-controlled media, the government refused to acknowledge the existence of the warrants. So, this is a good example of how the authority of the Chinese Communist Party extends even beyond the borders and territory of China and how they even monitor the activities of people that are outside the country and will engage in extra-judicial, a type of measures, in order to make these people be silent, to stop speaking out against the government and which, in this case, according to this report, suggests they are issuing warrants in absensia, when the person is not even in the country, calling for that person’s arrest when they come back, so they can be prosecuted under the national security law.

[18]     And then it goes on to say that the law — there is a section in the Department of State report — deals with unlawful interference, with privacy, family, home or correspondence, and it says the law prohibits such actions, but there were reports that the Hong Kong government failed to respect these prohibitions, including credible reports that Chinese central government security services and the Beijing mandated office for safeguarding national security monitored pro-democracy and human rights activists and journalists in Hong Kong.

[19]     There is also — I also looked at a report, it is item 1.11 in the NDP, and it is a report on how the Chinese government treats its critics and how it treats people that engage in anti-government activity. And it basically confirms what the claimant has been saying, is that even though he is many miles away from China and he is here in Canada, and he has been participating in all of these anti-government activities, the Chinese government already knows about it and in this particular passage that I am going to read, it is clear that the government of China, the Communist Party of China, has the knowledge, the know-how, the technical expertise to be able to do that, and in this report, 1.11, and it is s. 8 that deals with internet, social media and bloggers. It says the Chinese government maintains a sophisticated censorship apparatus, including both automated mechanisms and human monitors to block online criticism of individuals, policies or events considered integral to the one-party system. Several social media and communication apps are inaccessible from inside China without circumvention tools and a crackdown on those tools was underway during the reporting period, websites and social media accounts are subject to deletion or closure at the request of Chinese censorship authorities, and internet companies are required to monitor and delete problematic content or face punishment. The cyber-security law passed during the reporting period requires network operators to immediately stop transmission of banned content, and what is interesting about this report that I have read is the claimant himself testified that he was using an app on his phone to communicate with people. This is the We app, which is a Chinese app, and he said that all of a sudden, without any warning, to his surprise, all of the content from his WeChat app had been deleted and it seems more likely than not that this is the work of the Chinese government, and — because they have the technical ability to do this and they regularly monitor online activities of people they consider to be a threat or they consider to be dissidents or anti-government.

[20]     And it goes on to say that with the rise of the internet, while the rise of the internet has created a non-traditional space for expression of political opinion in China, authorities have developed and applied increasingly sophisticated methods to limit online expressions of dissent. Chinese security apparatus invests heavily in monitoring controlling the internet with many foreign websites, including Facebook, Twitter, Google, and many foreign media sites blocked. Recent regulations have also cracked down on the use of virtual private networks, a means by which Chinese citizens and companies have gained access to banned sites by rooting their searches through a foreign server. And then it goes on to talk about, again, how powerful the security apparatus of the Chinese Communist Party is and how far it can extend. It goes on to say that the law states that the freedom of — freedom and privacy of correspondence of citizens are protected by law, but authorities often did not respect the privacy of citizens. In fact, the government passed new civil codes scheduled to enter into force on January 1st, 2021, that introduces articles on the right to privacy and personal information protection. Although the law requires warrants before officers can search premises, officials frequently ignore this requirement. The PSB, the Public Security Bureau, and prosecutors are authorized to issue search warrants on their own authority without judicial review. There continue to be reports of cases of forced entry by police officers.

[21]     And then finally, it says authorities monitored telephone calls, text messages, faxes, email, instant messaging and other digital communications intended to remain private. Authorities opened and censored domestic and international mail. Security services routinely monitored and entered residences and offices to gain access to computers, telephone, and fax machines. Foreign journalists leaving the country found some of their personal belongings searched, and in some cases, when material deemed politically sensitive was uncovered, the journalists had to sign a statement stating that they would voluntarily leave these documents in the country.

[22]     So, when you consider that the claimant has been engaged in these anti-government activities online, which are very heavily monitored by the Chinese government, I think that it is very highly likely that the government already knows about his activities here in Canada and they are keeping an eye on him and that if he goes back to the country, that it is very highly likely that he will be arrested and detained and interrogated and mistreated by the authorities because of his anti-government activities here in Canada, which he has been engaged in since 2015.

[23]     Now, the claimant has, in his testimony, often talked about the national security law and how he is against the national security law and how, essentially, it has unravelled the freedoms that used to exist in Hong Kong and has destroyed the democratic fabric which used to exist in Hong Kong when people could openly and freely express their opinions and views on any matter and the — there is a Human Rights Watch report that talks about the national security law and how it has changed the environment in Hong Kong. And it goes on to say Human Rights Watch highlights the criminalization of peaceful speech and activities under the national security law. [24]              The national security law punishes four types of activities; suasion, subversion, terrorism and collusion with foreign forces all carrying a maximum sentence of life in prison. Article 35 also states that anyone convicted of crimes under the law will be deprived of the right to run for public office for life. The definitions of these crimes are very broad and vague. Subversion, for example, criminalizes any act that seriously interferes, disrupts, or undermines the functioning of the Chinese of Hong Kong governments, a definition that can readily include peaceful protests. Both the crimes of suasion and subversion make criminal acts that do not involve force or threat or force, meaning that peaceful actions such as speeches, advocating, these ideas can violate the law.

[25]     Mainland authorities have long used these vague crimes against people in China for promoting human rights. For example, the late Nobel Peace Prizer — prize winner Liu Ziobo (ph) was sentenced to 11 years in prison for inciting subversion after he organized a joint letter calling for political reforms. The economist Ilham Toti (ph) has been imprisoned for life for separatism because he spoke out for the equal treatment of ethnic Uyghurs. On the basis of this objective country evidence, I find that the claimant’s profile as an anti-government and pro-democracy activist whose activities run counter to the interests of the Communist Party of China, means that he faces a serious possibility of being arrested, charged and detained under the national security law, should he return to Hong Kong, China.

[26]     I find that the national security law and its enforcement infringe the claimant’s human rights by criminalizing peaceful speech and activities and that his arrest, detention, and prosecution under the law would amount to persecution for his political opinions. The United States Department of State report reports numerous cases in 2019 of human rights activists charged with subversion of state power or incitement to subvert state power in the mainland China, receiving significant prison sentences. As the national security law entrenches upon the previous degree of autonomy, rule of law, and human rights enjoyed by Hong Kong in the past, I find that the claimant additionally faces a serious possibility of these types of abuses faced by human rights activists in mainland China.

[27]     Finally, with respect to the issues of state protection and internal flight, since the agent of persecution in this case very clearly is the state, I find that adequate state protection would not be reasonably forthcoming to the claimant in his particular circumstances.

[28]     Finally, I have also considered whether the claimant would have a viable internal flight alternative in any other part of China or Hong Kong. On the evidence before me and given that the agent of persecution is the state, it is the Chinese government, it is the Hong Kong government, and that the state has effective control over the entire territory, both mainland China and Hong Kong, I find that there is a serious possibility — the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution throughout China and Hong Kong.

[29]     For those reasons, I find the claimant does not have a realistic, attainable, or reasonable internal flight alternative anywhere in China.

[30]     In light of what I have said already, I conclude that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to s. 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and accordingly, I accept his claim.

[31]     I wanted to thank Madam Interpreter for her assistance. Thank you, everybody, for your participation in this hearing. This matter is now concluded.

——————–REASONS CONCLUDED ——————–

Categories
All Countries Sri Lanka

2021 RLLR 93

Citation: 2021 RLLR 93
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 25, 2021
Panel: Devin Macdonald
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Sarah L Boyd
Country: Sri Lanka
RPD Number: TC0-08453
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01778
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: The claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX alleges to be a citizen of Sri Lanka and claims protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The allegations are detailed in the claimant’s Basis of Claim narrative found at Exhibit 2 as well as the amended Basis of Claim narrative inform found at Exhibit 5. In essence, the claimant alleged that he faces a risk of detention and cruel treatment from Sri Lankan authorities due to his perceived support of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, LTTE. The Panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee under s. 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The Panel finds that the claimant has established his personal and national identity by way of the copy of his national identity card and birth certificate, seized by CBSA and copies are found in Exhibit 1. A colour copy of the national ID can also be found at Exhibit 4. The Panel also relies on the additional identity documents contained in Exhibit 7 provided by the claimant which includes the claimant’s family registration card and (inaudible) record sheet. The claimant’s testimony was consistent with regards to his personal details.

[2]       The claim alleged fears stem from the Sri Lankan authorities perception of him as a supporter of the LTTE group because he repaired of a figure of Tamil armed struggle and due to his profile as a young Tamil man. As such, the Panel finds that the claim has nexus to the Convention grounds political opinion, race and membership in a particular social group.

