Tag: Political Opinion

Categories
All Countries Rwanda

2020 RLLR 55

Citation: 2020 RLLR 55
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: October 16, 2020
Panel: Tim Crowhurst
Counsel for the Claimant(s): El-Farouk Khaki
Country: Rwanda 
RPD Number: TB7-23803
ATIP Number: A-2021-00655
ATIP Pages: 000171-000176

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

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

ALLEGATIONS

[2]       The claimant alleges that he and his family are long time friends of Diane Rwigara, who ran for the Presidency of Rwanda in 2017.

[3]       The claimant alleges that he provided support to her campaign in the form of a vehicle, as well as providing signatures for her nomination form [XXX].

[4]       Shortly after the election, police arrested and detained the claimant for a period of about two weeks, during which he was tortured and psychologically abused.

[5]       Following his release, which was secured by a family member, police continued to visit his home and threaten the claimant and his parents.

[6]       The claimant’s parents fled to Kenya.

[7]       Prior to the arrest and detention, the claimant had already secured a student visa to come to Canada.

[8]       A relative then bribed a police officer and helped the claimant flee Rwanda and travel to Canada.

[9]       A friend of the family picked him up at the airport and helped the claimant recover from his injuries and find a lawyer in order to make a refugee claim.

DETERMINATION

[10]     The panel finds the claimant to be Convention refugee as he has established a serious possibility of persecution should he return to Rwanda, based on the grounds in section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)

ANALYSIS

Identity

[11]     The panel finds that the claimant’s identity as a citizen of Rwanda is established by the certified true copy of his Rwandan Passport.2

Nexus

[12]     The panel find that the claimant has established a nexus to section 96 by reason of the claimant’s political opinion as a supporter of the Rwandan Opposition

Credibility

[13]     The panel finds the claimant to be a credible witness, and therefore believes what he has alleged in support of his claim. The claimant testified in a straightforward and concise manner during the oral hearing, testifying in English. The panel found that the claimant’s testimony was in no way inconsistent or contradictory with the documentary evidence, including the supportive objective evidence contained in the National Documentation Package (NDP).3

[14]     The claimant’s allegations of detention and torture at the hands of the Rwandan government, are consistent with information contained in the NDP document, excerpts of which are reproduced here for context.

“Treatment of Diana Rwigara’s Supporters After the August 2017 Electoral Period”

According to the German magazine Der Spiegel, Diane Rwigara’s supporters no longer dare mention their support for her in public (Der Spiegel 29 Apr. 2019). (…)the following information on the treatment of President Kagamé’s opponents in general may be useful.

In a telephone interview with the Research Directorate, an assistant professor at the University of Denver’s Josef Korbel School of International Studies who has conducted research in Rwanda, notably on the impacts of violence on women’s political mobilization, explained that, generally, opponents or critics of President Kagamé avoid expressing their views in public, even in a casual setting like a café or bar, for fear of being overheard by intelligence services or government informants (Assistant Professor 25 Apr. 2019). Similarly, in a telephone interview with the Research Directorate, an associate professor of development at the University of Ottawa’s School of International Development and Global Studies working on issues of governance in Rwanda indicated that the Rwandan government’s control apparatus is very developed, encompassing local forms of surveillance as well as informants in local governance structures (Associate Professor 2 May 2019). Similarly, in its Freedom in the World 2019 report, Freedom House states that “[t]he authorities reportedly use informants to infiltrate civil society, further discouraging citizens from expressing dissent” (Freedom House 29 Jan. 2019, sec. D4).

According to the US Department of State’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2018, laws prohibiting “divisionism, genocide ideology, and genocide denial” were broadly applied by the Rwandan government, including to silence political dissent and those critical of the government (US 13 Mar. 2019, 14). The Associate Professor added that the government has instituted a [translation] “legal control apparatus” such that accusations of “denial or criticism [of the official version] of the genocide” are often levelled against political opponents who may be imprisoned as a result (Associate Professor 2 May 2019). An article in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), commenting on the treatment of certain opposition figures in Rwanda, also reports that the authorities used genocide denial charges to “silence … opponents” (WSJ 31 Oct. 2017).

