Tag: Political Opinion

2020 RLLR 143

Citation: 2020 RLLR 143
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 2, 2020
Panel: Kerry Cundal
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Leonardo Jose Di Leone Velasquez
Country: Venezuela
RPD Number: VB9-08424
Associated RPD Number(s): VB9-08444, VB9-08453, VB9-08454
ATIP Number: A-2021-01106
ATIP Pages: 000169-000173

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claim of the principal claimant, [XXX] and his spouse, [XXX] as citizens of Venezuela and their two minor children, [XXX] and [XXX] as citizens of the United States of America (U.S.) who are claiming refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “Act“).^[1] The claimants’ identities have been established on a balance of probabilities by copies of their passports.^[2]

ALLEGATIONS

[2] The claimants fear return to Venezuela because they fear persecution due to their political opinion, namely their opposition and political activities, including supporting the Action Democracy opposition party against the regime. The claimants provided further details in their Basis of Claim (BOC) forms.^[3] The claimants provided corroborative documents including identity documents, membership in the Action Democracy political opposition party, letters of support and screenshots of social media posts against the current regime.^[4] The panel has reviewed and applied the Chairperson’s Guideline on Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution.^[5]

Determination

[3] The panel finds that the principal claimant and the associate claimant, his spouse, have established that they are Convention refugees pursuant to section 96 of the Act for the reasons that follow.

[4] The panel finds that the two minor associate claimants are neither Convention refugees pursuant to section 96 nor persons in need of protection pursuant to subsection 97(1) of the Act for the reasons that follow.

Credibility and Well-Founded Fear of Persecution

[5] The claimants testified in a straightforward and consistent manner, consistent with their BOC and supporting documents. The panel finds that the claimants are credible witnesses. The principal claimant and designated representative for his two minor children, the associate claimants, testified that they do not have any fears of return to the U.S. for their two American children. He confirmed that that they are citizens of the U.S. Accordingly, the panel finds that their claims fail under both section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Act.

[6] He testified that he fears that he will be imprisoned, beaten and killed because of his political opposition if he returns to Venezuela. The two adult claimants testified that they left Venezuela in 2004 due to the persecution and threats they suffered during the Chavez regime. They testified that they did not have citizenship, permanent residence and had never made an asylum claim in the U.S. The principal claimant testified that he was able to obtain renewable work permits during their time in the U.S. He testified that they never returned to Venezuela. The two adult claimants testified that they continue to be politically active through social media, helping with humanitarian aid for opposition in Venezuela and participating in protests against the Maduro regime in Miami where they were living. The female adult claimant testified that she also fears gender-based persecution including rape by security forces as she has seen media reports regarding female opposition members who have suffered this kind of persecution in Venezuela.

[7] The objective evidence supports the claimants’ fear of return to Venezuela because of their political opposition to the current government. The objective evidence indicates that ‘”civilian authorities’ control over the security forces declined and was deeply politicized.”^[6] There are no independent government institutions remaining today in Venezuela to act as a check on executive power and “a series of measures by the Maduro and Chávez governments stacked the courts with judges who make no pretense of independence. The government has been repressing dissent through often-violent crackdowns on street protests, jailing opponents, and prosecuting civilians in military courts. It has also stripped power from the opposition-led legislature.”^[7]

[8] Further, the objective evidence indicates that authorities persecuted political opposition in Venezuela:

The most significant human rights issues included extrajudicial killings by security forces, including government sponsored “colectivos”; torture by security forces; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; widespread arbitrary detentions; and political prisoners. The government unlawfully interfered with privacy rights, used military courts to try civilians, and ignored judicial orders to release prisoners. The government routinely blocked signals, interfered with the operations, or shut down privately owned television, radio, and other media outlets. The law criminalized criticism of the government, and the government threatened violence and detained journalists critical of the government, used violence to repress peaceful demonstrations…^[8]

[9] Based on the totality of the evidence, the panel finds that the claimants have established a nexus to political opinion and that they would face a serious possibility of persecution because of their political opposition against the current regime.

State Protection and Internal Flight Alternative

[10] Given that the state is the agent of harm, the panel finds that there is no state protection available to the claimants. Further, given the state’s capacity and ongoing interest in arbitrarily detaining and abusing citizens who oppose the government, the panel finds that the claimants would face a serious possibility of persecution throughout Venezuela and it is not objectively reasonable in all of the circumstances including their particular circumstances to relocate anywhere in Venezuela. Accordingly, the panel finds that there is no internal flight alternative available to the claimants.

CONCLUSION

[11] For the forgoing reasons, the panel finds that the principal claimant and the associate claimant, his spouse, have established that they are Convention refugees pursuant to section 96 of the Act and the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada therefore accepts their claims.

[12] For the forgoing reasons, the panel finds that the two minor associate claimants are neither Convention refugees pursuant to section 96 nor persons in need of protection pursuant to subsection 97(1) of the Act and the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada therefore rejects their claims.

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

^[2] Exhibit 1.

^[3] Exhibit 2.

^[4] Exhibit 4.

^[5] Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution, Ottawa, Canada, March 1993, updated November 1996.

^[6]Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP), Venezuela, September 30, 2020, Item 2.1.

^[7] Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.3.

^[8] Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.1.

All Countries Venezuela

2020 RLLR 140

Citation: 2020 RLLR 140
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 14, 2020
Panel: Kari Schroeder
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Leonardo Jose Di Leone Velasquez
Country: Venezuela
RPD Number: VB9-03821
Associated RPD Number(s): VB9-03830, VB9-03834
ATIP Number: A-2021-01106
ATIP Pages: 000154-000157

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division in the claims [XXX] as the principal claimant, [XXX] as the associate claimant, and [XXX] as the minor claimant, as citizens of Venezuela who are claiming refugee protection pursuant to Section 96 and Subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Allegations

[2] The following is a brief synopsis of the allegations put forward by the claimants. The principal claimant worked for the [XXX] for 13 years. He is opposed to President Maduro’s government and fears persecution because of his political views. The claimant does not support any particular political party but has attended several street rallies and protests. While employed with the [XXX] the claimant heard about minor incidents of corruption and reported them to his superior. However, in his last year of working with the company, the claimant noticed some incidents of corruption that involved millions of dollars. He and two other [XXX] worked to expose this corruption in [XXX] of 2018 after the claimant no longer worked there. While the claimant was in the United States, he learned that the [XXX] were arrested, the claimant inquired with a lawyer and after confirming there were no charges against him, returned to Venezuela in [XXX] of 2018.

[3] The claimant became politically active again upon his return, he began receiving threatening phone calls in [XXX] of 2019, in [XXX] his son was threatened and fled the country. The claimant continued to receive calls in which he was accused of consp-, conspiring against the state and hindering business deals with the [XXX]. The claimants left Venezuela on [XXX] of 2019, they did not claim protection in the United States. They learned that a group of soldiers had visited their home on [XXX], 2019 and confiscated the claimants’ computers. The claimants fear that if they return to Venezuela, they will experience detention, further intimidation, or be killed.

Determination

[4] I find that the claimants are Convention refugees pursuant to Section 97 of the Act for the reasons that follow.

ANALYSIS

[5] The claimants’ identities have been established today through certified copies of their passports on file and I am satisfied that they are both and as well as the minor claimant, nationals of Venezuela. In terms of credibility, there is a presumption of truth applied to all claimants, unless there is a reason to doubt their allegations. Today, both claimants testified and they were credible and straightforward witnesses, they offered canor-, candid and spontaneous testimony and did not embellish, even when given the opportunity to do so. There were no material contradictions between your testimony and the Basis of Claim forms that would cause me to doubt their allegations.

[6] The principal claimant testified that he noticed, starting in 2014, that some purchases for the contract of services with [XXX] were taking place in a very irregular manner, outside of Venezuela laws. The claimant testified that this generated some very intense discussions with his boss, who did not respond positively. The claimant refused to approve these processes and so his boss delegated that responsibility to someone else. As the claimant rose in the company, he had access to more and more information. He testified that starting in 2017, he was involved in some very large purchases and noticed that the company was purchasing extremely expensive equipment from out of the country, which in the claimant’s view was unnecessary. He filed a complaint, along with two other employees, [XXX] named [XXX] and [XXX], to the Prevention and Control of Losses in mid-2017. He hoped that this would prompt an investigation and an audit, he met directly with that manager and was hoping that some action would be taken, however, nothing was done. The claimant decided to leave the [XXX] in [XXX] of 2017 because of political pressure and because he had angered some higher up people. He clarified that at that time he had become more politically active, participating in more demonstrations as well as volunteering and coordinating logistics, to ensure people’s presence at demonstrations. He also distributed water and food and would assist people who were injured, the claimant believes that this made him more visible. The claimant testified that he supported all opposition parties, although he did some volunteer work for the Democratic Action Party. After the claimant left the company at the beginning of [XXX] of 2018, the claimant met with the two other [XXX] and gave them some of the additional information he had, to add to their complaint, he then left for the United States to visit his brother. That was when he learned about the detention of [XXX] and that [XXX] had fled the country to avoid detention. The claimant spoke to a lawyer and returned in [XXX] 2018 once he felt it was safe. In [XXX] 2019, the claimant testified that he began to receive threatening phones from the Colectivos.

[7] The claimant believes that when the armed soldiers visited his home in 2019 that they were searching for some sort of further information about the complaints they had made. When I asked the claimant, what had prompted him to ramp up his political activity in 2017, he testified that through his position with [XXX] he was watching money being given freely to other countries. While people in his country were starving and being denied access to basic services, such as water and healthcare. The claimant spoke of his country as being in the clutches of a dictatorship and a criminal organization, he described Juan Guaidó as the only constitutionally legitimate president.

[8] I also questioned the associate claimant today and she testified that she would accompany her husband in all demonstrations that was also not affiliated with any particular party. The claimant testified that she has never been directly threatened herself but that her children were. She described how at the end of [XXX] of 2019 when the Colectivo-, Colectivos called they threatened their son directly. They knew information about their son, including his routine and his place of study, they then threatened to kill him and he had to leave the country. The associate claimant testified that she participated in approximately 50 to 60 protests, beginning around 2014, she continued her participation, even when her husband was in the United States for several months. And so, I accept that her political opinions exist separate and apart from the principal claimant. She described the regime as malignant, the claimant also believes that their lives would be in danger if they were to return. Finally, the principal claimant testified that his former colleague [XXX] is still in detention to this day.