[3]       In assessing credibility, the Panel is mindful of the particular circumstances of the claimant that may impact his ability to give testimony. The claimant alleges that he suffered head injuries that impact his ability to immediately recall details, the claimant also provided reports for mental health professionals indicating that the claimant has been diagnosed with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX by family physician and that his symptoms results in emotional distress and difficulties in daily cognition such as concentration in memory. The Panel finds that the claimant is credible with respect to the core allegations of his claim, that he is a young Tamil man from the north, that he worked as a XXXX and then in that capacity he carried out repair XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX of a Tamil leader who engaged in arms struggle. As a result, the claimant was detained and mistreated by Sri Lankan authorities and the claimant made unsuccessful attempts to flee Sri Lanka.

[4]       In 2018, the claimant was targeted again after participating in ceremony commemorating the death of a local Tamil advocate. And later that year, he was attacked by a criminal organization and was subsequently arrested by authorities who accused him of being connected to the criminal organization and to the LTTE. The claimant did not provide any official documentation for operating his mistreatment from Sri Lankan authorities explaining that he did not receive any official documents and that one of the conditions of his release was that he would not seek out medical treatment. He provided a letter from his wife and father and brother and affidavits from his father and brother, corroborating the events in his narrative. The claimant also provided a letter from his former employer who corroborates the work that he did XXXX XXXX XXXX and that the claimant’s family informed the employer that the claimant had been detained. When the employer inquired why the claimant was not attending work, the employer also corroborates seeing the claim when he was released from detention and described his injuries. The Panel provided photographs of his injuries as well at Exhibit 7.

[5]       So the Panel finds that the statements from the claimant’s father, his brother and the former employee are probative in establishing the mistreatment that the claimant faced at the hands of Sri Lankan authorities. The claimant provided a letter from a relative whom he alleges that he hid with while arranging his exit from Sri Lanka. The letter is inconsistent the Basis of Claim narrative and as it indicates that the issues that forced the claimant into hiding stems from him fixing the statue to whereas the Basis of Claim indicates that the event that led to the claimant into hiding stemmed from his brother reporting a criminal group and then the police — and then the claimant facing harassment from Sri Lankan authorities. The Panel brought this inconsistency to the claimant’s detention and the cream claimant that he stayed at his relative’s house on more than one occasion and in submissions Counsel indicated that the event involving the statue could reasonably be interpreted as the reason why the claimant went into hiding because it was what initiated the claimant’s mistreatment from Sri Lankan authorities.

[6]       And in assessing the explanations, the claimant’s explanations results in a significant omission from the claimant Basis of Claim, that he hit with the relative on other occasions which the claimant did not mention in the Basis of Claim. And this suggests that a negative credit inference should be drawn. However, it’s mitigated by the documented memory problems of the claimant that developed after his head injury. The Panel also questioned the claimant whether Sri Lankan authorities came to look for him at his relatives home and the claimant indicated that they did not. The Panel brought to the claimant’s detention that the letter from his relative indicates that the Sri Lankan authorities did come to look for him when — and he was hiding in the attic. When that inconsistency was brought to the claimant’s detention, he explained maybe the army did come to look for him but he has no knowledge of that because no one told him and he spent his time in the attic. The Panel does not draw a negative inference from this inconsistency. The claimant previously testified about spending time in the attic and that his family began to arrange his exit from Sri Lanka after authorities look for him at his family home, whereas the letter indicates that his family began to our arrange his exit from Sri Lanka when authorities came to look for at his relative’s home.

[7]       So I find that the detail of whether the army looked for him at his relatives home or his family home or both, it’s a minor inconsistent detail of the consistent allegations that the claimant’s family arranged for him to leave the country because the authorities were seeking him out. The claimant’s knowledge of where they were seeking him out is second hand knowledge. So the Panel does not expect a high degree of certainty and can expect some inconsistencies to arise between the claimant’s account of events event and his relative’s account of events. Overall, I find that these inconsistencies presented in the relative’s letter do not and impugn the claimant’s credibility. The Panel questioned the claimant’s apparent ability to return to Sri Lanka twice without issue when he tried to flee the country in 2018. He alleged he was unable to complete his journey and the Panel asked the claimant about his failure to assert a claim for protection in Hong Kong or Singapore before returning to Sri Lanka.

[8]       Taking into account the claimant’s experiences and his mental state, the Panel does not draw negative inference from the claimant’s failure to claim in Hong Kong or Singapore. In the context of this claim, the claimant had recently faced mistreatment from Sri Lankan authorities and it’s reasonable that he would follow the instructions of his agents to return rather than to ask authorities who are unknown to him in Singapore or Hong Kong for aid. Moreover, given the country documentation regarding corruption in Sri Lanka at Exhibit 3 Item 7.6, it is not implausible that the claimant’s agent would be able to arrange for the claimant to return without issue from airport authorities once it was learned that the claimant would not be able to continue on his journey. Item 14.1 of Exhibit 3 speaks to mistreatment of Tamils that they face when returning to Sri Lanka. That document does not establish that Tamils returning to Sri Lanka from abroad are mistreated in all cases. So in assessing the claimant’s test and in view of the totality of the evidence, the Panel considers these inconsistencies and the evidence to be limited, mostly to these single letter found at Exhibit 7 from the claimant’s relative. And it does not impugn the claimant’s overall credibility.

[9]       Overall, the claimant’s testimony, it was fluid, unrehearsed and it contained spontaneous details tangential to the allegations and his Basis of Claim. The Panel accepts the claimant’s allegations and finds on a balance of probabilities that he is considered a person of interest to Sri Lankan authorities because of their perception of him as connected to the LTTE. As such, the Panel finds that the claimant has a subjective fear of return to Sri Lanka. The claimant’s subjective fear is based and grounded in the objective evidence, the objective evidence shows ongoing abuses against perceived supporters of the LTTE. Sources indicate that impunity for such abuses persist and that many persons who were alleged to have committed crimes, serious crimes against Tamil individuals are now in government positions. Suspected sympathizers of the LTTE are still subject to arbitrary arrest and there is ample evidence of Tamils being monitored abroad and being suspected of having links to the LTTE upon their return to Sri Lanka. Even returning Tamils who have a low profile and are only connected to the LTTE through a historical association such as the claimant have been targeted and Tamil returnees who claim refugee status abroad and returned to Sri Lanka are sometimes interrogated and detained at the airport. So I find that the claimant, if he were to return to Sri Lanka, he would continue to be suspected of having links to the LTTE because of his age, his ethnicity, his place of origins and his past detention. The Panel finds that the claimant has established that he would face a serious possibility of persecution based on his perceived support of the LTTE if he were to return to Sri Lanka, thus the claimant is well founded.

[10]     In terms of state protection, Amnesty International reports that Tamils continue to complain of ethnic profiling, surveillance and harassment by police who suspect them of having LTTE links, police continue to be accused of abusive practices against the Tamil population. Given this, I find that the claimant genuine in his ethnicity and his history and where he lives in the country would not have access to adequate state protection should he return to Sri Lanka? Moreover, the agents of persecution include the Sri Lankan army has a nationwide reach and which is in effect a state itself, I therefore find that the claimant would face a serious possibility of persecution throughout Sri Lanka. The objective evidence previously referred to shows that failed refugee claimants, especially Tamil men, face the possibility of interrogation upon return. So accordingly, I find that the claimant would not have a viable internal flight alternative if he were to return to Sri Lanka. And based on the above analysis, the Panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee under s. 96. The claim is accepted. That concludes the reasons.

——————–REASONS CONCLUDED ——————–

Categories
All Countries Yemen

2021 RLLR 92

Citation: 2021 RLLR 92
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 29, 2021
Panel: Deborah Coyne
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Joshua A Blum
Country: Yemen/United States
RPD Number: TC0-07977
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01778
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: These are the reasons for decision.

Introduction

[2]       These are the reasons for the decision in the claims of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the principal claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the associate claimant, who claim to be citizens of Yemen and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to s. 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[3]       These are also the reasons for the claim of the minor claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, who is a citizen of the United States of America.

[4]       The principal claimant was designated the representative for the minor child.

Allegations

[5]       The allegations are fully set out in the Basis of Claim forms. The principal claimant alleges that he and the associate claimants are citizens of Yemen who have lived most of their lives in Saudi Arabia with precarious foreign residency status. They have lost their right to residence in Saudi Arabia and are not at risk of deportation to Yemen. They fear for their lives if they have to return to Yemen because of their imputed political opinion as perceived supporters of the Saudis who are the enemies of the Houthis in Yemen.

[6]       The principal and associated claimants also have Turkish passports and identity cards. They claim, however, that the passports were improbably obtained by the principal claimant’s father through a bribe to a Turkish official. The claimants have never lived in Turkey or used the passports and have no desire to settler there.