According to the Associate Professor, those openly critical of the government or opposing the government and who hold [translation] “locally important” positions (for example, a local prominent citizen or teacher) are especially at risk of being targeted by these forms of surveillance and control and of being threatened, arrested or physically injured (Associate Professor 2 May 2019).

The Assistant Professor indicated that “even low members [of opposition parties] who try to run, for instance, in local elections,” as well as supporters of those opposition parties, risk being harassed by law enforcement, or arrested, and face risks of “disappearance, even murders”(Assistant Professor 25 Apr. 2019). According to the Assistant Professor, the consequences can also be material, such as confiscation of property by the government or expropriation (Assistant Professor 25 Apr. 2019). Similarly, the Wall Street Journal cites an exiled Rwandan economist as stating that the authorities have proceeded with “‘arbitrary'” seizures of businesses and properties based on accusations of financial crimes, such as tax evasion or fraud (WSJ 31 Oct. 2017).4

[15]     The claimant provided copies of his Facebook Messenger conversations5 with Diane Rwigara wherein she professes concern for the claimant’s wellbeing and is wary of having any conversations that may be monitored by the government.

[16]     The claimant has also provided documentary evidence of the Public Prosecutor6 granting provisional release as well as Minutes of Detention,7 which speak to the charges against him based on his political involvement.

[17]     The panel accepts, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant’s allegations did occur as he testified and as expressed in his Basis of Claim narrative.

Objective Basis of Future Risk

[18]     Based on the credibility of the claimant’s allegations, the documentary evidence provided and the objective evidence which supports these allegations, the panel finds that the claimant has established serious possibility of a future risk that he will be subjected to persecution.

[19]     To be considered persecution, the prospective risk of harm must be sufficiently serious, either individually or cumulatively, to constitute persecution.

[20]     The claimant has faced arrest, detention, inhumane treatment and punishment in detention. He fears he will be arrested again if he were to return to Rwanda. The panel find that the types of harm that the claimant has faced in the past and may face in the future are persecutory.

[21]     The fact that the claimant faces this risk is corroborated by the following documents: National Documentation Package (NDP) for Rwanda- September 1, 2020, item 2.2, Rwanda. Human Rights in Africa: Review of 2019, and item 4.1, Rwanda: Politically Closed Elections.

State Protection

[22]     The panel finds that it would be objectively unreasonable for the claimant to seek the protection of the state in light of his particular circumstances. It is the government that the claimant fears.

Internal Flight Alternative (IFA)

[23]     The panel considered whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for the claimant. On the evidence before me, the panel finds that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Rwanda. The government has effective control throughout the country and in the NDP, item 3.7, it describes the system of registration to account for citizens, through birth, death, and health, making the government capable of tracking the claimant should he return to Rwanda.

CONCLUSION

[24]     Based on the analysis above, the panel concludes that the claimant has established a serious possibility of persecution based on a Convention ground pursuant to Section 96 of IRPA. Accordingly, the claim is accepted.

(signed)           Tim Crowhurst

October 16, 2020

1 The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c.27, as amended, sections 96 and 97(1).
2 Exhibit 1, Package of Information from the Referring CBSA/IRCC.
3 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Rwanda (September 1 2020).
4 NDP, item 4.6 at pgs. 2-3.
5 Exhibit 6.
6 Exhibit 7.
7 Ibid.

Categories
All Countries Zimbabwe

2020 RLLR 53

Citation: 2020 RLLR 53
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 18, 2020
Panel: Isis Van Loon
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Jane G. Rukaria
Country: Zimbabwe
RPD Number: VC0-00752
ATIP Number: A-2021-00655
ATIP Pages: 000154-000158

DECISION

MEMBER:

[1]       This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division in the claim of [XXX], a citizen of Zimbabwe who is claiming refugee protection pursuant to Section 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. In rendering my reasons, I have considered and applied the Chairperson’s Guidelines on women refugee claimants fearing gender related persecution.

[2]       Your allegations are set out in your Basis of Claim form and by your testimony, the following is a brief summary.

[3]       You disagree with the current government of Zimbabwe and you’ve supported the movement for democratic change, the opposition party MDC as a volunteer. You fear persecution on this basis. It states that your risk is exacerbated due to the gender-based violence inflicted by state actors on women who are perceived to be opposing the government.