[9] I have documentary evidence to corroborate the claim, including an activism certificate from the Democratic Action Party. As well as of-, as a copy of the complaint that the principal claimant made to the prevention and control of lasses. I have several letters corroborating events which took place in Venezuela before the claimants left. Based on the totality of the evidence, I accept that both claimants are opposed to the regime and have expressed anti-government political opinions, both through street protest and in the case of the principal claimant through anti-corruption complaints. Given that the claimants’ house was raided, I also find that the minor claimant has established a subjective fear of returning despite her young age. I find there is a Nexus between the claimants’ allegations on the Convention ground of political opinion. The duty of this Panel is, therefore, to determine whether the claimants’ fears are well-founded, having accepted the claimants’ allegations, I turn to the evidence on the treatment of political opponents in Venezuela.

[10] The objective evidence before me corroborates the claim, on [XXX] of last year, the government organized snap Presidential elections that were neither free nor fair. Nicolás Maduro was re-elected through this deeply flawed political process, which much of the opposition boycotted and the international community condemned, and this can be found at Document 2.1 of the National Documentation Package. The evidence also confirms that several thousand people have been detained in connection with antigovernment demonstrations in Venezuela. The government routinely detains political opponents, including lesser-known activists or people whom the government believes have links to the political opposition. The government has issued an indefinite ban on all protests.

[11] According to a report by Freedom House, also in the NDP, Venezuela is one of two countries in the Western hemisphere along with Cuba to be rated as not free by Freedom House. Political prisoners are subject to torture and other human rights abuses. There is pervasive corruption and impunity among all security forces and in government offices. Several hundred people have been killed or harmed in protests. Non-governmental organizations also publish reports that authorities generally mistreat, abuse, and threaten to kill detainees. Civilian political prisoners were routinely held in military prisons, those found guilty of insulting the President are subject to lengthy prison terms in abhorred conditions. Opponents of the government are frequently harassed and intimidated by the National Guard, the Savane, and members of the Colectivos, family members of political opponents are also targeted.

[12] Therefore, based on the totality of the evidence before me, I find that the claimants have established through sufficient reliable evidence that they face a serious possibility of persecution if they return to Venezuela because of their opposition to the current government and the evidence establishing that political opponents are persecuted. Further, given that the State is the agent of harm in this case, l find that there is no operationally effective state protection available to the claimants. I also find that there are no internal flight alternatives available to the claimants in their particular circumstances because opponents of the government face a risk of persecution throughout the country. I, therefore, find that the claimants face a serious possibility of persecution in Venezuela, no matter where they live.

CONCLUSION

[13] I find that the claimants are Convention refugees pursuant to the Act and the Board, therefore, accepts their claims, today.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

All Countries Venezuela

2020 RLLR 139

Citation: 2020 RLLR 139
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 28, 2020
Panel: Persia Sayyari
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Molly Joeck
Country: Venezuela
RPD Number: VB9-01283
Associated RPD Number(s): VB9-01290, VB9-01293, VB9-01294, VB9-01295
ATIP Number: A-2021-01106
ATIP Pages: 000141-000153

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

[1] This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division in the claims of Rayner Enrique [XXX] (the principal claimant); his spouse, [XXX] (the associate claimant), and their minor children, [XXX] and [XXX] (the minor claimants).

[2] I have appointed [XXX] as the designated representative for his minor children, [XXX]and[XXX].

[3] The principal claimant claims to be a citizen of Venezuela.

[4] The associate claimant and the minor children all claim to be dual nationals of Venezuela and Colombia.

[5] All of the claimants are seeking refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).^[1]

DETERMINATION

[6] I find that [XXX] is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of IRPA as he has established a serious possibility of persecution in Venezuela due to his political opinion.

[7] I find that [XXX] and [XXX] are not Convention refugees under section 96 nor persons in need of protection under section 97(1) of IRPA because although they have established a serious possibility of persecution in Venezuela due to their political opinion, they have not established a claim against Colombia, where they hold nationality.

ALLEGATIONS

[8] The claimants’ allegations were set out in their Basis of Claim forms^[2] and oral testimony. To summarize, the claimants fear persecution from Venezuelan authorities due to their political opinion.

[9] All of the claimants were born in Venezuela and are citizens of Venezuela. The associate claimant and the minor claimants also obtained Colombian citizenship through the Colombian consulate while living in Venezuela. They held a right to Colombian citizenship because the associate claimant’s parents were dual nationals of Venezuela and Colombia.

[10] In 2005, the associate claimant founded a [XXX] and became its president. From 2007 onwards, the principal claimant also worked there as the company’s [XXX] and [XXX]. The company distributed [XXX] for the [XXX] Venezuelan companies [XXX] and [XXX].

[11] Since 2012, the adult claimants have been active members and supporters of Primero Justicia, an opposition political party in Venezuela. In [XXX] 2017, the adult claimants attended a large protest against the decision of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice to dissolve the opposition led National Assembly. The next day, a plain-clothes police officer named [XXX] overhead the principal claimant discussing the protest with a customer in his store. He subsequently returned with 12 officers, arrested the principal claimant, and seized the store’s merchandise.

[12] Police interrogated the principal claimant about his participation in the protest. They released him after he agreed to pay a bribe of $[XXX] worth of [XXX]. In [XXX] and [XXX] 2017, COBIS twice returned to the claimants’ store demanding bribes. The second time, the principal claimant refused and filed a complaint about COBIS with the Attorney General’s Office.

[13] The claimants started having technical problems with an [XXX] which they used to do business with [XXX] The principal claimant made inquiries and the president of [XXX] told him their access was intentionally suspended because the principal claimant had been identified by COBIS as a government opponent.

[14] In [XXX] 2018, COBIS and four other men stopped all of the claimants in a parking lot when they were leaving a restaurant. COBIS told the principal claimant he was an “enemy of the homeland” who needed to be careful. The principal claimant filed another complaint about COBIS with the Attorney General’s Office.

[15] On [XXX] 2018, the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service (SEBIN) summoned the principal claimant to an interview, claiming they wanted to gather more information about his two complaints against COBIS. A SEBIN officer asked the principal claimant about his travel history and business activities and accused him of being an American spy. He gave the principal claimant a summons for a second interview about “crimes against public order and against the nation’s independence and security.”^[3] The claimants fled Venezuela on [XXX] 2018.

Identity

[16] The claimants’ identities have been established on a balance of probabilities by copies of their Venezuelan passports.^[4]

Credibility

[17] I find the claimants to be credible. They provided straightforward and spontaneous testimony. There were no relevant inconsistencies within their testimony or between their testimony and the documentary evidence before me. The claimants also provided a number of documents to support their claim, including:

The two complaints made by the principal claimant to the Attorney General’s Office in [XXX] 2017 and [XXX] 2018;
Invoices related to the claimants’ business activities with [XXX];
The two summons from SEBIN issued to the principal claimant;
The adult claimants’ Primero Justicia membership cards.

[18] These documents were consistent with the claimants’ allegations and I have no reason to doubt their authenticity. I thus accept the claimants’ evidence as credible and I believe their allegations.

Countries of Reference: Principal Claimant

[19] I find on a balance of probabilities that the principal claimant is a national of only Venezuela and that he does not have a right to citizenship in Colombia.

[20] The principal applicant is married to a Colombian citizen and is the father of three children with Colombian citizenship. He does not currently hold any type of visa or residency permit in Colombia. He testified that when he inquired with officials at the Colombian consulate in Venezuela about how he could obtain residency or citizenship through his family relationships, he was told the process was discretionary and his chances would be “better as an investor.”

[21] The principal claimant’s testimony accords with country condition evidence indicating that the process for him to obtain citizenship in Colombia is discretionary. The National Documentation Package (NDP) for Colombia outlines the steps for him to obtain Colombian citizenship. First, he must apply for a temporary three-year visa. The authorities who process applications for those visas retain discretion to require an interview and additional documentation before granting applications. Second, if he is successful in obtaining a temporary three-year visa, he would become permitted to apply for a five-year resident visa. Third, if he was successful in obtaining the five-year resident visa, he would become permitted to apply for Colombian citizenship.^[5]

[22] Given this evidence, I find on a balance of probabilities that the principal applicant does not have a right to citizenship in Columbia because the right is not automatic under the law.

Countries of Reference: Associate Claimants

[23] According to sections 96 and 97 of IRPA, a claimant must establish his or her claim against each country of nationality. The claimants indicated on their Basis of Claim forms and narratives that all of the associate claimants are dual nationals of Colombia and Venezuela. They confirmed this in their oral testimony. I find on a balance of probabilities that the associate claimants are dual nationals of Colombia and Venezuela and must therefore establish their claims against both countries.

The Claim Against Venezuela

Well-Founded Fear Of Persecution

[24] The claimants have established a well-founded fear of persecution in Venezuela.

[25] The adult claimants are members of Primerico Justicia, an opposition party, and have demonstrated their opposition to the Venezuelan government by attending public protests. They are known to be politically opposed to the Venezuelan government by members of the police force, by the president of a [XXX] company, and by the SEBIN. Immediately before the claimants fled Venezuela, the SEBIN demonstrated an intention to investigate the principal claimant for “crimes against public order and against the nation’s independence and security.”^[6] SEBIN chose to investigate the principal claimant after he complained about extortion against the [XXX] of which the associate claimant is the president. The adult claimants testified that this investigation shows that Venezuelan authorities have singled them out for political persecution and that their entire family is now at risk.

[26] Country condition evidence corroborates the claimants’ testimony. According to a report by Human Rights Watch, massive demonstrations against President Nicolas Maduro took place in 2017, fueled by discontent with his authoritarian practices and frustration over Venezuela’s humanitarian crisis.^[7] The government responded with “widespread and systematic use of excessive force and arbitrary detentions against demonstrators,” as well as “patterns of other human rights violations, including violent house raids, torture and ill-treatment of those detained in connection with the protests.”^[8]

[27] The crackdown subsequently extended beyond the protests. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has reported “since the end of July 2017, security forces, notably the intelligence services, have continued to use arbitrary and unlawful detentions as one of the main tools to intimidate and repress the political opposition or any person perceived as a threat to the [g]overnment for expressing dissent or discontent.”^[9] Security forces including the SEBIN “have subjected detainees to ill-treatment and torture such as electric shocks, severe beatings, rape, suffocation with plastic bags and chemicals, mock executions and water deprivation.”^[10] According to a research report prepared by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, sources report that “supporters of the government see Justice First as a “right-wing group” or “coup-mongers” and an “enemy of the government.”^[11]

[28] I note that the OHCHR has documented cases of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees’ families and the detention of children.^[12] This corroborates the adult claimants’ testimony that their entire family could face persecution if returned to Venezuela.