[7]       The minor claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, did not submit any evidence of make any submission with respect to his country of citizenship in the United States. The Panel finds that the designated representative instructions in this regard were clear, voluntary, and informed.

[8]       So, the decision. It is a split decision. The Panel finds that the principal and the associate claimants are not Turkish citizens because their passports were obtained improperly. The Panel finds that the principal and associate claimants have established that they face a serious possibility of persecution because of their imputed political opinion if they return to Yemen and are Convention refugees pursuant to s. 96 of the IRPA.

[9]       Their claims are accepted.

[10]     The Panel finds that the minor claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX does not face a serious possibility of persecution or a danger of torture or a risk to his life or cruel or unusual treatment or punishment pursuant to s. 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, should he return to the United States, so his claim is denied.

Identity

[11]     The Panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the principal claimant and the associate claimant are citizens of Yemen based on the copies of their Yemeni passports in Exhibit 1. The Panel finds that the principal and the associate claimants are not citizens of Turkey based on the documents in Exhibit 7. The Panel finds that the minor child, XXXX, is a citizen of the United States of America based on the copy of his US passport in Exhibit 1.

Credibility

[12]     Based on the documents in the file and the testimony today, including the principal claimant’s detailed Basis of Claim narrative, the Panel finds there is no serious credibility issues. On a balance of probabilities, the Panel finds that the following allegations are true. The principal claimant was born in Yemen but moved to Saudi Arabia when his father found work there. The associate claimant was also born in Yemen. The principal claimant did his postsecondary study in Yemen and left just before the war broke out between the Saudis and Houthis. He returned to Saudi Arabia to work in the field of XXXX XXXX XXXX and married the associate claimant.

[13]     Saudi Arabia increased restrictions on resident sponsorships for foreigners like the principal and associate claimants, and they began exploring potentially leaving Yemen if they ever lost their right to residence in Saudi Arabia.

[14]     They obtained a US visa to go to the US to study English in 2019. The minor claimant was born in the US in XXXX 2019. They returned to Saudi Arabia, and the principal claimant became concerned of the possibility of losing his Saudi employment due to increasing Saudization of the workforce.

[15]     Around this time, the principal claimant’s father applied for Turkish citizenship for them through an investor program for the principal and associate claimants. They were issued Turkish passports in September 2019, valid until September 2029. The evidence in a legal opinion from a Turkish law firm in Exhibit 7 tab 1, in the father’s letters in Exhibit 6 tab 8 and Exhibit 7 tab 2 indicate that the father obtained passports for his son and daughter-in-law, improperly. He is currently selling the properties that he bought in breach of the minimum three-year investment requirement under the Turkish immigration provisions.

[16]     The claimants decided to flee to Canada, they tried a second time to obtain a Canadian TRV, but again, were refused. They then returned to the US on their US visa and immediately travelled overland to the Canadian border to claim refugee protection in XXXX 2020.

[17]     The Panel accepts the reasonable the claimant’s explanation for failing to claim asylum in the US for the particular circumstances of this claim in which the Panel finds that the claim raises no credibility concerns, and the claimants always intended to claim refugee protection in Canada and transited to Canada shortly after arriving in the US.

[18]     The Panel finds that the principal claimant’s evidence with respect to the fear of return to Yemen was internally consistent and plausible. There were no contradictions or omissions that go to the core of the claim. The Panel accepts the claimants are unable to return to Saudi Arabia and are at risk of deportation to Yemen. The Panel also accepts that the principal and associate claimants do not have any status in Turkey.

[19]     The allegations were supported by personal documents in Exhibit 6 and 7 that the Panel finds credible. For example, Exhibit 6 includes important identity documents and a letter from the principal claimant’s father explaining the Turkish passports. Exhibit 7 includes a termination of employment letter for the principal claimant’s Saudi employer, and a legal opinion regarding the improper acquisition of Turkish passports, and updated information from the father as he terminates his investments in Turkey.

[20]     The Panel accepts the evidence as establishing, on a balance of probabilities, the principal and the associate claimants’ subjective fear of persecution because of their imputed political opinion at the hands of Yemen authorities should they have to return to Yemen.

[21]     So, I now want to return to the objective basis. I will just quickly deal with Saudi Arabia. According to the objective documentary evidence for Saudi Arabia in Exhibit 3.2, the NDP package Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia does not grant citizenship to people in claimant’s circumstances and does not offer permanent residence status for foreigners. I am satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, the claimants had only temporary status in Saudi Arabia as long as the claimant was employed or his father included the claimant as part of his sponsorship arrangements.

[22]     Turning to Yemen, the objective documentary evidence indicates that Yemeni citizens, such as the claimants, who have been living in Saudi Arabia, are likely to be regarded with hostility and suspicion by the current governing forces in militias or pro-Houthi armed groups operating in Yemen, and other forces allied with the former Saleh government, and those opposing the Saudi-led coalition forces, which view Saudi Arabia as an opposing power in current conflict. This is especially true in Sana’a, where the claimants are from. Yemen is a site of an ongoing civil armed conflict involving Houthi rebels, primarily from the Northern region and forces loyal to the international recognized government.

[23]     The Panel has reviewed the totality of the documentary evidence in the Yemeni National Documentation Package and finds that those who are perceived as opponents of the current Houthi governing forces, including those perceived as supportive of the former regime and those aligned with Saudi Arabia, are at risk of violence from Houthi militias and other forces allied with the former Saleh government.

[24]     These risks include death, disappearance, detention, and kidnapping for ransom. UN group of experts documented the Houthis detaining anyone ‘engaged in activities perceived as opposed to or not endorsing their war effort.’ I can refer to item 2.1, the US Department of States Report which confirms the hostility, and civilian casualties, and damage to the infrastructure, and the dire humanitarian situation in Yemen. There is lots of information about the ongoing human rights issues in Yemen, beginning and throughout the DOS report.

[25]     If I look at item 2.4, which is the Human Rights Watch World Report on events of 2019. This is a quote ‘Houthi forces, the Yemeni government, the UAE, and different UA,’ just one second, this may not be the part that I want to include, no. I think I will just go back to the refer to the US DOS report, which points to unlawful or arbitrary killings, including political assassinations, forced disappearances, torture, arbitrary arrest, and detention, harsh and life-threatening prison conditions, political prisoners, arbitrary infringements on privacy rights, et cetera, et cetera. There is impunity for security officials, which remains a problem, in part, because the government exercises limited authority, in part, due to the lack of effective mechanisms to investigate and prosecute abuse and corruption. And non-state actors, including the Houthis, of course, commit significant abuses with impunity.

[26]     So, the Panel finds that the totality of the objective documentary evidence supports the conclusion that the claimants fear of returning to Yemen is well-founded and that they face a serious possibility of persecution including disappearance, arbitrary detention, torture, kidnapping for ransom, and death.

[27]     Turning briefly to state protection. The Panel finds that it would be unreasonable for the claimants to seek the protection of the state in the current circumstances. The central state of Yemen has either collapsed or lost control of large segments or territory, disregard for the rule of law is widespread, and impunity is pervasive throughout the country.

[28]     The internationally recognized government has been unable to secure the whole of the territory. Houthi rebels are reported to control most of the security apparatus and state institutions, and therefore, the Panel finds the claimants have rebutted the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence.

[29]     In turning to the internal flight alternative, the Panel also finds that the harm feared by the claimants are not restricted to any particular area of the country. The conflict exists throughout the country and the militias and Houthis and other armed groups are present throughout the country. Therefore, the claimants face a serious possibility of persecution throughout Yemen, and there is no viable internal flight alternative.

[30]     So, in conclusion, the Panel finds that the principal and associate claimants are not Turkish citizens, because their passports were obtained improperly. The Panel finds that the principal and the associate claimants have established that they face a serious possibility of persecution because of their imputed political opinion if they return to Yemen, and they are, therefore, Convention refugees pursuant to s.96 of IRPA. Their claims are accepted.

[31]     The Panel finds that minor claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, does not face a serious possibility of persecution or danger of torture or risk to his life or cruel or unusual treatment or punishment pursuant to s. 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act should he return to the United States, so his claim is denied.

[32]     So, thank you very much.

[33]     Okay, so thanks a lot and good luck.

——————–REASONS CONCLUDED ——————–

Categories
All Countries Venezuela

2021 RLLR 83

Citation: 2021 RLLR 83
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 13, 2021
Panel: Brittany Silvestri
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Vilma Filici
Country: Venezuela
RPD Number: TC1-10905
Associated RPD Number(s): TC1-10920
ATIP Number: A-2022-01778
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: This is the decision of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the principal claimant, and his wife XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the associate claimant, and their claims for refugee protection file numbers TC1-10905 and TC1-10920. The claimants are citizens of Venezuela and claiming refugee protection pursuant to Section 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, I will call this the IRPA.