Determination

[4]       I find that you are a Convention refugee as you have established a well-founded fear of persecution based on a Convention ground namely political opinion. I also acknowledge that you have a Nexus to membership in a particular social group as a woman facing persecution based on your gender and I’ve considered this in conjunction with your political Nexus in this claim.

Identity

[5]       I find your identity as a national of Zimbabwe is established by your testimony and the supporting documentation on file including certified true copies of your passport in Exhibit 1.

Credibility

[6]       The presumption before me is that your testimony is true. However, this can be rebutted in appropriate circumstances such as inconsistencies, contradictions, omissions or undetailed testimony. You were straightforward and forthcoming in your testimony. There were no relevant inconsistencies between your testimony or other documents before me, other evidence. You did not appear to embellish your description of events and actions, even when it might have appeared favourable to your claim to do so. You provided credible documentation. You explained that you tried, with limited success to obtain documents from Zimbabwe in support of your claim. You said there were problems with COVID as well as not having anybody in Zimbabwe that you could ask to give you assistance with this. However, you were able to provide a number of documents, particularly late disclosures, Exhibit 5 and 6. There is a copy of your membership in the [XXX] dated [XXX] 2020 in Exhibit 5. As well, there’s a letter from [XXX] at the [XXX] Harare that confirms the injuries that you sustained when you visited the clinic on [XXX] of 2019. You have a paystub showing that you worked for a [XXX] from 2012.

[7]       Your husband provided an affidavit with a copy of his photo ID which corroborates the assault that you sustained on [XXX] of 2019 and that he and your sons have largely remained out of Zimbabwe. There’s an affidavit from a colleague in the MDC Women’s Assembly that confirms your participation. This too is accompanied by a copy of the writer’s photo ID. Exhibit 6 includes a letter from the Department of Legal Affairs of the MDC Alliance in Zimbabwe. This letter documents your membership since 2007 and describes your voluntary service in promoting economic activities with the [XXX] and various support services such as typing and distributing materials. The letter includes references to the events that you describe and states that it is a common occurrence for members to be intimidated and assaulted as the brutal crackdown on those opposed to the government is a reality. It’s signed by the [XXX], who provided a phone number and offered to give more information if the Board required. I found these documents relative and probative and that they supported your allegations.

[8]       Based on your testimony and your documentation, I find you are a credible witness and therefore believe what you’ve alleged in support of your claim. I find the persecution that you face has a Nexus to two of the five Convention grounds that of political opinion as well as your membership in a particular social group as a woman facing gender-based violence and therefore, I’ve assessed your claim under Section 96.

Well-Founded Fear

[9]       In order to be considered a Convention refugee, you must demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution including both a subjective and an objective basis for that fear. Based on your testimony, your supporting documents and the country condition documents. I find that you have a well-founded fear of persecution for the following reasons.

[10]     You’ve supported the MDC as a volunteer for the [XXX]. You described your role and support work and you told me that if you’re a woman in Zimbabwe, you need to do something to be able to help yourself. You said that you used to [XXX], to sustain themselves and feed their families. You testified that the party ZANU-PF does not allow you to share your views. They want you to listen to what they say whether it is right or wrong. You spoke of corruption and misuse of public fonds and the need for those at the top to address this. Also, you said that if you spoke about this openly in Zimbabwe. You would face the threat of harm from the state. You testified that you want to see change and that people should be treated humanely and be able to live safely without fear in Zimbabwe.

[11]     In the runup to the 2018 elections, you worked as a volunteer for a leader Mwayemureyi Saungweme but you were warned by the MDC liaison officer about a pending crackdown. Fearing sexual assault and other forms of gender-based violence that women supporters are subjected to, you stopped volunteering. A few days after you stopped, there were several photographs of you volunteering for the MDC with a note saying, we know who you are, dropped off at your house. On [XXX] of 2019, you were caught up in violence when the police attacked a peaceful MDC march. You were merely waiting for a bus at that time and you were beaten by the police. Fearing gender-based violence, you hesitated to see a physician about your injuries and stayed home until [XXX] of 2019. On the [XXX] of January, your house was vandalized. At first you thought it was due to thieves but her neighbours told you that it was the police and you realized that your National ID and other documents had been taken.