[29] I find the evidence before me is adequate to establish that the principal claimant became a target for investigation by SEBIN due to his political opposition to the Venezuelan government and that all of the claimants now have a well-founded fear of politically-motivated persecution from Venezuelan authorities due to their political opinion.

State Protection

[30] I find that state protection would not be reasonably forthcoming to the claimants in this case.

[31] A claimant is required to approach the state for protection if protection might reasonably be forthcoming. However, a claimant is not required to risk their life seeking ineffective protection of a state, merely to demonstrate that ineffectiveness. The jurisprudence indicates that the test for a finding of state protection is whether the protection is adequate. It is not enough for there to be existing relevant legislative or procedural framework for protection if the police or other authorities are not able or willing to effectively implement those protective provisions.

[32] In this case, when the principal claimant attempted to approach the Attorney General’s office for protection from a police officer who was extorting him, it resulted in SEBIN opening an investigation against the principal claimant for crimes against the state. He received no meaningful protection from the Attorney General’s office.

[33] Country condition evidence indicates that although arbitrary detention and mistreatment of political dissidents is not legal in Venezuela, this behaviour has been condoned by the state and the state has blocked efforts to hold perpetrators accountable for it. According to the

OHCHR, efforts made by the Attorney General’s Office to identify state agents who had perpetuated human rights abuses were blocked by Venezuelan security forces – “particularly the Bolivarian National Guard.”^[13] The OHCHR identified instances where evidence about abuses disappeared from case files and cases where security forces allegedly responsible for killing demonstrators were released despite judicial detention orders. The “OHCHR received information on only one case where investigations had led to the opening of the trial of the alleged perpetrators.”^[14]

[34] Given that the state is the agent of harm in this case and the country condition evidence indicates that state authorities are unwilling to protect the claimants, I find that state protection would not be reasonably forthcoming for them.

Internal Flight Alternative

[35] I find there is no viable internal flight alternative for the claimants. Venezuelan authorities including the police and the SEBIN are the agents of harm. Venezuela has effective control over the entirety of its own state and there is no evidence before me to suggest that their desire or ability to persecute the claimants would vary from region to region. As such, I find the claimants face a serious possibility of persecution throughout Venezuela.

The Claim Against Colombia

Risk of Harm

[36] I do not find that the associate claimant or the minor claimants face a well-founded fear of persecution or a risk to their lives, a risk of cruel and unusual punishment, or a risk of torture in Colombia.

[37] At the hearing, the associate claimant testified she did not wish to return to Colombia because she does not know anybody there and would have difficulty financially supporting herself and her children. She also testified that Venezuelans living in Colombia face discrimination in housing and employment, and she would be readily identifiable as Venezuelan by her accent.

[38] News articles submitted by the claimants indicate that thousands of Venezuelans have fled their country for Colombia in recent months, with approximately 800,000 Venezuelan migrants (both documented and irregular) currently living there.^[15] Some Colombians have expressed xenophobia towards Venezuelans that includes verbal and physical violence, the refusal to rent Venezuelans property, and the refusal to employ Venezuelans.^[16] Colombian officials, including the president of Colombia, have denounced xenophobia against Venezuelans and called for tolerance,^[17] and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has launched a campaign in Colombia to generate empathy towards Venezuelan migrants.^[18]

[39] Counsel submitted there is a serious possibility that xenophobic discrimination would interfere with the associate claimant’s right to obtain housing and employment in Colombia. Counsel pointed out that these rights are listed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and that board members should consider such international instruments when assessing persecution.

[40] To be considered persecution, mistreatment must be sufficiently serious. To determine whether mistreatment qualifies as “serious”, I must examine: 1) what interest of the claimant might be harmed; and b) to what extent the subsistence, enjoyment, expression or exercise of that interest might be compromised. While the experiences of persons with similar profiles must be considered in determining whether ill-treatment is systemic, each case must be determined on its own facts.

[41] I agree with counsel that the right to work and the right to housing are important interests and that in certain cases, inference with those rights can constitute persecution. However, I do not find the evidence adequate to establish that the associate claimants or the minor claimants would face a serious possibility of persecution in Colombia for the following reasons.

[42] In the present case, neither the principal claimant nor the associate claimant indicated that they feared persecution in Colombia while preparing their Basis of Claim forms. To the contrary, they explicitly said in their narrative that they decided not to move to Colombia because they feared the principal claimant might be deported from there to Venezuela. According to their narrative,

While we were considering ways to leave Venezuela, we considered whether Colombia might be an option. […] We didn’t want to take the chance of applying for a residency permit [for the principal claimant] and waiting for months only to find out it had been refused. […] In the meantime, our lives would be in danger in Venezuela. We needed to go somewhere where we knew we would be safe, and protected against removal to Venezuela. It was clear that that [sic] this would not be the case for [the principal claimant] in Colombia, and [our] family was not willing to be separated.^[19]

[43] I sympathise with the claimants’ reluctance to go to Colombia when it was uncertain whether the principal claimant would be able to obtain legal residency there. Given that they have a well-founded fear of persecution in Venezuela, it is reasonable that they would choose not to live in Colombia to avoid the possibility of the principal claimant being deported back to Venezuela. However, there is nothing in the claimants’ narrative to indicate that they ever feared persecution within Colombia.

[44] I have also considered the associate claimant’s personal circumstances. The associate claimant holds a [XXX] in [XXX] and successfully established a [XXX] business in Venezuela. According to the claimants’ Basis of Claim narrative, this business “thrived” until the [XXX] field became subject to a state monopoly in Venezuela.^[20] Although the associate claimant and her children could be identified as Venezuelans by their accents, they also hold the benefit of Colombian citizenship. If returned to Colombia, they would not be crossing the Venezuelan land border with many irregular migrants seeking amnesty, shelter and employment while lacking citizenship status in Colombia. Although they may face xenophobic discrimination, I do not find that their ability to find housing or work would be compromised to a level that rises to persecution.

[45] For these reasons, I find the evidence insufficient to demonstrate that the associate claimant or the minor claimants would face a serious possibility of persecution in Colombia.

CONCLUSION

[46] I find that [XXX] is a Convention refugee and I accept his claim.

[47] I find that [XXX] and [XXX] are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection and I reject their claims.

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

^[2] Exhibits 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5.

^[3] Exhibit 4, page 88.

^[4] Exhibit 1.

^[5] Exhibit 5, National Documentation Package, Colombia, 31 May 2019, tab 3. 7: Requirements and procedures for a person born in another country to Colombian parents to acquire citizenship; requirements and procedures for the spouse and child of a citizen to obtain permanent residency; rights and social benefits available … Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 9 July 2014. COL104916.E.

^[6] Exhibit 4, page 88.

^[7] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Venezuela, 30 August 2019, tab 2.10: Crackdown on Dissent: Brutality, Torture, and Political Persecution in Venezuela. Human Rights Watch; Foro Penal. 29 November 2017.

^[8] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Venezuela, 30 August 2019, tab 2.10: Crackdown on Dissent: Brutality, Torture, and Political Persecution in Venezuela. Human Rights Watch; Foro Penal. 29 November 2017.

^[9] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Venezuela, 30 August 2019, tab 2.9: Human rights violations in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela: a downward spiral with no end in sight. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. June 2018.

^[10] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Venezuela, 30 August 2019, tab 2.9: Human rights violations in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela: a downward spiral with no end in sight. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. June 2018.

^[11] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Venezuela, 30 August 2019, tab 4.4: Information on the political party Justice First (Primero Justicia), including membership procedures, structure and leadership at the national level and in Maracaibo (2014-May 2016). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 11 May 2016. VEN105518.E.

^[12] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Venezuela, 30 August 2019, tab 2.9: Human rights violations in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela: a downward spiral with no end in sight. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. June 2018.

^[13] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Venezuela, 30 August 2019, tab 2.9: Human rights violations in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela: a downward spiral with no end in sight. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. June 2018.

^[14] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Venezuela, 30 August 2019, tab 2.9: Human rights violations in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela: a downward spiral with no end in sight. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. June 2018.

^[15] Exhibit 4, page 147.

^[16] Exhibit 4, page 149.

^[17] Exhibit 4, page 150.

^[18] Exhibit 4, page 144.

^[19] Exhibit 2.1.

^[20] Exhibit 2.1.

All Countries Iraq

2020 RLLR 138

Citation: 2020 RLLR 138
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: September 14, 2020
Panel: Roderick Flynn
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Ronald Yacoub
Country: Iraq
RPD Number: TB9-32420
Associated RPD Number(s):
ATIP Number: A-2021-01106
ATIP Pages: 000138-000140

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: This is a decision in the refugee claim of [XXX]. The file number in this matter is TB9-32420. [XXX], you are claiming to be a citizen of Iraq and you are claiming refugee protection pursuant to Section 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[2] Based upon the totality of the oral and documentary evidence provided at the hearing, and before the hearing, I find you to be a Convention refugee pursuant to Section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for reason of your imputed political opinion. And so, imputed political opinion is just a fancy way of saying what others think you believe. It’s not necessarily what you do believe. But I accept your evidence as credible that others, including the militias that you said have threatened you, believe that you support Jewish influence and foreign influence in Iraq. That’s what I mean by imputed political opinion, it’s not what you actually believe but what others think you believe.

[3] So, just to review the allegations, you described that in [XXX] 2019 in an outdoor festival in Babel, a discussion between you and your daughter was overheard. You innocently talked about the history of the – a mosque close to your home. Including the fact that it had originally been settled by Jewish people. When your remarks were overheard, they were misinterpreted including by the sister of a prominent leader of the Militia Group, AAH. When you described that the large mosque near your home had originally been settled on land owned by Jews, she and others loudly denounced you and she said under sharia law people who supp – such as yourself should be liquidated. You allege that if you return to Iraq, there’s a strong likelihood you will be harmed or killed by militia members who both believe strictly in sharia law and dealing with violence of people – with people who dissent from those beliefs. You testified there’s no state protection for you and no viable internal flight alternative.