[2]       The facts and events alleged in support of this claim are set out in the claimant’s respective Basis of Claim forms, BOC forms, found at Exhibit 2. In summary, the claimant’s fear of harm in Venezuela from the government (inaudible) due to their political opinion. This panel has determined that the claimants are Convention refugees pursuant to Section 96 of IRPA.

[3]       I find that the claims have a nexus to the Convention based on political opinion. I have analysed the claims under Section 96 of the IRPA. In making this assessment, the panel has considered all of the evidence including the oral testimonies and the documentary evidence. The claimant’s identities were established on a balance of probabilities by the certified true copies of their Venezuelan issued passports contained in Exhibit 1.

[4]       With regards to credibility, I find that the principal claimant testified in a straightforward fashion with regards to the central elements of his claim. The associate claimant agreed with her husband and spoke regarding details of her claim. The panel finds that the claimant’s overall testimony was credible.

[5]       The principal claimant described being persecuted in Venezuela due to his political opinion.  The claimant’s provided testimony regarding their activities with the opposition parties. Regarding Un Nuevo Tiempo and Voluntad Popular providing supporting documents including the proof of membership letters, membership cards, searchable QR membership codes and affidavits of those who they organized and protest with. I put full weight on these documents that corroborate the events and find that the profile of political opinion is established.

[6]       In July of 2019, the principal claimant was permanently removed from his job by order of Mayor Willy Casanova. He was removed without receipt of any payment of his social benefits for being an opponent of the government. He provided sworn declarations from two colleagues in support of the fact of the circumstances of the firing. The panel puts full weight on these documents and finds that the claimant was fired on account of his perceived opposition of the government.

[7]       The claimant testified how during the lead up of the December 6, 2020 parliamentary elections, the principal claimant and his wife shared the news that they should boycott. They spread the word that the abstention votes and a week before the elections, they were reported to the communal council. They were visited by several members of the Counsel led by Jennifer Goodoi (ph) who was the main coordinator of the PSUV in the Cristo Duranza (ph) parish, accompanied by the Yeanina Echevaria (ph) and Marisol Calvejar (ph). They were threatened by those female members in front of the home and they were threatened that the next time SEBIN would attend. They were told to leave and not return because traitors like them had to be jailed or eradicated.

[8]       On December 3, 2020, they bought air tickets to travel to Canada. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the earliest tickets they could secure were for XXXX XXXX 2020 leaving from Bogota, Colombia. On December 5, 2020, they bought a ticket from Rioja to Bogota leaving on XXXX XXXX 2020.

[9]       On Sunday, December 6, 2020, it was the day of the elections. There was a large abstention of the vote. The Sunday night of the election, the woman of the community council returned to the home. They threatened the claimants that they would be stripped of their home, deprived of their freedom. The panel finds that the claimants were credible in describing the ongoing threats against him and his wife by the community council who identified him as being in opposition to the current government.

[10]     At dawn on Monday, XXXX XXXX they paid a friend 500 US dollars to take them by highway to Colombia. The border was closed due to COVID-19. They left the country through back roads called las trochas where there is no immigration or security. These roads are very dangerous and frequented by Colombian guerilla, but they risked it to leave the country. They were alerted by friends in the early morning of XXXX XXXX 2020 that a black SEBIN van looked for them and that their house was raided. They provided an affidavit that corroborates this fact. I put full weight to this document.

[11]     They stayed in a hotel until their flight to Bogota arrived. On XXXX XXXX they travelled to Bogota where they stayed in a further hotel and then on XXXX 2020, they flew to Canada where they were met by family, specifically their daughter and her husband. On March 15, 2021, they were informed by a neighbour in Venezuela, XXXX XXXX (ph), that the community council who had visited before arrived with Colectivos, who were motorized and armed, and took possession of their home. They gave their home to a family from the community council. The claimants provided further documents corroborating these facts.

[12]     The panel accepts that the claimant and his wife have lost their family home, as was threatened by the communal council when they were identified in opposition of the government. The panel finds that the claimants face threats in Venezuela due to their political opinion, that these incidents did occur and on a balance of probabilities are likely to occur on a forward-looking basis. The panel finds that the claimants have established on a balance of probabilities a subjective fear in Venezuela.

[13]     On the matter of objective basis, the evidence before me on a balance of probabilities supports an objective basis for the claimant’s fear upon return to Venezuela. Country documents corroborate that the Venezuelan government targets those who are opposed to the Maduro regime.

[14]     The objective evidence at Item 1.6 of the National Documentation Package for Venezuela indicates that security forces in Venezuela have perpetrated a number of violent acts against demonstrators, actual or perceived opposition members and activists, elected officials and students and that Venezuelan authorities have implemented measures aimed at suppressing and punishing the expression of dissenting views. They’ve targeted victims by reason of their actual or perceived opposition to the government.

[15]     It is also noted at Item 2.13 of the NDP that people have been charged with vague and ambiguous criminal offences such as defamation, high treason and incitement to violence, which has resulted in the criminalization of public opinion and the criminalization of criticism and a violation of legal principles and standards. The documentary evidence at Item 2.13 also indicates persons are arbitrarily detained and held as political prisoners by the regime, including citizens from every walk of life who were exercising their fundamental right to peaceful protest and demanding respect for the rights protected by the constitution which were denied to them by the government of President Maduro.

[16]     This panel finds that the claimants have established an objective basis for their claims and that their fears are well-founded.

[17]     Regarding state protection, the United States Department of State report for 2020 indicates that there is a pervasive corruption and impunity among all security forces and in other national and state government officers in Venezuela, including at the highest levels.  It was noted that the government has taken no effective action to combat the impunity that’s prevalent in all levels of the civilian bureaucracy and the security forces.

[18]     Amnesty International report in 2020 indicates that most victims of human rights violations continue to Jack access to truth, justice, reparation and that the victims and their families were often subjected to intimidation. In this case, as the claimant’ s fears are of serious harm from the state including SEBIN and the Colectivos, based on the documentary evidence, this panel finds that on the balance of probabilities, the claimants would not be able to avail themselves of the protection of the authorities in Venezuela because adequate state protection would not be available to the claimant. The assumption that claimants would be able to receive adequate state protection in Venezuela from the state is contradicted by the country conditions evidence. The panel is satisfied that the claimants have rebutted the presumption of state protection.

[19]     The panel further finds that the claimant’ s fears is actually of serious harm at the hands of the state and the current actions taken by the state against political opposition is nationwide, as referenced in the evidence cited above, and therefore, there is no Internal Flight Alternative available throughout Venezuela for these claimants.

[20]     In conclusion, I find that the claimants have established serious possibility of persecution in Venezuela based on a Convention ground, namely the claimants’ political opinions. The claim for refugee protection is therefore accepted.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Categories
All Countries Ethiopia

2021 RLLR 82

Citation: 2021 RLLR 82
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 4, 2021
Panel: Erin Doucette
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Tshiombo Achille Kabongo
Country: Ethiopia
RPD Number: TC1-07766
Associated RPD Number(s): TC1-07767 / TC1-07768 / TC1-07769
ATIP Number: A-2022-01778
ATIP Pages: N/A

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

[1]       XXXX XXXX XXXX (principal claimant), his wife, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (associate claimant) and their children, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (female minor claimant), and XXXX XXXX XXXX (male minor claimant), claim to be citizens of Ethiopia and claim refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).[1]

[2]       Their claims for refugee protection were heard jointly, pursuant to Rule 55 of the Refugee Protection Division Rules (RPD Rules).[2] The minor claimants relied on the Basis of Claim (BOC) narrative of the principal claimant. The panel appointed the principal claimant as the minor claimants’ designated representative.

ALLEGATIONS

[3]       The details of the claimants’ allegations are fully set out in their BOC forms as amended.[3] To summarize, the principal claimant alleges a fear of persecution from the Ethiopian authorities based on his imputed anti-government political opinion and activity in support of the Raya ethnicity and because of his ethnicity as Tigrayan. The associate claimant and minor claimants allege a fear of persecution based on their membership in a particular social group as the family of the principal claimant. They allege that state protection is not available to them nor is there anywhere safe to relocate within Ethiopia.

DETERMINATION

[4]       The panel finds that the claimants are Convention refugees pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA. The claimants face a serious possibility of persecution based on the principal claimant’s imputed anti-government political opinion, activity, and Tigrayan ethnicity.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[5]       The personal identities of the claimants are established on a balance of probabilities by their Ethiopian passports.[4]

Credibility

[6]       A claimant’s sworn testimony is presumed truthful unless there are reasons to doubt the veracity of their allegations.[5]  The presumption of truthfulness is rebuttable and a claimant bears the burden of establishing their claim.[6] In assessing credibility, the panel is mindful of the many difficulties faced by the claimant in establishing a claim, including nervousness, cultural factors, and the setting of the virtual hearing room. The claimants relied on an Amharic interpreter during the hearing.