[12]     You and your spouse moved to another area in Harare on [XXX] 2019, and after that you only went out to go to and from work and you avoided any active participation in MDC activities due to your fear of persecution. You kept a low profile. On [XXX] 2019, there was more violence during an MDC demonstration. You were working at a [XXX] and injured protesters came for treatment followed by police who ordered the staff not to treat them. When the [XXX] refused to follow these orders, the police dragged the front-line staff including yourself outside and assaulted you. You had already realized after the [XXX] assault that you had to leave the country for your safety but first you needed to ensure your sons were safe and to get the fonds for you to be able to leave yourself.

[13]     You stated that one of your sons was already out of the country studying at that time and that you ensured that he was not going to come back and you arranged for your other son to leave Zimbabwe on [XXX] of 2019. Your mother, who was visiting relatives in Canada became very ill and this enabled you to get a visa to come to Canada. However, you still didn’t have the funds to leave at that time. On [XXX] of 2019, the police attacked the MDC office in Harare. This raised your level of concern even higher and your brother bought you a ticket so that you could leave for Canada on [XXX] 2019. You claimed asylum in Canada and signed your Basis of Claim form on the 21st of January 2020. In the meantime, your spouse has also left Zimbabwe and [XXX] in the [XXX] through to [XXX] only passing through Zimbabwe as necessary. Since coming to Canada. You’ve joined the MDC North America. You said we are organizing and trying to see how we can contribute to help our youth in Zimbabwe to start some projects, so they can help themselves.

[14]     I found that you have adduced sufficient credible evidence by your actions; also which is supported by the country documents to establish that you do have a subjective fear of persecution in Zimbabwe. The country condition documents show that the ruling government of Zimbabwe the ZANU-PF has come down hard on the opposition such as the MDC. NDP 2.2 Freedom in the World says despite President Mnangagwa repeatedly voicing his commitments to human rights reforms Zimbabwe remained highly intolerant of basic rights, peaceful dissent and free expression in 2019. During nationwide protests in mid-January, security forces responded with lethal force, killing at least 17 people, raping at least 17 women, shooting and injuring 81 people and arresting over 1000 suspected protesters during door-to-door raids. In the months that followed several civil society activists, political opposition leaders and other critics of the government were arbitrarily arrested, abducted, beaten or tortured. Little or no efforts were made to bring those responsible for the abuses to justice. Following the protests security forces intensified a crackdown on supporters of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change Alliance, among others. The U.S. Department of State echoed this description of the poor performance of the Zimbabwe government with respect to human rights and notes that impunity remains a problem. Amnesty International also described the treatment of opposition members and supporters particularly during that January 2019 protest, where security agents opened fire on protesters.

[15]     The police also threatened and arrested journalists, medical doctors and lawyers, monitoring the protests or assisting protesters. They used tear gas, baton sticks, water cannons and live ammunition to disperse protesters. The crackdown on protesters included torture and other ill-treatment and mass arrests. By the end of February, over 600 people have been arrested in connection with the January protest that’s NDP 2.4. The UK Home Office further notes direct targeting of opposition and perceived opposition, including NGOs that continued after the initial violence through house raids, arrests and detentions. The NDP provides evidence women are targeted, specifically in election times, as candidates and election workers. Women have also stated that they feared not only the direct act of violence but potential repercussions associated with it. For example, they’re concerned that being politically active may result in getting caught in a mob or arrested and brought to jail where they could be raped. Impunity plays a large role in allowing this climate of fear to persist. Interviewees frequently referred to the role of the police in failing to protect or of even actively contributed to the violence against women in election times.

[16]     A review of online content showed that 60 percent of violent discourse and content in the political space was directed at women for the period between January 2013 to April 2018 according to NDP 5.7. You also provided country documentation detailing the heightened risk faced by women who are in opposition to the government. A February 2020 survey found that an astounding 75 percent of women surveyed by Transparency International Zimbabwe have been forced to exchange sex for jobs, medical care and even seeking placement in school for their children, that’s Exhibit 4 on page 22 and it notes that even police officers are involved in this form of extortion. An academic article from the Journal of International Women’s Studies on page 27 includes that gender-based and politically motivated violence has an ongoing negative impact on women and girls and has led to a broad acceptance of violence against women and girls in Zimbabwe. An August 30, 2019, article by Newsday reports on the MDC Women’s Assembly’s concerns over the growing abductions and abuse of women being perpetrated by suspects, state security agencies and members of the ruling ZANU-PF party. Another article from The Guardian of January 31, 2019, states that scores of women and girls say they have been raped over the past two weeks by army officials who have ransacked houses ostensibly in search of protesters and another article on pages 69 to 70 states that most rapes by soldiers and security forces go unreported to the security forces due to fears of reprisals.