[4] Your identity as a citizen of Iraq has been established by your testimony and your passport which have been filed as exhibits at the hearing. I find on a balance of probabilities that identity and country of reference in Iraq have been established.

[5] I find, also, that there’s a nexus between your fear of persecution in Iraq and the political belief that you support Israel and Jewish and foreign influence in Iraq. This political belief has been mistakenly but (unintelligible) described to you by members of AAH. Therefore, I’ve assessed your claim under Section 96 of the IRPA.

[6] In terms of credibility, I find you to be a very credible and consistent witness. I believe what you’ve – you’ve told me in your Basis of Claim and your oral testimony. That you have been targeted by extremist militias who somehow believe that you support Jewish influence and foreign influence in Iraq. I accept your evidence that your innocent remarks about the history of a local masque have been misinterpreted as some sort of political statement. Particularly, I accept your account that a week after the – the remarks, the local mo – mayor and a militia leader attended your home demanding that you visit the local militia headquarters to discuss your comments. Indicating that, as a widow who is now [XXX] you wanted your son to attend the meeting with you, you successfully asked for a deferral for 30 hours. You immediately took steps to leave your home. First staying with your son’s friend before taking a flight arranged for you to Canada by your son, in Ottawa. You credibly outlined that if you return to Iraq you face a possibility of being harmed or killed. Not only for being identified as a supporter or foreign interests but for – for disrespecting the militia, AAH, by failing to show up for the meeting.

[7] You’ve provided extensive documentation in support of your claim, including multiple identity documents, confirmation of your husband’s untimely death and statements for – from your son. You’ve also provided country documents showing the influence of militias in Iraq and how dissenters and other activists are dealt with by militias in Iraq. Based upon the evidence provided, I find that your subjective fear of persecution is established by your credible testimony and supporting documents.

[8] The objective evidence from the NDP for Iraq shows that individuals who are perceived as deviating from religious and political norms are targets for violence. Particularly, women and widows are identified as being vulnerable. Item 5.3 of the NDP states, and I quote “Widows or divorced women can face discrimination or violence on the streets targeted by anti-women death squads who target women they believe to be acting contrary to Islam.” Based upon the objective documentation in the NDP, as well as your credible evidence, I’m satisfied your fear of persecution is well founded and that you would face violence at the hands of militias if you were to return. Accordingly, I find that you have established a well founded fear of persecution in Iraq on the grounds of your imputed political belief.

State Protection

[9] The obj – objective documentation from Iraq indicates widespread violence in various areas of Iraq with little reliable state protection available. The security – the NDP also supports your oral evidence that protection from authorities in Iraq is complicated by the fact that a number of militias have been recruited to be part of the government apparatus. Given the widespread incidence of violence in Iraq and the objective documentation confirming limited protection and resources for people like you who need help, I find that the presumption of state protection is rebutted in this case and that there will be no adequate state protection available to you if you were to return.

[10] I’ve also considered whether there is viable state – internal flight alternatives for you if you were to return. You are a widow currently in your [XXX]. You have credibly testified that realistically, there is nowhere else for you to live on your own in Iraq and to be away from harm. Particularly as you testified you had no male sponsor at the time you lived in Iraq. As 5.3 of the NDP points out, women are restricted in their movement and choice of where to live under the personal status law. Based upon your credible evidence provided, including the fact that the conditions described in the objective documentation seemed to prevail throughout the Country, and specific to your circumstances that the options for widows and single women are limited in Iraq, I’m satisfied there is a serious possibility of persecution for you throughout Iraq and therefore you have no viable internal flight alternative.

[11] So, based upon the totality of evidence before me, I conclude that you face a serious possibility of persecution on the grounds of imputed political opinion in Iraq and therefore I find you to be a Convention refugee pursuant to Section 96 of the IRPA. In short, I accept your claim.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

All Countries Turkey

2020 RLLR 127

Citation: 2020 RLLR 127
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 16, 2020
Panel: Josée Bouchard
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Rebeka Lauks
Country: Turkey
RPD Number: TB8-30121
Associated RPD Number(s):
ATIP Number: A-2021-01106
ATIP Pages: 000071-000076

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: This is the decision for following Claimant, [XXX], File Number TB8-30121. You are claiming to be a citizen of Turkey and are claiming refuge protection pursuant to section 96 and 97 (1) one of the Immigration and Refuge Protection Act. I have considered your testimony and the other evidence in the case. And I am ready to render my decision orally. I find that you have established a serious possibility of persecution in Turkey by virtue of your imputed political opinion and your membership in a particular social group namely because of your familiar relationship to your father. The specifics of your claim are said out in the narrative of your Basis of Claim Form filed as Exhibit 2. The following is a summary your allegations.

[2] You are a citizen of Turkey. You fear persecution at the hands of Turkish authorities and members of the Justice and Development Party or AKP… AKP. Because of your imputed political opinion as a former [XXX] who is perceived to be a member or supporter of Gulenist Movement and oppose to the government and AKP… AKP. You also allege a fear of persecution at the hands of Turkish Authorities and Members of the AKP because of your membership with the particular social group namely your familiar relationship to your father who is under investigation for his imputed membership in the Gulenist Movement. You allege that there is no state protection for you or an Internal Flight Alternative. Your personal identity as a citizen of Turkey has been established by your testimony and the supporting documents filed as Exhibit 1, namely your passport issued by the government of Turkey and your Turkish Identity Card. I find that on the balance of probabilities, identity and country of reference have been established. I find that there is a link between what you fear in one of grounds under section 96 of the Immigration and Refuge Protection Act, namely political opinion and membership in a particular social group. Therefore, I assessed your claim under section 96 of that act. The test under section 96, is whether there is a serious possibility of persecution should you return to Turkey and I have found that you have met that test.

[3] In terms of your general credibility, I found you to be a credible witness and I therefore believe what you have alleged in your total… oral testimony in your Basis of Claim Form. Your evidence was detailed and consistent both internally and with your documentation. Throughout the hearing you were articulate, responsive and forthright. You are able to elaborate on your narrative and gave detailed explanations to the questions. Your claim was well supported and I know that no material inconsistencies or omissions searched at presumption of truthfulness could be rebutted.

[4] Specifically you have established on a balance of probabilities of following. In [XXX] 2012, you joined Turkish Armed Forces as a [XXX]. You were also chosen to attend in [XXX] 2016, training at the [XXX] (phonetics) second main [XXX]. You filed documents in support of this claim. You heard about the July 15, 2016 coup attempt which according to the authorities, more specifically the Justice And Development Party or AKP was conducted by the Gulenist Movement. You heard about the attempt that day while visiting your parents. Your [XXX] ordered you to return to the [XXX] which you did that day. You were ordered to stay at the [XXX] until [XXX] 2016. On July 31, 2016, Decree 669 ordered the closer of ail military schools and aca… academies. All cadets of military academies and military high schools including [XXX] were dismissed from the military. You filed excerpts of Decree 669 in support of your claim. The stated aim of the decree was to take the necessary measures to fight against terrorism. The AKP in power during attempted coup blamed the Gulenist Movement and labelled it a terrorist movement. You justified that the dismissed [XXX] were perceived as affiliated to a terrorist organisation the Gulenist Movement. Decree 669 provided that senior [XXX] up to graduate would still receive Diplomas from different Universities.

[5] You received your Diploma from [XXX] University in [XXX]. The Diploma states that it is issued pursuant to Decree 669. You filed the Diploma as an exhibit. You believe that, this confirms that you have been a permanently blacklisted by the regime as a terrorist. You had several former [XXX] classmates who have had to flee Turkey and become refugees elsewhere who have been killed by lynching and who have been sentenced to life imprison for their imputed affiliation with the Gulenist Movement. In [XXX] 2017, you filed a petition to the Ankara 6th administrative court to get reinstated into the military. You filed as an exhibit the decision of the court rejecting your petition. On [XXX] 2018, the police raided the house of your closest friend and former [XXX] classmate. He had to flee to Germany, where he is now a refugee. That is when you realize that you would also be targeted. On [XXX] 2018, arrest warrants were released for 120 [XXX]. You hid until you had the means to leave for Canada on [XXX] 2018.

[6] In [XXX] 2020, your uncle and father informed you that there is a warrant for your arrest. Your father tried to get further information about the charges, but was not provided with such information. You filed statements from your uncle and father and supported this claim along with an official document informing your father that the charges against you are confidential, but providing a file number for the case against you.

[7] Before the coup attempt, your father was a [XXX] in the General Directorate of [XXX]. He was dismissed on [XXX] 2017 by decree 679. He later learned that… that he was named as Gulenist Movement follower. Your father filed a petition to the Ankara 16th administrative court to be reinstated into the [XXX]. You filed as an exhibit the decision of the Ankara 16th administrative court, rejecting your father’s petition. You filed the decision of the Ankara 25th administrative court supporting your claim that there is an on-going investigation into your father’s imputed involvement with the Gulenist Movement. You testified that one of your former [XXX] classmates was arrested just last week by the Turkish authorities.

[8] You also produced a significant amount of documentation in support of your claim. These documents include the following filed as Exhibit 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3, your [XXX] identification card supporting the claim that you were a [XXX] in the [XXX]. The authorities in Turkey announced that 95 percent of [XXX] were followers of the Gulenist Movement. Your [XXX] and [XXX] indicating that they were issued in accordance with decree 669. Your Turkish [XXX] student vacation document confirming that you stayed at the [XXX] (phonetics) second main [XXX] for two weeks following the coup attempt.

[9] Record document from the Ankara 16th administrative court, supporting the claim that your father petitioned to reverse your dismissal as a [XXX]. A letter of support from a close friend and former [XXX] supporting the claim that he was targeted by the authorities and is now a refugee in Germany. It also supports that the claim that some of your former [XXX] colleagues were sentenced to life imprisonment after the coup attempt.

[10] Letters from your and uncles supporting the claim that in [XXX] 2020, the authorities approached your uncle looking for you and told your uncle that there was an arrest warrant against you. A petition made by your father in [XXX] 2020, requesting to know the crime for which you are sought by police, the authorities released the number of the case against you, but no further information. Documents supporting your claim that your father was [XXX] with the General Directorate of [XXX] that he was suspended after the attempted coup and eventually dismissed. A decision from the 25th administrative court of Ankara from the summer of 2020 supporting a claim that there is an on-going investigation against your father. There is no reason for me to cast any doubt on the voracity of these documents and as such, I pla… place great weight on these documents to support the allegation and overall claim.