[7]       In assessing the principal and associate claimants’ testimony, the panel has taken into consideration the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX both dated October 3, 2021.[7] The respective assessment reports document self-reported sleep disruption and self-reported memory and concentration problems. The XXXX recommends that questions be posed to the claimants in a sensitive manner and that frequent breaks be provided. In light of the XXXX recommendations, the panel offered to repeat questions if required and encouraged the claimants to let the panel know if they required a break, so that breaks could be arranged as needed.

[8]       The principal claimant testified in a straightforward manner and there we no material inconsistencies or omissions between his testimony and the other documents in evidence that were not reasonably explained. Overall, the panel finds the claimants credibly established their allegations on a balance of probabilities.

Principal claimant credibly established profile as Tigrayan

[9]       The panel finds that the principal claimant has credibly established his ethnicity as Tigrayan as alleged.

[10]     A Tigrayan speaking interpreter was provided for the hearing, as this is the mother tongue of the principal claimant, and they did speak in Tigrayan on the recorded. However, the associate claimant, who is not Tigrayan, does not speak Tigrayan. It was determined that the mutual language of communication between the principal claimant and the associate claimant is Amharic, which the interpreter speaks as well. The hearing proceeded in Amharic; nevertheless, it was confirmed on the record that the principal claimant speaks Tigrayan.

[11]     The principal claimant has provided a copy of his kebele identification card which confirms his ethnicity as Tigray.[8] The panel finds that the principal claimant’s kebele is a reliable document in credibly establishing the claimant’s ethnicity as Tigrayan because its details and appearance are consistent with the objective documents regarding identity cards issued in Addis Ababa and as such the panel has no reason to doubt the genuineness of this document.[9]

[12]     The panel also gives weight to the affidavit from the principal claimant’s father and kebele from the principal claimant’s sister in credibly establishing his ethnicity as Tigrayan.[10] These documents confirm the ethnicity of the principal claimant’s father and sister as Tigrayan as well. These documents do not present credibility concerns, as such the panel finds them to be reliable and gives them weight in credibly establishing the principal claimant’s ethnicity as Tigrayan as alleged.

The principal claimant has credibly established his allegations of imputed anti-government political opinion

[13]     The panel finds on a balance of probabilities, that the principal claimant has credibly established imputed political opinion and activity perceived as anti-government which brought him to the attention of the Ethiopian authorities.

[14]     The claimant explained that he was employed with XXXX XXXX a government owned national XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. During work meetings management attempted to recruit employees to the Prosperity Party. The principal claimant explained that during these meetings he voiced his opposition to the Prosperity Party. He also testified that his manager and party members asked him on separate occasions to join the Prosperity Party and he refused.

[15]     The panel finds that the claimant did not embellish his testimony and was clear that although he held an anti-government opinion, he was not himself politically active other than belonging to a committee dedicated to supporting the Raya people.[11] He explained that his mother is of Raya ethnicity and his one brother still lives in the city of Alamata, in the Rayan area, which is not formally recognized by the government nor surrounding Tigray and Amara regions. He said that his committee activities came to the party recruiters’ attention, and they asked him to recruit people from his committee to the party, which he also refused to do. He also provided a letter of support form his friend and colleague who was aware of his committee activities.[12] He testified in a detailed and spontaneous manner about the committee and his activities and there were not material inconsistencies and omissions. Any concerns raised by the panel were reasonably explained by the principal claimant.

[16]     The panel finds on a balance of probabilities that the claimant has credibly established an imputed political opinion based on having voiced his opposition to the government of the day, the ruling Prosperity Party and for refusing to join and aid in recruiting people to the party.

The principal claimant has credibly established allegations of police persecution in Ethiopia

[17]     The panel finds that the principal claimant has credibly established his allegations of police persecution in Ethiopia because of his perceived political opinion. The claimant testified in a straightforward and genuine manner about his arrest and detention in Ethiopia from XXXX XXXX 2019. His testimony was consistent with his BOC. He testified that he was interrogated and beaten during his detention. He was never officially told why he was arrested or detained, but that during his interrogation comments were made about his anti-government political opinions. The panel accepts his testimony on a balance of probabilities as credible.

[18]     The principal claimant also provided documentary evidence to corroborate that he was arrested and detained and released on bail as alleged. He provided a letter from his sister and while the letter does not expressly say that she witnessed his arrest, the panel finds the claimant’s explanation for this clarification reasonable noting that they reside in the same home which has been credibly established by comparing the addresses on their respective kebeles which the panel finds genuine.[13] The details in his sister’s letter are consistent with the claimant’s evidence and BOC. The panel finds this document to be reliable in credibly establishing the claimant’s allegations of arrest and detention by the Ethiopian authorities and subsequent release on bail.

[19]     The letter from the principal claimant’s friend and former colleague, contained some material additions as compared to his BOC and BOC amendment.[14] Specifically, the principal claimant does not mention in either his BOC or BOC amendment the name of his friend or that this friend paid his bail, witnessed the state he was in when released and drove him home. The principal claimant acknowledged that he did not include this information and explained that he did not know he had to. The panel does not find this to be a reasonable explanation noting these details are material to his allegations, especially concerning the bail conditions under which he was released. Furthermore, the BOC instructions clearly state that the claimant is to provide such evidence that may support their claim. Rule 11 of the Refugee Protection Division Rules also applies to material aspects of the claim.[15] Nonetheless, the letter from his sister and the medical documentation, discussed below, remedy any credibility findings in relation to these omissions not reasonably explained.

[20]     The panel finds that the medical documentation provided corroborates the injuries the principal claimant alleges he sustained while being detained by Ethiopian authorities from XXXX XXXX 2019.[16] While the report does not indicate the accident or injury history, the objective medical findings are consistent with the injuries the principal claimant alleges he received at the hands of the Ethiopian authorities while being detained. The panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the medical report credibly establishes the principal claimant’s allegations of arrest, detention, and physical abuse by the Ethiopian authorities as alleged.

The principal claimant has credibly established his ability to leave Ethiopia after his arrest and detention while released on bail conditions

[21]     The panel finds on a balance of probabilities that the claimant has reasonably explained how he was able to leave Ethiopia by airplane despite having been arrested and released on bail conditions. He testified that he bribed a security agent with $50,000 Birr. The panel finds that, as an airline employee, the principal claimant, would on a balance of probabilities have knowledge of this as an option for airport exit. He explained that he asked around to learn that he could do this. Furthermore, the objective documents credibly establish that bail conditions do not necessary prevent someone from exiting Ethiopia by air.[17]

The principal claimant has credibly established his allegations of forward-facing persecution from the Ethiopian authorities

[22]     The principal claimant has credibly established a forward-facing fear or persecution from the Ethiopian authorities. He explained that one of his bail conditions was that on the first of every month of the Ethiopian calendar he was to report to the police station. Since he absconded and essentially reneged on his bail conditions the police have come to his home looking for him, questioning his family members, and have deposited summons notices.[18] The police notices are consistent with the information reported in the letter from the principal claimant’s sister and with the country documents specific to delivery methods and appearances of police summons.[19] The panel finds that the principal claimant has credibly established his allegations of forward-facing persecution from the Ethiopian authorities on a balance of probabilities.

[23]     In light of the foregoing, the principal claimant has credibly established his subjective fear as related to his imputed political opinion. He has also credibly established his profile as an ethnic Tigrayan.