[17]     I’m satisfied that opponents of the government such as you, yourself face a serious possibility of persecution. Furthermore, your risk is compounded by the threat of sexual assault, which women, particularly women who are in political opposition face in Zimbabwe. Based on all the evidence before me, I find you would face a serious possibility of persecution if you were to return to Zimbabwe.

State Protection and Internal Flight Alternative

[18]     In this case the agent of persecution is the state and its supporters. The persecution that you would face if returned to Zimbabwe is at the hands of the authorities. Accordingly, I find there is no state protection available to you and the presumption of state protection is rebutted. The state is in control of all of its territories and therefore on the evidence before me, I find there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Zimbabwe and that there is thus no viable internal flight alternative available for you in your particular circumstances. Based on the totality of the evidence, I’ve concluded that you are a Convention refugee and accordingly, I’m accepting your claim.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Categories
All Countries Zimbabwe

2020 RLLR 52

Citation: 2020 RLLR 52
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 10, 2020
Panel: Miryam Molgat
Counsel for the Claimant(s): N/A
Country: Zimbabwe
RPD Number: VB9-08524
ATIP Number: A-2021-00655
ATIP Pages: 000149-000153

— DECISION

[1]       PRESIDING MEMBER: I have considered your testimony and the other evidence in the case and I’m ready to render my decision orally. I would like to add that 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.

[2]       The claimant, [XXX] claims to be a citizen of Zimbabwe and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to ss. 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

DETERMINATION

[3]       I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee as the claimant does have a well-founded fear of persecution on a Convention ground; namely, her political opinion. She’s an active member of the main opposition alliance in Zimbabwe.

ALLEGATIONS

[4]       The claimant’s complete allegations are set out in the basis of claim form and need not be repeated here in detail. To summarize briefly, the claimant is a woman born in [XXX]. In [XXX] 2019, there were unprecedented riots in Zimbabwe. The claimant is a long time political and social activist. She was active in the ZTCU Union, which was the steppingstone for the MDC under Morgan Tsvangirai; the MDC being one of the main opposition parties in Zimbabwe.

[5]       The claimant became an active member of the MDC which is the — just a minute, please — the Movement for Democratic Change and she is now a member of the MDC alliance. In addition, the claimant’s work history has resulted in problems with the authorities, as result of which, her husband left her.

[6]       In [XXX] 2019 the claimant’s sister [XXX] and her husband were killed in a vehicle accident near a police camp. The claimant started the guardianship process for the children of her late sister. The claimant fears that her sister was mistaken for her when her sister was chased in the course of this fatal accident. The claimant is a victim of sex abuse and assault from the Zimbabwe police and the Zimbabwe military. This is as she was employed by an [XXX] and she is also an active member of the MDC.

[7]       On [XXX] 2019 the claimant suffered at the hands of the police, the military and the ZANU-PF, which is the ruling party of Zimbabwe. While among 200 protesting citizens and activists, the claimant was hit, she was arrested and sexually abused. She passed out. The police recorded her name and threatened her against engaging in protest against the government. They said that she has always been on their close watch and that her movements would be monitored. They said that they would harm her more and eventually kill her.

[8]       On [XXX] 2019, two police officers who she knew from their previous visits to her workplace went again to her workplace looking for her. They caught her and took her to the Harare Central Police where they said her name is on the top list for elimination. The claimant had to relocate to another suburb in [XXX] some [XXX] away. Her family is in danger; her mother has been visited by the police approximately seven times since [XXX] 2019. Her mother has since relocated to be with the claimant’s children. When the claimant reported to the police, they refused to take the report at face value. She then asked for a request for a medical report form, this was in order to seek treatment for health issues that she suffered from as a result of mistreatment by the police authorities.