[11] I find that your subjective fear is established by your credible testimony and I believe what you have alleged on a balance of probabilities. The objective country reports are consistent with your evidence about the plight of former [XXX] who are imputed to be followers of the Gulenist Movement. The National Documentation package for Turkey dated March 31st, 2020 at exhibit 3 item 1.7 states that the Gulenist Movement is a term used to describe those who follow the US based Islamic Cleric Fethullah Gulen. The movement is not a political party neither is it a religion. The Gulenist Movement is believed to have a large number of sympathizers in Turkey, some estimate the number to be in millions.

[12] In May 2016, the Turkish government declared that the Gulenist Movement was an illegal terrorist organisation and in June 2017, the Supreme Court appeal ruled that the Gulenist Movement is an armed terrorist organisation. The coup attempt of the 15th July, 2016 was attributed by the Turkish Government to members of Gulenist Movement. A state of emergency was put in place in Turkey a few days after the coup. And this has been renewed since then. By September 2017, 21 emergency decrees had been issued and the scope of the emergency law had been broadened to include those who belong to, connect to or have contact with the Gulenist Movement. One of the emergency decrees provided that, officials involving… involved in putting down the coup, tackling-related threats and implementing state of emergency measures would not face prosecution. Since the 2016 coup attempt, authorities have dismissed or suspended more than 45,000 police and military personnel, and more than 130,000 civil servants, dismissed one-third of the judiciary, arrested or imprisoned more than 80,000 citizens and closed more than 1,500 non-governmental organisations on terrorism-related grounds primarily for alleged ties to the movement of cleric Fethullah Gulen whom the government accuses of masterminding the coup attempt and designated by the government as the leader of the Fethullah terrorist organisation.

[13] Exhibit 3, item 8.7 states that in the period between the unsuccessful coup in 2016 and March 2017, the Turkish government fired more than 22,000 sol… officers, soldiers, and cadets for alleged links with the Gulen Movement. In March 2017, the then Turkish Minister for National Defense announced that those fired consisted of 6,511 officers and 16,409 soldiers and military cadets. The latter group consisted of 4090 cadets at military colleges, 6,148 training centres for non-commissioned officers including privates and corporals and 6,179 at University Military Training Institutions.

[14] In January 2019, the Turkish authorities reported that at least 58 Generals and 629 Senior Officers have been sentenced to life imprisonment for involvement in the failed coup and for links with the Gulenist Movement. In January 2019, the Turkish authority also arrested 63 people on charges of involvement with the Gulenist Movement including 46 helicopter pilots in active service. Earlier that month, more than 100 soldiers and former cadets at Military Training Institutions were arrested throughout Turkey.

[15] The claimant filed at Exhibits 5.1 and 5.2, several recent articles about the continued persecution of former military cadets. For instance in September 2017, internet news reported that arrest warrants have been released for 69 former cadets. In November 2017, Turkish media Memurlar reported that 30 cadets were among the 240 taken into custody. In December 2017, Memurlar reported that dismissed cadets were among 62 suspects taken into custody. In March 2018, the Turkish states news agency Anadolu agency reported that former cadets were among the 19 suspects arrested in Manisa and Usak. In March 2018, Anadolu reported that among 35 suspects apprehended for their imputed support of the Gulenist Movement were dismissed soldiers and military school students. In March 2018, The World Bulletin reported among 20 suspects arrested in the northern Kastamonu province were on duty soldiers and former cadets. In June 2018, a pro-Turkish news agency The Daily Sabah, reported that former military cadets were among the 102 suspects for which arrests warrants were issued. On July 3rd, 2018, Anadolu reported that a dismiss cadet was among the 13 suspects arrested in Eastern Turkey.

[16] You feel being targeted by the Turkish authorities for imputed political opinion, but also for your relationship with your father who is targeted for his imputed membership into the Gulenist Movement.

[17] The NDP or National Documentation Package for Turkey and Exhibit 3 at item 2.1 provides a basis for that fear. United States Department of State report notes that family members of targeted individuals are also at risk of persecution. It states that, using anti-terror legislation, the government targeted family members to exert pressure on wanted suspects. Government measures included cancelling the passports of family members of civil servants suspended or dismissed from state institutions as well as those who had fled authorities.

[18] Exhibit 3 item 13.6, the United Kingdom’s Home Office reports that members of families of people who are critical of the government will be targeted. If the police cannot find the person they are looking for, they will take another family member. This was very common during the emergency. Families were threatened by phone and their houses were raided. A report of the Asylum Research Consultancy found at Exhibit 3 item 1.4 also notes following his visit to Turkey in September 2016, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights found that a series of measures of particular concern to the commissioner are those which target directly or are liable to affect family members of suspects in an automatic fashion.

[19] In addition to the evictions termination of lease agreement and freezing up assets of the said suspects, which are likely to create unnecessary hardship and victimisation for family members. The commissioner notes other measures of an administrative nature such as a possibility of annulling passports of spouses of suspects who are themselves not under investigation and the unlimited access by administrative authorities to the personal data of family members of suspects. This approach raises extremely serious concerns. The commissioner is worried that such measures will inevitably fuel the impression of guilt by association already voiced by many of their interlocutors. In the opinion of the commissioner, any measure treating family members of a suspect also as potential suspect should not exist in democratic society even during a state of emergency.

[20] As you have established, your subjective fear and an objective basis for that fear, I find you will have established of well-founded fear of persecution.

[21] I turn now to state protection. When making a refugee claim, the claimant must establish on a balance of probabilities that adequate state protection is not available. There is a presumption that state protection is available and the onus is on the claimant to provide and clear and convincing evidence to be part of such… such protection.

[22] In this case, the agent of persecution is the state that is the persecution you would face should you return to Turkey as at the hand of authorities. This is supported in part by the investigation conducted by the authorities against the claimant’s father for his imputed political opinion as a supporter of the Gulenist Movement and also the evidence said that there is an arrest warrant against you for your imputed political opinion as a supporter of the Gulenist Movement. The country condition documents outlined in this decision also support the claim that the authorities are the perpetrators and persecutors of those involved or perceived to be involved in the Gulenist Movement.

[23] Accordingly, I find that there is no state protection available for you. I have also considered whether a viable Internal Flight Alternative exists for you, the agent of persecution is the Turkish government. The evidence reviewed above confirms that oppressive treatment of those suspected of supporting the Gulen Movement is nationwide. I find that there is a serious possibility of persecution for you throughout tricky and therefore find that there is no viable Internal Flight Alternative.

[24] In conclusion, based on the totality of the evidence, I find you to be a convention refugee because you have demonstrated a serious possibility of persecution in Turkey by virtue of your imputed political opinion and membership in a particular social group, namely your familial relationship with your father who is imputed to be a supporter of the Gulenist Movement. I accept your claim.

[25] CLAIMANT: Thank you very much.

[26] COUNSEL: Thank you Madam Member.

[27] MEMBER: Welcome to Canada.

[28] CLAIMANT: Thank you so much.

[29] MEMBER: Thank you very much for your detailed testimony. (voice overlapping). Thank you Mr. Interpreter for coming at the last minute and doing such a good job on the interpretation.

[30] INTERPRETER: Thank you Madam.

[31] MEMBER: And thank you Counsel, this was a very well documented file. And 1. 1 thank you for your work.

[32] COUNSEL: Thank you.

[33] MEMBER: And this concludes our hearing.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

All Countries Sri Lanka

2020 RLLR 126

Citation: 2020 RLLR 126
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 30, 2020
Panel: L. Hartslief
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Maureen Silcoff
Country: Sri Lanka
RPD Number: TB8-29465
Associated RPD Number(s): TB8-29491, TB8-29494 TB8-29495, TB8-29496
ATIP Number: A-2021-01106
ATIP Pages: 000066-000070

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: I have had an opportunity to review the evidence before me and I have decided to give an oral decision today. You will receive an unedited transcript of this oral decision in the mail in approximately three weeks and your counsel will also receive a copy and she can answer any related questions you may have at that time.

[2] This is the decision for [XXX] File number TB8-29465. You are all claiming to be citizens of Sri Lanka and you are claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[3] I have considered your testimony and the other evidence in the case as well as oral submissions from counsel.

[4] I find that you are all Convention refugees for the reason that you have established there is a serious possibility of persecution in Sri Lanka based on your imputed antigovernment political opinion as suspected LTTE supporters.

[5] By way of background you allege the following; you sir are a Sinhalese [XXX] and you met with several potential customers who are all young Tamil men. While these men were in your vehicle you were stopped at a police check point where the police found problems with your passengers identity documents.

[6] You say the police then detained you and the Tamil men in your vehicle. During your ten day detention you were physically assaulted by six police officers and you were forced to attend multiple police stations to look at line ups of photographs and prisoners in an effort to identify alleged LTTE suspects.

[7] After ten days of detainment you say you were released on the condition that you would report to the police station every month. However you did not obey those instructions and instead you and your family went into hiding and then you made your way to Canada within a few weeks.

[8] After you left Sri Lanka and when you failed to report to the police station as instructed, you say the police visited your mother in law, searched the house and threatened to arrest you because of your disobedience if you were to return to Sri Lanka.

[9] Your personal identities as citizens of Sri Lanka have been established by your testimony and the supporting documentation namely copies of your birth certificates, national identity cards and passports. While your name does appear slightly differently on your birth certificate you provided a reasonable explanation that your name has changed shortly after your birth and the evidence of this can clearly be seen on Paragraph 13 of your birth certificate.

[10] I therefore find on a balance of probabilities that identity and country of reference have been established for all of you.

[11] I find that there is a link between what you fear and one of the five convention grounds, specifically your imputed antigovernment political opinion as suspected LTTE supporters. This claim is therefore assessed under Section 96 of the act.

[12] In terms of your general credibility I found you to be a credible witness and I therefore believe what you have alleged in your oral testimony and in your basis of claim form. You described in extensive detail the circumstances surrounding your meeting with the three potential customers your ride to drop off the customers and your eventual detention at the police station.

[13] Not only were you able to provide a step by step description of what happened but your provided spontaneous details and additional aspects of the environment, clothing and emotions involved during these events.

[14] You described your time at the police station and the punishment you received at the hands of the police. You described the weapons involved, the surrounding environment, the ill-treatment you received and the officers involved.