Well-Founded Fear of Persecution

[24]     The panel finds that there is an objective basis for the claimants’ subjective fear. In making this finding the panel gives weight to the following:

[25]     While the US DOS report reflects some of the positive changes in the human rights climate in Ethiopia as a result of Prime Minister Abiy’s assumption of office, it also notes that as a result of a lack of institutional capacity, often the government was impotent in prosecuting officials who committed human rights abuses resulting in impunity.[20] However, more recently Amnesty International acknowledges that recurrent unrest and violence led to increased political polarization along ethnic lines, and largely prevented the realization of political and human rights reforms initiated in 2018.[21]

[26]     The security and human rights situation in Ethiopia deteriorated as Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed struggled to maintain order amid growing unrest and political tensions. The rights landscape was defined by ongoing abuses by government security forces, attacks on civilians by armed groups, deadly violence along communal and ethnic lines, and a political crisis.[22]

[27]     While the DFAT report notes that violence based on ethnicity is not common in Addis Ababa, where the claimants resided in Ethiopia before they left, it does note that anti-Tigrayan sentiment has become more overt since 2018 and hate speech against ordinary Tigrayans has increased in this time.[23]

[28]     More recent country condition updates; however, reflect the deteriorating conditions in Ethiopia, for Tigrayans throughout the country more broadly.[24] After the outbreak of the armed struggle between the Tigray region and the federal government in early November 2020, anti­ Tigrayan sentiments in Ethiopia increased. According to various sources, both confidential and open, there have been cases of ethnic profiling of people with a Tigrayan background even in Addis Ababa.[25]

[29]     Counsel provided updated and reliable country condition documents that are consistent with the objective documents with respect to risks to Tigrayans outside Tigray and specifically in Addis Ababa.[26]

[30]     With regards to actual or imputed political opinion, Abiy’s ruling Prosperity Party (a reconfiguration of the ethno-regional coalition that ruled Ethiopia since 199) has partly reverted to authoritarian tactics, jailing opposition leaders and limiting media freedom in the face of growing regional and intercommunal violence.[27]

[31]     A January 2020 revision of the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation (ATP) law improved upon the previous ATP, but has continued to draw criticism from many groups, including Amnesty. International, that it could be used against those critical of the government noting provisions that restrict rights to freedom of expression.[28]

[32]     Lastly, the US DOS report confirms torture and abuse of detainees, arbitrary arrests and deplorable detention center conditions consistent with the principal claimant’s allegations.[29]

[33]     In light of the foregoing, the panel finds that there is an objective basis for the principal claimant’s subjective fear. The principal claimant has credibly established a well-founded fear of persecution from the Ethiopian authorities based on his imputed political opinion. His forward­ facing risk is further augmented by his profile as an ethnic Tigrayan. The associate and minor claimants face a serious possibility of persecution in Ethiopia based on their membership in a particular social group as family members of the principal claimant.

State Protection

[34]     The claimants have rebutted the presumption of state protection. The panel finds that state protection would not be available to the claimants if they were to seek it in Ethiopia noting the state is an agent of persecution which the claimants have credibly established on a balance of probabilities.[30]

[35]     In coming to this finding, the panel notes the following country condition information related to state protection which confirm ethnic profiling of Tigrayans by police, that arbitrary arrests and detentions occur, and that due process rights and rights to a fair trial are not generally respected all of which are occurring in a rapidly devolving political climate heightened by increased ethnic tension and violence throughout Ethiopia.[31]

Internal Flight Alternative (IFA)

[36]     The panel considered whether a viable IFA exists for the claimants in Ethiopia. However, when considering the totality of their personal evidence and the objective documentary evidence, and the fact that they are from Addis Ababa, which until recently was considered low risk for ethnic violence, the panel finds that a viable IFA in Ethiopia does not exist for the claimants. Simply put, they face a serious possibility of persecution anywhere in Ethiopia based on the principal claimant’s imputed political opinion, the credibly established forward-facing risk of persecution from the Ethiopian authorities and the principal claimant’s profile as an ethnic Tigrayan.

CONCLUSION

[37]     Having considered the totality of the evidence, the panel finds that the claimants, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX are Convention refugees pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA.

[38]     Their claims are accepted.

(signed) Erin Doucette

November 4, 2021


[1] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), SC 2001, c 27, as amended.

[2] Refugee Protection Division Rules, SOR/2012-256, Rule 55.

[3] Exhibits 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, and Exhibit 9.

[4] Exhibit 1, Exhibit 5.

[5] Maldonado v. Canada (MEI) (1994), 23 1mm LR (2d) 220 (FCTD).

[6] Gill v. Canada (MCI), 2004 FC 1498, at para. 25.

[7] Exhibit 8.

[8] Exhibit 7, pgs. 26-27.

[9] Exhibit 3, NDP for Ethiopia (25 October 2021), Item 3.7.

[10] Exhibit 7, pgs. 13-14 and pgs. 29-30.

[11] Exhibit 7, pgs. 2-5.

[12] Exhibit 7, pgs. 16-19.

[13] Exhibit 7, pgs. 20-25, Supra notes 8 and 10.

[14] Supra note 10.

[15] Refugee Protection Division Rules (SOR/2012-256), Rule 11.

[16] Exhibit 7, pg. 1.

[17] Exhibit 3, NDP for Ethiopia (25 October 2021), Item 14.2 at pg. 2.

[18] Exhibit 7, pgs. 6-12.

[19] Supra note 13, pgs. 20-25, Exhibit 3, NDP for Ethiopia (25 October 2021), Item 10.2.

[20] Exhibit 3, NDP for Ethiopia (25 October 2021), Item 2.1 at pg.2.

[21] Exhibit 3, NDP for Ethiopia (25 October 2021), Item 2.2.

[22] Exhibit 3, NDP for Ethiopia (25 October 2021), Item 2.3.

[23] Exhibit 3, NDP for Ethiopia (25 October 2021), Item 1.5.

[24] Exhibit 3, NDP for Ethiopia (25 October 2021), Item 2.4 at pg. 18.

[25] Exhibit 3, NDP for Ethiopia (25 October 2021), Item 1.23 at pgs. 62-63.

[26] Exhibit 10.

[27] Exhibit 3, NDP for Ethiopia (25 October 2021), Item 2.4 at pg. 2.

[28] Supra notes 21 and 23.

[29] Exhibit 3, NDP for Ethiopia (25 October 2021), Item 2.1 at pgs. 4-5.

[30] See para. 22.

[31] Exhibit 3, NDP for Ethiopia (25 October 2021), Items 2.1, 2.3, 2.4.

Categories
All Countries Iran

2021 RLLR 78

Citation: 2021 RLLR 78
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 10, 2021
Panel: A. Green
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Matthew Moyal
Country: Iran
RPD Number: TB9-28949
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01778
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER:    I have considered the evidence before me and I am now ready to render a decision orally.  The claimant  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX seeks refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97.1 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[2]       The allegations on which the claimant relies can be found in his Basis of Claim form, Exhibit 2. I will not repeat all of the allegations here however the claimant is a 21-year-old man who was born in Iran on XXXX XXXX 2000. During his third year of high school the claimant met a girl of the Baha’i faith with whom he became friends. The claimant later learned that this girl had problems within her family, specifically her mother was deceased and her father was in prison and that she faced eviction because of her Baha’i faith. The claimant spoke to their local (inaudible) trying to find a resolution however he was accused of being impure and told that his relationship with this individual would cause problems for him.

[3]       The claimant subsequently spoke to his father who gave him permission for the girl to move into the family’s home in the basement or cellar. This caused immense problems for the claimant and his father. Amongst those problems his father was taken and arrested in 2018. The claimant was also taken and interrogated on more than one occasion. Both the claimant and his father received bail however they continued to have problems.

[4]       On XXXX XXXX 2018, the claimant traveled to Canada for studies but his family continued to have problems in Iran. After returning to Iran to support his father during his court case, the claimant was again taken by the intelligence service. He was interrogated and physically assaulted. He was asked about his time in Canada, his association with Baha’i and accused of spying. The claimant like his father was subsequently charged by the authorities with supporting and collaborating with the Baha’i cult with a view to promoting non-Islamic religion in the Islamic republic of Iran.

[5]       The claimant subsequently fled to Canada again on XXXX XXXX 2019 and since his return to Canada he has received a 20-year sentence in (inaudible). His father’s case is ongoing due to delays in that court case.

[6]       On the basis of your imputed political opinion I find that you face a serious possibility of persecution for a Convention ground pursuant to Section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. In terms of your identity I find that you are a national of Iran. This is established by your sworn testimony and the identity documents on file, in particular your passport.

[7]       I found the claimant to be a credible witness. His claim is well supported by numerous documents including the bail documents for him and his father, the summons for him and his father, the court order that he received with the 20-year sentence, and the letter from the lawyer who represented the claimant and his father in Iran. I have no reason to doubt the genuineness or trustworthiness of these documents. I find that the claimant has a subjective fear. He returned to Canada immediately after realizing that his life was at risk in Iran.

[8]       In terms of the objective basis for the claimant’s fear, item 2.1 of the National Documentation Package for Iran, Exhibit 3, indicates that the governments human rights record remained extremely poor and worsened in several key areas. There were reports of forced confessions often extracted through torture. There were significant human rights abuses otherwise. The government often charged citizens with vague crimes such as anti-revolutionary behaviour, corruption on earth, waging war against God and crimes against Islam. The law in Iran provides for prosecution of persons accused of instigating crimes against the state or national security or insulting Islam, and that is the situation in which the claimant found himself.

[9]       In terms of the situation of Baha’i, this is also well documented.

[10]     Item 2.1 indicates that such individuals were charged with spreading propaganda against the regime through the Baha’i faith. Persons of Baha’i origin face discrimination and persecution in that country. The Baha’i faith is not a recognized religion. The authorities believe that it contradicted the tenets of Islam and this explains the problem which the people of the Baha’i faith continue to face in that country.