[15] Finally you described the ongoing circumstances of your ten day detention including the cell conditions, the various trips to the police stations and your emotions during that time. Your description of events was provided in a detailed and straightforward manner and I have no reason to disbelieve your testimony.

[16] You presented your testimony in a clear and consistent manner and you responded spontaneously to questioning.

[17] In support of your testimony your provided medical documents describing your injuries as well as sworn affidavits from your parents regarding the difficulties your family has experienced.

[18] In particular you provided a sworn affidavit from your mother in law which confirms that the police came to her house looking for you and when it was clear you and your family had left the country the police became angry and threatened to arrest you if you return.

[19] Based on the evidence before me I’m satisfied that there is a serious possibility of persecution for you and your family members should you return to Sri Lanka. I’m satisfied that you have experienced past persecution at the hands of the police, I’m also satisfied that the Sri Lankan authorities have a record of your detention and once you enter the Sri Lankan airport you and your family will be flagged for disobeying police instructions.

[20] The objective evidence regarding the country conditions in Sri Lanka is consistent with you allegations that there is a serious possibility of persecution if you return to Sri Lanka. I looked at a number of documents in the national documentation package dated March 29th 2019 as well as counsel’s country conditions documents which are in Exhibit 13.

[21] The objective evidence at items 1.5, 2.1 and 10.9 are ail consistent with your allegation that perceived LTTE supporters are targeted by the state and there is continued monitoring and surveillance by Sri Lankan authorities as well as ongoing harassment of those who are suspected of supporting the LTTE regardless of their ethnicity.

[22] In addition the objective evidence at Article, sorry at Item 14.1 supports your allegation that as you have been accused of violating Sri Lankan law by allegedly lying to the police and failing to report monthly as instructed you are now considered a person of interest to the Sri Lankan authorities and you and your family will likely be flagged at the airport and sent to the police directly from the airport.

[23] In light of the fact that you are a Sinhalese family I have also considered the implications of the recent elections, specifically on you and your family members. The media articles that were submitted to me by counsel confirm that the new Gotabaya Rajapaksa government has not hesitated to arrest or detain any person regardless of their ethnicity if they are perceived to hold antigovernment political opinions.

[24] For example according to an article found at Exhibit 13 the new president illegally detained an employee at the Swiss Embassy and acquired a list of names from her of Sri Lankan citizens who had fled the country as well as the names of people who had assisted them.

[25] The new president has also imposed a travel ban on over seven hundred police officers and members of the Criminal Investigations Division for the mere fact that they were investigating him for human rights abuses.

[26] The Centre for Policy Alternatives is quoted in this article as saying Sri Lanka is beginning a slow decent into something very frightening.

[27] For these reasons based on consistent and credible evidence including the country condition documents I find your fear of persecution to be well founded.

[28] For the reasons already stated I am satisfied that there is a serious possibility of persecution at the hands of the state should your return to Sri Lanka. As the state is the agent of persecution in your situation I am satisfied that you have rebutted the presumption of state protection because the state is unwilling to protect you and you cannot access or otherwise expect to receive adequate state protection throughout Sri Lanka.

[29] Furthermore as the state is the agent of persecution I’m satisfied that it would be unsafe for you to seek refuge anywhere else in Sri Lanka. Therefore there is no viable internal flight alternative.

[30] Based on the forgoing analysis l find that you have established there is a serious possibility of persecution on a convention ground namely your imputed antigovernment political opinion as suspected LTTE supporters.

[31] I therefore find that you are all Convention refugees and I accept all of your claims. Thank you very much, have a wonderful afternoon.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

All Countries Turkey

2020 RLLR 123

Citation: 2020 RLLR 123
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 12, 2020
Panel: Jeffrey Brian Gullickson
Counsel for the Claimant(s): N/A/S.O.
Country: Turkey
RPD Number: MB9-15978
Associated RPD Number(s):
ATIP Number: A-2021-01106
ATIP Pages: 000039-000042

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

[1] [XXX] is claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. His passport proves his identity and that he is a citizen of Turkey.

ALLEGATIONS

[2] He was a practicing [XXX] in Turkey and a supporter of the Hizmet movement since age

13. His family were supporters as well. His father and brother were suspended from their jobs and criminally charged in 2016 for suspected connections to a terrorist organization in relation to the Hizmet or Fehtullah Gullen movement after the failed coup of 2016. The claimant [XXX] father in his court case. The father was convicted and sentenced to more than six years imprisonment and his appeal was rejected.

[3] The claimant who had not been formally accused of crimes in Turkey, feared being discovered or accused of being a Hizmet follower like his father. Some of the claimant’s [XXX] had already been accused and arrested.

[4] After his father’s failed appeal, the claimant left Turkey for his safety and the claimant made a refugee claim in Canada.

[5] After arriving in Canada, he testified in his refugee hearing the police came looking for him at his home and office and that an arrest warrant has been issued against him in Turkey.

DETERMINATION

[6] The claimant is a “Convention refugee“. He established a serious possibility of persecution on account of his political opinion (Hizmet supporter or follower).

ANALYSIS

Credibility

[7] The claimant was sufficiently credible as a witness regarding his allegation that he is a Hizmet follower or supporter.

[8] There were several other areas where the claimant was not credible but those elements were not determinative and it was necessary to give the claimant the benefit of the doubt for those other elements. An example of a non-credible element that was not determinative was his late disclosure in his hearing testimony where he testified that he, two months ago, became aware that he was the subject of an arrest warrant in Turkey, though he had declared at the start of the hearing that his basis of claim (BOC) form was “complete”, where there was no mention of an arrest warrant against the claimant in his BOC and where his BOC clearly instructs him to make an update of his BOC if there is new information to submit in his hearing.

[9] What I retained as credible was that the claimant probably supported the Hizmet movement, as his father and brother did and for which his father received a lengthy prison sentence.

[10] The claimant submitted probative evidence in support of his claim. He submitted court documents showing the charges against his father, where the claimant was the [XXX], and against his brother and a Turkish government decree naming his father as an accused in association with a terrorist organization and association with FETO (Gullen movement) and its members (Document #4).

[11] Having considered all of the evidence, I conclude that the claimant is not the subject of an arrest warrant in Turkey, he was not accused of connections to the Gullen movement, but that his father was and the claimant himself was forced to hide his support for the Gullen or Hizmet movement in whatever degree he supported Hizmet so not to be accused or arrested in Turkey.

[12] The National Documentation Packages for Turkey (NDP), dated 29 March 2019, shows that the current government in Turkey has forcefully repressed perceived political opponents such as the Gullen movement, including abuse and detention of their friends or family members (NDP, tabs 1.7 and 4.6). The NDP shows that Turkish authorities are reported to have committed abuses and serious mistreatment of detainees (NDP, tabs 1.7, 10.1 and 10.2). Political dissidents have been severely dealt with by the governing power in Turkey (NDP, tabs 4.5 and 13.1).

State Protection

[13] There is clear and convincing evidence before me that the state is unable or unwilling to provide the claimant with adequate protection, for the reasons stated above.

Internal Flight Alternative

[14] On the evidence before me, I find that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Turkey for the claimant, for the reasons stated above.

CONCLUSION

[15] The claimant is a “Convention refugee“.

[16] I accept his claim.

All Countries Cuba

2020 RLLR 121

Citation: 2020 RLLR 121
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 18, 2020
Panel: Carolyn Rumsey
Counsel for the Claimant(s):
Country: Cuba
RPD Number: MB9-00025
Associated RPD Number(s):
ATIP Number: A-2021-01106
ATIP Pages: 000019-000024

BY THE PANEL:

[1] Your claim number is MB9-00025. You are claiming to be a citizen of Cuba, and you are making a refugee claim pursuant to Section 96 and sub-Section 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. We call it the IRPA. So, because you are a minor, as we discussed during the hearing, you are 17 almost 18. [XXX] (phonetic), who is not a claimant has acted as your designated representative for these proceedings. So, because of your legal status as still being a minor, I have also considered and applied our Chairperson guideline three, which is on child refugee claimants, procedural and evidentiary issues.

DETERMINATION

[2] So, my determination. For the reasons that follow, I find that you have established that there is a well-founded fear for yourself in Cuba… or a well-founded fear of persecution, sorry. So, this fear is based on your political opinions, which are against the government in your country of origin. I therefore find that you are a “Convention refugee” pursuant to Section 96 of the IRPA.

ALLEGATIONS

[3] So, just to talk about your allegations, very briefly. Your detailed allegations are contained in your Basis of Claim form, which we also talked about today. So, you have written about and testified as well about the problems that you had had with your father, who has applied pressure on your to go into [XXX], and follow, sort of, in his footsteps, which you have made clear that you don’t wish to do. That’s not the path that you want to follow in your life. Your father is a member of [XXX]. You provided an identity card for his membership of the [XXX] in Cuba. This problem that you have with your father created further tensions because of your antigovernment views in general, your political opinion.

[4] You also told me about an incident that occurred when you were in school back in Cuba. You say that shortly after the death of Fidel Castro, you were shown a film which was very positive regarding him, and his family, and the government. And, you say you were overheard by your teacher in class discussing this and criticizing the family and the government with your friends. And so, you mentioned that your teacher threatened to send you to the principal’s office, and you spoke quite a bit about your fear of what that could lead to more long term. So, you were afraid that the police could get involved in that sense, and that things could become much more serious for you as a result.

[5] You also have testified that you have been away from Cuba for quite some time at this point, I believe that’s it’s been about a year and a half, so you fear that this could raise suspicions about you because the government keeps track of the movements of its citizens. And, that people who spend a long time away are often political dissidents, and you fear that this could be something that highlights your presence to them as well. So, you have alleged that you fear being imprisoned or harmed by the State authorities if you were to return to Cuba.

ANALYSIS

IDENTITY

[6] So, for my analysis, in terms of your identity, I find that your personal and national identity as a citizen of Cuba are established on a balance of probabilities by the documentary evidence on file, in particular a copy of your Cuban passport.

CREDIBILITY

[7] In terms of your credibility, I found that your testimony was credible today. You testified spontaneously, without hesitation, you answered my questions directly and with lots of detail. There were no significant contradictions, no omissions, no inconsistencies in your testimony, or when compared with your narrative. I found you especially credible when you were talking about your difficult relationship with your father, based on these problems that you have had, your disagreements about your views in general, about the [XXX], about the government and those kinds of things. You testified that your father first started putting pressure on you at the end of your grade nine year in school, which would have been approximately three years ago. And, you spoke about this incident that took place in class. Also, I found you to be credible when you were talking about that. I found also your testimony about your fears of returning to be credible. And, even more convincing for me was your testimony about wanting to become a [XXX] or a [XXX]. So, you clearly stated to me that you could not return to Cuba and be silent about the things that happened there, about the way that your country is run. And, you even said that if you get to stay in Canada, you would like to continue to support those views about Cuba from afar.

[8] So, when we have claimants come in and talk about feeling persecuted because of their political opinion, sometimes… or often times they have a lot of incidents to speak of. You are 17-years-old. You’ve been here for a year and a half. So, you were quite young when you left your country. I’ve taken that into consideration given that there weren’t a lot of incidents. But I still found that you had a lot to talk about. You had a lot to say about your political opinions. And again, the most important part for me is that you made it clear that you could not return to Cuba and keep silent, which would make you a target for the authorities. In terms of your evidence, you’ve submitted your father’s I.D. car as well as some photos of him in [XXX]. So, to conclude this part of the decision, I found that you are a credible witness. I believe the allegations that you’ve made in support of your claim today. So, based on your credible testimony and the documents that you’ve submitted, I accept what you have alleged to day and in your narrative. I believe that you have established on a balance of probabilities that you would be a target; you would be at risk of being targeted for your political opinions in Cuba.

OBJECTIVE BASIS

[9] So, I took a look at objective evidence as well, and we have a package of information for each of the countries that we received claimants from. For the Cuban package, I find that the evidence is clear about how political opponents are treated in Cuba, and even perceived political opponents, how they are treated by the authorities. So, I’ll just talk about that a little bit. Item 2.1 of the report is the United States Department of State report, it talks about Cuba being an authoritarian State. It’s a one-party system, and the constitution recognizes the Communist party as the only legal party, and the highest political entity of the State. This government participates in unlawful and arbitrary killings, intimidation and physical assault of human rights and pro-democracy activists, political dissidents, other detainees and prisoners. And, they do this with impunity. So, they don’t receive any kind of… they don’t have to account for their actions essentially. The police use laws against public disorder, contempt, lack of respect, aggression, failure to pay minimal or arbitrary fines as ways to detain, threatened and arrest civil society activists. So, they have… they have a lot of things that they can use against… against people who are advocating against the government, basically.

[10] There’s an Amnesty International report at section 4.3 of the NDP, that talks about President Obama’s visit in the year 2016. And, they refer to dozens of activists and independent journalists being detained including some members of Women in White, the organization that you spoke about, the wives and family members of people who are held in prison in Cuba. Human rights… A human rights organization that is not recognized by the government also reported 762 politically motivated and arbitrary detentions per month between 2014 and 2016. And, finally, the same report states that the Committee to Protect Journalists ranks Cuba tenth on the 2015 list of the world’s most censored countries, and it also classified Cuba’s laws on free speech and press freedom as the most restrictive in the Americas. So, that’s the objective evidence that I have. And, I find on a balance of probabilities there is an objective basis for your claim.

STATE PROTECTION

[11] So, we have to look at State protection. But I find that you’re quite clear that the agent of persecution and who you fear is the State itself. So, we could not expect you to have access to adequate State protection in Cuba, because you have an anti-government viewpoint, and the objective basis… the objective evidence shows that the government targets individuals who oppose them. So, based on this evidence, I find that on a balance of probabilities adequate State protection would not be available to you if you were to return to Cuba.

INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE

[12] And, finally, in deciding refugee claims, we have to look at whether or not you have what’s called an internal flight alternative. So, that means we have to look and see if there is another place in your country where you could be safe. I didn’t even ask you any questions about that today because again I think you’ve been very clear that you fear the State. The State controls the entire country. So, I find that it’s clear that on a balance of probabilities that there would be no safe place for you in Cuba. So, there is no safe internal flight alternative.

CONCLUSION

[13] So, finally, based on the totality of all of this evidence, I conclude that you would face a serious possibility of persecution on the basis of your political opinion in Cuba. Therefore, I find you to be a “Convention refugee”. I am accepting your refugee claim under Section 96 of the IRPA.

All Countries Burkina Faso

2020 RLLR 118

Citation: 2020 RLLR 118
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: July 23, 2020
Panel: Miryam Molgat
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Tammi Hua
Country: Burkina Faso
RPD Number: VB9-06140
Associated RPD Number(s):
ATIP Number: A-2021-00945
ATIP Pages: 000228-000232

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: This is the decision in the claim of [XXX] file number VB9-06140.

Introductory Statement

[2] I have considered your testimony and the other evidence in the case and I’m ready to render my decision orally. In the event that written reasons are issued, a written form of these reasons may be edited for spelling, syntax and grammar and references to the applicable case law and documentary evidence may also be included.

[3] The claimant claims to be a citizen of Burkina Faso and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Determination

[4] The Panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee, as the claimant does have a well-founded fear of persecution on a Convention ground in Burkina Faso.

[5] Its reasons are as follows.

Allegations

[6] The claimant’s complete allegations are set out in the Basis of Claim form and need not be repeated here in detail.

[7] To summarize briefly, the claimant is a member of the Burkinabe ethnic group, he is Muslim. He was violently threatened on [XXX] 2019, as he was headed to the Mosque for early morning prayers. Four armed persons on motorcycles stopped him and asked him where he was headed. These armed persons were jihadists and terrorists. The men asked the claimant if he was the one going to teach children at the Nusoubou (ph) school. He could not see their faces but he recognized their clothes and voices from the Mosque. The men took him on their motorcycle. He promised not to return to the school in question. They warned him against any non-Quranic teachings and that he not talk about them. They released him. After that, he started trying to leave Burkina Faso. He says that he’s able to recognize them and that they know him and his family. He adds that jihadists can be found throughout Burkina Faso and have accomplices everywhere. He left Burkina Faso on [XXX] 2019. He paid a large amount of money in order to leave the country. His trip was facilitated by three persons. His parents, siblings and two of his children remain in Burkina Faso. His spouse is a citizen of the Ivory Coast, where she resides with their other child. The claimant also alleges fear of risk to his life, risk of torture or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment at the hands of the same agent of harm. The claimant alleges that neither state protection or safe and reasonable internal flight alternatives are available in his country of nationality.

ANALYSIS

[8] The main issue is identity. The issue arises as the claimant was undocumented upon arrival in Canada.

Identity

[9] The claimant’s national identity has been established by the testimony and supporting documentation filed and entered in these proceedings. The current and previous two Burkina Faso passports are on file, along with other documents provided by the claimant.

[10] The Panel is satisfied of the claimant’s identity as a citizen of Burkina Faso. The claimant worked repeatedly over many years in Lebanon. He has provided a translation of his Lebanese visa, which does not give rise to concerns over an eventual permanent status in Lebanon. This leaves the question of any citizenship or other such status in Ivory Coast, stemming from the claimant’s current marriage to an Ivorian citizen, as described in his Basis of Claim form and testimony. Ivorian citizenship law stipulates that subject to certain articles of the law, a foreign man marrying an Ivorian woman becomes Ivorian at the time of the marriage and this is in Item 3.1 of the National Documentation Package on Ivory Coast. The law indicates that in cases own citizenship la-, law allows him to maintain that citizenship, the groom in this situation can refuse to become Ivorian. He must do so before the marriage. The claimant testified that he does not have a status in Ivory Coast and never did. The claimant testified that he married his wife in a non-recognized religious ceremony, which took place in Lebanon.

[11] The Panel is satisfied that the claimant is not a citizen of Ivory Coast and that he does not have an automatic right to Ivorian citizenship.

[12] The Panel finds that he is a citizen of Burkina Faso only.

Nexus

[13] For the claimant to be a Convention refugee, the fear of persecution must be by reason of one of the five grounds enumerated in the Convention refugee definition. In other words, the claimant must have a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.

[14] The Panel finds that the harm feared by the claimant is by reason of one of the five grounds enumerated in the Convention refugee definition, namely imputed political opinion against jihadists. This is rooted in the claimant’s interpretation of Islam, which is not tolerated by the jihadists.

Credibility and Subjective Fear

[15] When credibility is assessed, there are two principles that are followed.

[16] Firstly, when a claimant swears to the truthfulness of certain facts, there is a presumption that what he is saying is true unless there is reason to doubt it.

[17] Secondly, when assessing credibility, the Panel is entitled to rely on rationality and common sense. The determination as to whether a claimant’s evidence is credible is made on a balance of probabilities. The claimant’s telling of the problems he encountered with jihadists, in the context of his work at a primary school, are very consistent when one compares the Basis of Claim form and Basis of Claim form amendment, on the one hand and on the other hand, the numerous interviews with CBSA conducted while the claimant was in immigration detention on identity grounds.

[18] The Panel draws a positive inference from this finding that the claimant is credible when describing the problems he encountered with jihadists in Burkina Faso.

[19] The Panel gives little weight to the cousin’s statement to CBSA, that the claimant had no problems in Burkina Faso. This is, is the Panel has not had the opportunity to interview the cousin, who has not clarified the basis for his statements. The Panel note that the claimant says his cousin does not know him well and the claimant also testified that his cousin is a drunkard.

[20] The Panel has no reason to doubt the claimant’s assertions.

[21] An examination of the claimant’s 2014 passport shows that he exited Ivory Coast in [XXX] 2019, entering Burkina Faso in [XXX] ’19. His explanation for his decision to enter Burkina Faso in 2019, when the country was in turmoil, is reasonable in the circumstances.

Subjective Fear

[22] The claimant provided copies of three Burkina Faso passports issued respectively in 2005, 2009 and 2014, they are found at Exhibit 6. The claimant has travelled to Lebanon to work as a driver on numerous occasions over the years since 2010 and up to 2019. His passport also shows a Lebanese exit stamp dated [XXX]of[XXX] 2019.

[23] As the Panel accepts that the claimant did not have permanent residence status in Lebanon or another status allowing him to live and work there, the Panel does not draw a negative inference from the claimant’s failure to return to Lebanon in 2019, after the problems he encountered with jihadists in Burkina Faso. The claimant states in his Basis of Claim form that he travelled through Thailand in China on his way to Canada. He did not claim asylum in either, as he describes them as countries for tourists. Though this is not a strong explanation for a failure to claim elsewhere, his failure to claim asylum in these two countries is of no real consequence, given his credibility in regards to his main allegations.