[11]     Taken together I find that the claimant’s allegations that were put forth are objectively supported and I find that he does in fact face a serious possibility of persecution should he return to that country. In terms of whether he would have adequate state protection, given that the agent of persecution is the state, I find that adequate state protection would not be reasonably forthcoming. Therefore the claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection.

[12]     In terms of whether or not he would have a viable Internal Flight Alternative, item 1.7 of Exhibit 3 indicates that there is nationwide capacity of the centrally organized state security services which would make it difficult or unlikely for someone facing official attention to internally locate. So I find that you do not have a viable Internal Flight Alternative.

[13]     In conclusion then I find that you will face as I state, a serious possibility of persecution in Iran for which you do not have adequate state protection or a viable Internal Flight Alternative. I therefore declare you to be a Convention refugee and accept your claim.———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Categories
All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 215

Citation: 2019 RLLR 215
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 7, 2019
Panel: A. Rico
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Rebeka Lauks
Country: Turkey
RPD Number: TB8-27274
Associated RPD Number(s): TB8-27297, TB8-27337
ATIP Number: A-2020-00859
ATIP Pages: 000810-000814

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: This is the reasons for decision of the Refugee Protection Division in the claim protection filed by XXXX XXXX first name is spelled, XXXXX. last name is spelled, XXXX, XXXX first name is spelled, XXXX last name is spelled, XXXX and· first name is spelled, XXXX middle name is spelled XXXX last name is spelled XXXX, under Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[2]       The allegations are fully set out in the Basis of Claim Forms found at Exhibits 2, 3, and 4. In short, the claimants allege a fear of persecution at the hands of the Turkish Government because the principal claimant’s … because of the principal claimant’s real or perceived political opinion as a diplomat and person affiliated to the Hizmet/Gulen movement. Which led to his discharge under emergency decree from public service on allegations of terrorism.

[3]       For the following reasons I find that the adult claimants are Convention refugees. However, I also find that the minor claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

[4]       I am satisfied that the claimant’s … I’m satisfied of the claimant’s identities based on their certified true copies of their passports and I am satisfied that the adult claimants are citizens of Turkey and that the girl minor claimant is a citizen of Turkey and the United States. Evidence of which can be found at Exhibit 1.

[5]       I will assess the claim for the minor girl claimant against the United States first before assessing the adult claimant’s claim against Turkey.

[6]       The law states that if a claimant is a national of more than one country the claimant must show that he or she is a Convention refugee with respect to all such countries.

[7]       The girl minor claimant is a citizen of the United States of America as she was born in that country and has right of citizenship by virtue of her birth. She must show that she faces a serious possibility of persecution or, on a balance of probabilities, a danger of torture or a risk to her life or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment throughout the United States of America.

[8]       The principal claimant alleges that he believes that the minor claimant is in danger as he believes that the US has made a secret deal with a high profile US citizen when that person was released from prison in Turkey. He believes that the secret deal is that the US will return Turkish citizens of interest to Turkey. The principal claimant forms this belief based on his past work as a diplomat.

[9]       I find the principal claimant’s testimony to be completely speculative. The principal claimant has no direct knowledge as negotiations for release of a high profile US citizen. He was not present for the negotiations. He’s basing this belief primarily from his own fear of persecution in Turkey.

[10]     I note that the claimant’s counsel advanced no evidence of persecution in the US for the girl minor claimant. I further note that the claimant’s counsel advanced no evidence of an objective basis or well-foundedness of the claim against the United States for the girl minor claimant.

[11]     I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the principal claimant’s belief is not well-founded.

[12]     The US is a democratic country, the rule of law, and respect for basic human rights. There is no objective or concrete evidence beside the principal claimant’s belief that the US would extradite a minor, age approximately nine, to Turkey nor that Turkey would expel the resources required to extradite said minor who has very tenuous links to the Gulen movement.

[13]     While I find that it would be a hardship for the girl minor claimant to return to the United States on her own without her parents, I find that this hardship does not constitute persecution or a need for protection.

[14]     Neither the claimants nor their counsel presented any persuasive objective evidence that the girl minor claimant faced any risk in the United States. As such, the girl minor claimant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. I must reject her claim for refugee protection.

[15]     I now tum to assess the claims made by the adult claimants. I am satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimants have established their profile as persons who are or perceived to be members of the Hizmet/Gulen movement.

[16]     The claimants presented a wealth of documentation that the principal claimant … principal claimant is a … was a diplomat. That he applied to various courts to resolve the issue with the Turkish Government. That the Turkish Government’s belief in his involvement in the coup attempt is formed by his attendance at Hizmet affiliate education institutions and his previa work … previous work at the Evidence of which can be found at Exhibit 9.

[17]     Despite my concerns regarding the adult claimant’s delay in claiming in the United States and their abandonment of their claim in the United States, the adult claimant’s have still established, on a balance of probabilities, a profile which the documentary evidence cited below indicates that persons with this profile are persecuted by the Turkish State. As such, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimants have established their profiles. The adult claimants have established their profiles as persons affiliated to the Hizmet/Gulen movement and that these profiles place them at a serious risk of persecution if returned to Turkey.

[18]     The persecution of persons with a similar profile of the adult claimants is objectively well­ founded.

[19]     The information in the National Documentation Package found at Exhibit 5 confirms that in July 2016 there was an attempted coup against the Turkish Government. The government blames various sections of the Turkish society who are perceived to be part of the Hizmet/Gulen movement for this attempted coup, including but not limited to, persons associated with the Hizmet/Gulen institutions, persons employed at or studied at Hizmet affiliated educational institutions, public servants, the judiciary, government officials, military personnel, bilok(p) users, etcetera. Evidence of which can be found, as I state earlier, at Exhibit 5 Items 1.7, 2.1, and 2.5.

[20]     Counsel also submitted documentary evidence to support that diplomats who have an affiliation to the Hizmet/Gulen movement are persecuted in Turkey.

[21]     The government considers these persons to be terrorists, as it considers the Hizmet/Gulen movement to be part of a terrorist organization.

[22]     Under the guise of the emergency decrees and anti-terrorism laws, the Turkish Government subjects these persons to various human right violations including but not limited to arbitrary detention, torture, and extrajudicial killings.

[23]     Despite the public declaration of a repeal of the state of emergency, there is no persuasive evidence before me to indicate that there is a change in the treatment of persons who are or perceived to be part of the Hizmet/Gulen movement.

[24]     Therefore, based on this country documentary evidence and the credible allegations I find the adult claimants have a well-founded fear of persecution in Turkey by reason of the principal claimant’s real or perceived political opinion.

[25]     As the agent of persecution is the Government of Turkey I find that it would be objectively unreasonable for the adult claimants to seek protection of the Turkish Government.

[26]     I also find that the adult claimants face a serious possibility of persecution throughout Turkey, especially given the country documentation that indicates that the authorities operate similarly throughout Turkey. Therefore, viable internal flight alternatives are not available to the adult claimants.

[27]     I conclude that adult claimants are Convention refugees and I therefore accept their claim. However, based on the analysis outlined above I find that the minor girl claimant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection and I reject her claim for refugee protection.

[28]     We can pull the mics forward again.

[29]     This concludes today’s hearing. We will be going off the record.

—REASONSCONCLUDED–

Categories
All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 175

Citation: 2019 RLLR 175
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: June 20, 2019
Panel: Keith Brennenstuhl
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Ilwad Jama
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB7-20808
Associated RPD Number(s): TB7-20869, TB7-20889, TB7-20890, TB7-20920
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000588-000595

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

[1]     These are the reasons for the decision in the claims of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the “PC”), his wife, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and their three children, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (age 13), XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (age 17) and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (age 19), who claim to be citizens of Egypt, and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[2]     The PC was appointed the designated representative for his minor children.

[3]     The Minister intervened in the present case, raising the potential application of Article 1E of the Convention. The Minister submitted that the claimants were permanent residents of Italy and that the claimants were, therefore, excluded.

[4]     The application of Article 1E to this case was dealt with on a preliminary basis. I have determined below that Article 1E does not apply to the present case.

[5]     The claims have been decided without a hearing, according to the IRB’s Chairperson’s Instructions Governing the Streaming of Less Complex Claims at the Refugee Protection Division and paragraph 170(f) of the Act.

ARTICLE 1E

[6]     I will summarize the evidence material to the question of whether Article 1E is applicable in this instance. XXXX and XXXX claim to be Egyptian citizens who moved to Italy in 1996, and 1997, respectively, and lived in the country for over fifteen years. Their children were all born in Italy. XXXX and his family were granted permanent residence status in Italy in 2003, when they obtained “Carta di Soggiorno“.

[7]     XXXX and his family left Italy in 2012, to return to Egypt. Since XXXX and his family have not resided in Italy and have not resided in the EU, with the exception of XXXX who went there for a six-month visit.