Similarly Situated Persons and Objective Basis

[24] The U.S. Department of State report on Burkina Faso notes that armed groups connected to violent extremist organizations perpetrated more than three hundred attacks in 2019, resulting in hundreds of civilian deaths and many displaced people. The state of affairs is documented in other country conditions documents. The Panel accepts the violent extremist groups reek insecurity in Burkina Faso, which is a small landlocked country.

[25] The Panel accepts that the claimant runs a serious possibility of targeting by jihadist, as a result of the state of affairs.

State Protection

[26] Claimants must show on a balance of probabilities that adequate state protection is not available. The issue before the Panel was whether it was objectively unreasonable for the claimants to have sought state protection. While states are presumed to be capable of protecting their nationals, it was opened to the claimants, according to the law, to rebut the presumption of protection with clear and convincing evidence.

[27] The Panel finds on the evidence that the claimants have rebutted that presumption.

[28] The Panel’s reasons are as follows.

[29] The presumption of state protection is rebutted by the failure of Burkina Faso authorities to provide effective adequate protection at an operational level. This failure is established by the hundreds of extremist attacks resulting in hundreds of civilian deaths in 2019, Human Rights Watch in a 2020 document and this is at page 111 of counsel’s disclosure at Exhibit 6, describes the state of affairs as [XXX] amounting to [XXX] a non-international armed conflict under the laws of war.

Internal Flight Alternative

[30] The analysis of internal flight alternative fails on the first prong. The 2018 Crime and Safety report at, mentioned at Item 2.1, indicates that Mali based extremist groups are active in the Sahel region of the country especially near the Malian and Niger borders. Mali based terrorist groups have claimed or been implicated in attacks in Ouagadougou in 2017 and 2016. The attacks, which were initially concentrated in the Northern Sahel region, have steadily spread to several other regions. Even Ouagadougou is described as facing a severe threat of terrorism and this is in counsel’s Exhibit 6, page 106.

[31] I accept that the country is locked or the Panel accepts that the country is locked in a downward spiral, as a result of this violent extremist activity. The porous borders which allow the penetration of various extremist groups from surrounding countries, makes the entire country dangerous for someone such as the claimant, who faces a serious possibility of persecution throughout Burkina Faso.

CONCLUSION

[32] Having considered all of the evidence, the Panel determines that there is a serious possibility that the claimant would be persecuted in Burkina Faso for one of the five grounds enumerated in the refugee Convention.

[33] The claimant has established his identity and is credible in his main allegations. Having come to this conclusion, the Panel has not conducted further assessment under Section 97(1).

[34] The Panel concludes that the claimant is a Convention refugee and the Panel therefore accepts his claim.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

All Countries Turkey

2020 RLLR 116

Citation: 2020 RLLR 116
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 9, 2020
Panel: Janko Predovic
Counsel for the Claimant(s):
Country: Turkey
RPD Number: VB9-05301
Associated RPD Number(s):
ATIP Number: A-2021-00945
ATIP Pages: 000208-000212

— DECISION

[1] PRESIDING MEMBER: This is the decision of the Refugee Protection, RPD, in the claim of [XXX] a citizen of Turkey who seeks refugee protection pursuant to s. 96 and s. 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act or IRPA.

[2] Sir, you allege that you have been involved with the Gulen or Hizmet movement for several years and since that time you have resided in Hizmet dormitories, learned at Hizmet educational institutions, banked at Hizmet affiliated financial institutions, consumed Hizmet media and attended Hizmet community gatherings and events.

[3] After the 2016 coup attempt in Turkey, the Hizmet movement was blamed and a crackdown occurred. You heard of Hizmet colleagues having been detained by Turkish government authorities and you have been informed that police have attended your former home numerous times in search of you personally commencing in 2017.

[4] In 2014, you moved to Cyprus on a student permit and you resided there until 2018. At that point, you travelled to the United States and you met with the leader of the Hizmet movement Mr. Fethullah Gulen himself.

[5] You fear that if you return to Turkey you will be persecuted on account of your Hizmet affiliation.

[6] My determination, sir, is that you are a Convention refugee pursuant to s. 96 of the IRPA and your claim is, therefore, accepted.

[7] The reasons for that determination follow now:

[8] Your identity and your status as a national of Turkey have been established by the copy of your Turkish passport on file and I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that you are a citizen of Turkey and no other country.

[9] Though you did spend some time in Cyprus, I’m satisfied on a balance of probabilities that you were there on temporary permits only with no citizen like status. First, as a student and then as a teacher. This is sufficiently corroborated in my view by the copy of your student permit which is found at Exhibit number 5.

[10] Your fear of persecution in Turkey is by reason of affiliation with the Gulen or Hizmet movement which started decades ago as a religious movement in Turkey. Today, it’s a little bit wider than that it bridges gaps between religion, politics and charitable work. The movement operates a network of schools, businesses, media outlets, charities, private hospitals and health clinics and so on. And Turkish President Erdogan has closed schools and media outlets in Turkey associated with the movement and he has categized it as a terrorist organization.

[11] Based on the nature of the Hizmet movement as it straddles these political and religious lines, I conclude that there is a nexus between your allegations of persecution and the Convention grounds of religion as well as political opinion. Accordingly, I will assess your claim for protection under s. 96 of the IRPA.

[12] I’ll touch briefly on your credibility now. In refugee determination cases there is a presumption that claimants and their allegations are truthful and I have identified no material inconsistencies or contradictions between your basis of claim and the other evidence before me, and your narrative does correspond to the objective evidence about conditions in Turkey for those belonging to or being associated with the Gulen movement.

[13] You have also provided a copy of a summons corroborating the fact that police in Turkey have sought you out, and you have provided a photo of yourself with Mr. Gulen himself taken when you visited him in the United States where he resides in exile.

[14] Ultimately, I have no reason to doubt the central element of your claim for protection, namely that you belong to the Hizmet Movement. Having accepted this, I also accept that you subjectively fear persecution in Turkey.

[15] And I’ll note that I take no negative inference from your failure to claim protection in the United States, as you’ve indicated that was in part due to the present administrations animus to refugee claimants, and I find that to be a reasonable explanation. I turn now to the objective evidence regarding the treatment of Gulen followers in Turkey, and I’ll rely largely on Item 4.6 of the most recent national documentation package for that country. This is an IRB research and information report dated January 6, 2020, so it’s actually quite recent.

[16] Now, as I’ve already referenced the Gulen movement is active around the world it operates schools, businesses, media outlets and charities. And Gulen followers have been continually targeted by the Turkish government following the 2016 failed coup attempt. Though the government has labelled that movement as a terrorist organization effectively declaring war on it. Many businesses have since closed due to their links with the Gulen movement and those suspected of being Gulen followers have been directly targeted resulting in many many serious violations of human rights on a systemic basis.

[17] I’ll quote two prominent leaders in the Turkish government to give you an idea. Turkish President Erdogan is reported to have said in 2018 and I quote:

We’re purging every Gulenist in the army in the police and in state institutions, and we will continue cleansing these organizations of them because we will eradicate this cancer from the body of this country and the state. They will not enjoy the right to life. Our fight against them will continue until the end. We won’t leave them merely wounded.

[18] The Turkish Economy Minister said something along the same lines in 2016 and I quote:

We will put those responsible for the coup, referring of course to the Gulen Movement members, into such holes for punishment that they won’t even — that they won’t even be able to see the sun of God as long as they breathe. They will not see the light of day. They will not hear a human voice. They will beg for death saying just kills us.

[19] Authorities have taken these comments to heart and have vigorously acted on them. According to one report, a purge of Hizmet members within the state apparatus has resulted in the dismissal, detainment and arrest of tens of thousands. One source sites a 150,000 individuals dismissed, 500,000 investigated, 100,000 arrested, 6,000 academics discharged, 4,500 judges and prosecutors dismissed and 300 journalists arrested. Dismissals also include the cancellation of passports preventing people from leaving the country and escaping persecution.

[20] The government has, through 2019, continued to detain and arrest even merely suspected Hizmet sympathizers. The Guardian newspaper reports that in February 2019 the government-issued arrest warrants for a further 1,100 people with suspected connections to the Gulenist movement.

[21] Similarly, Reuters indicates that the ordering of the arrest of 1,100 people is one of the government’s largest operations against alleged supporters of the Gulen Movement.

[22] Al Jazeera has stated that more than 760 people were detained in operations all across Turkey. Although 122 of those were later freed under judicial supervision.

[23] Another source indicates that evidence is not necessary to keep someone in prison for months or years when they are suspected Gulenists, and another says the parallel is compounded a compromised justice system in which judges do not release suspects for being — for fear of being labelled Gulenists themselves.

[24] It’s further reported that Hizmet detainees have faced different forms of torture and ill-treatment by the police and other government forces. Human Rights Watch indicates that cases of abductions which likely amount to enforced disappearances are — are, pardon me let me rephrase that. Human Rights Watch reports that there are cases of abductions which likely amount to enforced disappearances by state authorities. Abductions or kidnappings reportedly serve as part of the persecution launched by the Turkish president and his government primarily against participants of the Gulen movement.

[25] Further, it is reported that the Turkish government targets people using guilt by association. The office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has observed such a pattern of application of punitive measures targeting not just primary “suspects” such as civil servants or human rights activists, but also people associated with them particularly family members including children, siblings, parents and other relatives as well as friends, neighbours, work associates or even social media contacts that they do not necessarily know. This, of course, violates principles of individual responsibility, fairness and legal certainty.

[26] Based on the foregoing objective evidence and my finding that, sir, you are indeed a Hizmet or Gulen follower, I find that you have established with sufficient credible and reliable evidence that you face a serious possibility of persecution in Turkey.

[27] I’ve considered whether state protection or an internal flight alternative is available to you, however, as the state is the agent of persecution it would not be reasonable for you to seek state protection in Turkey nor would it be forthcoming if you were to do so. More likely you would be handing yourself over for persecution.

[28] For similar reasons an internal flight alternative is not available. The persecution of Gulen followers occurs uniformly throughout Turkey and the government has declared that the movement is a terrorist organization. As Gulen followers, suspected followers and even family members of followers are targeted uniformly throughout the country there is nowhere you could go in the country where you would be free from a serious possibility of persecution.

[29] Ultimately my conclusion, sir, is that you are a Convention refugee and I accept your claim under s. 96 of the IRPA.

— DECISION CONCLUDED