Assessment of the Issue

[8]     Article 1E of the Refugee Convention reads:

This Convention shall not apply to a person who is recognized by the competent authorities of the country in which he has taken residence as having the rights and obligations which are attached to the possession of nationality in that country.

[9]     That article is reflected in section 98 of IRPA: “A person referred to in section E or F article 1 of the Refugee Convention is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection.”

[10]   In the Zeng decision, the Federal Court of Appeal set out the test to be applied in article 1E exclusions. The Court stated, “Considering all relevant factors to the date of the hearing, does the claimant have status, substantially similar to that of its nationals, in the third country? If the answer is yes, the claimant is excluded.”1

[11]   In the present case, the PC indicated that he and his family were granted permanent residence status in Italy in 2003, when they obtained Carta di Soggioro”. I accept the PC’s testimony that he and his family enjoyed rights in Italy as permanent residents that were substantially similar to those enjoyed by Italian nationals. Specifically, the PC testified that his children were able to go to school, that his family members had access to health care and other social services, the adults were able to seek and obtain employment, and the family had, demonstrably, been able to travel freely in and out of Italy, including to Egypt. These hallmarks of status substantially similar to nationals are directly in line with the four criteria outlined in the Federal Court’s decision of Shamlou,2 namely, the right to return to the country of residence, the right to work freely without restrictions, the right to study and full access to social services in the country of residence.

[12]   While it is clear that the claimants have long resided in Italy, and actually held and enjoyed status there substantially similar to Italian nationals, the question is whether on the date of the hearing, the claimants still held this status.

[13]   According to the Response to Information Request3 a permanent resident of Italy will lose his status in the following cases:

  • it has been acquired fraudulently;
  • the state has ordered an expulsion measure against an applicant;
  • the applicant no longer meets the requirements of the permit;
  • the applicant has been absent from EU territory for 12 consecutive months;
  • the applicant has acquired long-term resident status in another European Union member State”;
  • the applicant has been absent from Italy for more than 6 years.

[14]   Counsel for the claimants provided a legal opinion by Sara Riboldi,4 a lawyer who is a Member of the Ontario Bar and a member of the Italian Bar of Milan in Italy, with offices in Toronto and Milan. She regularly advises Italian government institutions on matters involving Italy and Canada and, on a regular basis, advises individuals on citizenship and immigration issues in relation to Italian law. I found her opinion to be clear and persuasive.

[15]   It is clear from the evidence that the claimants have been absent from EU territory for more than 12 months. Ms. Riboldi writes:

As explained above, subsection 7 of Article 9 of Law 286/1998 referred to provides revocation of a long-term residence permit on the grounds of the holder leaving the EU for the period of 12 consecutive months. Specifically, the Italian version of Law 286/1998 states that the Permit “è revocato in caso di assenza dal territorio dell’Unione per un period di dodici mesi consecutive” translated as “is” revoked if the holder leaves the EU for the period of 12 consecutive months. Therefore by operation of law the long-term permit is revoked when any conditions listed under Subsection 7 of the Law 286/ 1998 is found. Some police websites erroneously mention that the long-term permit “can” be revoked if someone leaves EU for more than 1 year. Please note that this is not the tenor of the law, which states that a Permit “is” revoked if the person leaves the EU for more than one year.

[16]   Ms. Riboldi continues:

If XXXX and his family were to return to Italy and truthfully disclose that they left the country in 2012 and did not return by the end of 2013, the Italian immigration authorities will immediately conduct an investigation, which will result in a legal decision concerning whether they have forsaken their long-term permanent resident status there. NP When faced with the prospect of revocation, the holder of the permit can argue that the period of 12 consecutive months did not run in his/her case because he/she encountered exceptional circumstances that did not allow him or her to return to the EU within the prescribed time. The burden of proof is on the holder of the permit to show the “exceptional circumstances”. To reverse the revocation of a long-term residence permit, he would need to prove the existence of grave circumstances that would justify setting aside the revocation set by the law of the permit. The only exceptional circumstances considered in Italian case law on whether the 12 consecutive months did not run in a specific case are military reasons or very serious health issues. It is my understanding that neither of these justifications prevented XXXX and his family from returning to live in Italy. NP In sum, it is clear that: 1) XXXX and his family will not be issued a re-entry visa because they are no longer entitled to their Carta di Soggiorno; 2) because they cannot obtain valid documents they will be unable tore-enter Italy; 3) and because they have not been living in in Italy since 2012 and were absent from the EU for a period longer than 12 months, starting from 2012, it will be determined that they have lost their long-term permanent resident status.

[17]   Returning to Zeng, “Considering all relevant factors to the date of the hearing, does the claimant have status, substantially similar to that of its nationals, in the third country? If the answer is yes, the claimant is excluded.” In this particular case the answer is clearly no. In my view, the claimants do not have status “substantially similar to nationals of Italy”. They no longer have the right to work freely without restrictions, the right to study and the right to access to social services and most importantly they have no right to return.

[18]   I conclude that Article 1E does not apply to the present case.

THE CLAIMS

Allegations

[19]   The allegations are fully set out in the narrative of the PC’s BOC as expanded on in the narrative of his eldest son’s BOC. In short, the PC was not reluctant to continue to express his support for President Morsi who was democratically elected but forced from office by the army and replaced by President Sisi. He would discuss his views with friends and family and post his views on social media. His home was raided by Internal Security who searched his home, took his laptop and forcibly removed him while blind-folded to an unknown location where he was roped to a chair, accused of being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, and aggressively interrogated until the following day. Two months later, he was summoned to the police station. He learned through his lawyer that the police had started an investigation against him based on a business competitor’s accusation that he was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and a supporter of Morsi. His lawyer advised him not to report to the police and leave the country.

Determination

[20]   For the following reasons, I find that the claimants are Convention refugees.

Analysis

Identity

[21]   Certified true copies of the claimants’ current Egyptian passports were included in the referral. This is sufficient to establish the claimants’ personal identities as nationals of Egypt.

Nexus

[22]   I find that a nexus to section 96 has been established by reason of political opinion in the case of the PC, and membership in a particular social group, namely, family members of a political dissident, in the case of the PC’s wife and children.

Credibility

[23]   Regarding the credibility of the claimants, I have reviewed the claimants’ BOCs, the claimants’ intake forms, the personal documentation provided in support of the claim, as well as their country condition documentation. I have also reviewed country condition documentation contained in the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt (June 29, 2018). The claimants’ evidence is not internally inconsistent, inherently implausible, or contradicted by documentary evidence. Furthermore, the allegations are corroborated by personal documents that I do not have sufficient reason to discount, including a Notice to Appear from Sharqia police to the PC, and a copy of a police complaint against the PC accusing him of being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Objective basis of future risk

[24]   Based on the credibility of the allegations and the documentary evidence, I find that claimants face a future risk of detention, physical abuse and torture at the hands of the Egyptian authorities owing to the PC’s support of Morsi and the perception that he is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

[25]   The documentary evidence5 before me on country conditions confirms that the government of Egypt severely represses and persecutes political opposition by means of arrest, long term detention, unfair mass trials, life sentencing and death sentencing, physical abuse, torture and disappearances. I am, therefore, satisfied that the claimants face a serious risk of serious human rights abuse by Egyptian security forces and the courts.

Nature of Harm

[26]   In my view, the harm the claimants face if they were to return to Egypt amounts to persecution.

State protection

[27]   As the agent of persecution is Egyptian governmental authorities, I find it would be objectively unreasonable for the claimants to seek the protection of the Egyptian government in light of the claimants’ particular circumstances.

Internal flight alternative

[28]   On the evidence before me, I find that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Egypt, given the objective evidence that the authorities operate similarly throughout the country. Therefore, viable internal flight alternatives are not available to these claimants.

CONCLUSION

[29]   Based on the analysis above, I conclude that the claimants are Convention refugees. Accordingly, I accept their claims.

(signed)      KEITH BRENNENSTUHL

June 20, 2019

Zeng, Guanqiu v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-275-09), Noël, Layden-Stevenson, Stratas, May 10, 2010, 2010 FCA 118. Reported: Zeng v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2011] 4 F.C.R. 3 (F.C.A.)

Shamlou, Pasha v. MCI (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-4967-94), Teitelbaum, November 15, 1995.  Reported: Shamlou v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1995), 32 Imm. L.R. (2d) 135 (F.C.T.D.).

3 Exhibit 15, National Documentation Package for Italy (May 31, 2018), Item 3.3.

4 Exhibit 16, Legal opinion of Sara Riboldi, dated September 19, 2018.

5 Exhibit 7, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt (June 29, 2018), Tabs 1, 2 & 4; Exhibits 10-12, Claimants’ country conditions packages.