[9]       The claimant obtained medical treatment, she then sought [XXX]. She did this at the [XXX]. She was [XXX]. The claimant applied for a Canadian visitor visa on [XXX] 2019. She obtained it on [XXX] 2019 and she left for Canada on [XXX] 2019. She later learned from her party, the MDC Alliance that the authorities of Zimbabwe are after her.

[10]     The claim was referred on October 30th of 2019. The claimant alleges fear of risk to her life, risk of torture or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment at the hands of the same agent of harm, and she also alleges that neither state protection nor safe and reasonable internal flight alternatives are available in her country of nationality.

ANALYSIS

[11]     The main issue is credibility.

Identity

[12]     The claimant’s national identity has been established by the testimony and supporting documentation filed and entered in these proceedings. The current passport is on file along with other documents. I am satisfied as to the claimant’s identity.

Credibility

[13]     When credibility is assessed, there are two principles that are followed. Firstly, when the claimant swears to the truthfulness of certain facts, there is a presumption that what the claimant is saying is true unless there is reason to doubt it. 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.

[14]     The panel found the claimant to be a credible witness. Her testimony contained many details which added credibility and context to her allegations. Her testimony was consistent with her allegations. Her testimony helped the panel to make sense of the allegations by putting them into the claimant’s personal and national context. The claimant did not embellish. The claimant was able to answer difficult questions in a credible manner. The claimant provided original copies of multiple corroborating documents.

[15]     The claimant has established her profile as a long time social and political activist who has consistently worked for the opposition and/or the founding ZCTU Union, which predates the MDC and/or NGOs perceived to be anti-government. The panel finds that the claimant would be treated upon returning to Zimbabwe in a manner consistent with this profile, as she has come to the attention of the authorities as recently as [XXX] 2019. The panel finds that the claimant would resume these political and/or anti-government activities in Zimbabwe should she return there as she has done this at her own risk for decades.

Similarly Situated Persons and Objective Basis

[16]     The claim is objectively based as per the country conditions documents. In the United States Department of State report at Item 2.1 of the National Documentation Package it says that the government of Zimbabwe restricts the rights to freedom of association and that ZANU-PF supporters, sometimes with government support or acquiescence intimidated and harassed members of organizations perceived to be associated with other political parties.

[17]     Another document which is at item 10.1 of the National Documentation Package and which was published in June 2019 and which is called, On the Days of Darkness in Zimbabwe, an Updated Report on the Human Rights Violations committed between January 14, 2019 and February 5th, 2019 states as follows,

“The Zimbabwean army unlawfully deployed into the streets and residential areas where it unleashed a reign of terror on anyone they came across. The Human Rights NGO Forum published a report which details more than 1800 such violations of human rights since January 14, 2019 across the whole country. This was in response to mass protests among the Zimbabwean population in January 2019 following an increase in fuel prices”.

[18]     Another document, which is part of the National Documentation Package at Item 4.7 of the National Documentation Package, which is a British document called, Country Information and Policy Notes, Zimbabwe Opposition to the Government, also published in 2019, states that,

“The ruling ZANU-PF uses the state security apparatus to harass and intimidate those in opposition to it. The levels of politically motivated violence and human rights violations by state security forces and ZANU-PF supporters, fluctuate with recent peaks. With regards to those perceived to have been in the opposition to the government at the time of the January 2019 demonstrations, it is established that they faced serious human rights violations against them. This was followed by further direct targeting of opposition, perceived opposition and NGOs which continued after the initial violence through house raids, arrests and detentions.”

[19]     This is very close to the experience of the claimant.

[20]     Moving to the question of state protection, the panel finds that state protection in Zimbabwe would not be forthcoming in this case as the claimant fears the Zimbabwean state itself. That state has already abused her rights to political expression and freedom of association and assembly.

[21]     The Zimbabwe government is described in the United States Department of State report as only taking limited steps towards potential consequences for security sector officials who committed human rights violations. This document states that impunity remained a problem in this regard. The presumption of state protection has, therefore, been rebutted based on the objective country conditions information.

[22]     Moving to the last question, which is whether there is an internal flight alternative where the claimant would not face a serious possibility of persecution, the panel finds that the analysis of internal flight alternative fails on the first prong as the claimant, on a balance of probabilities does face a serious possibility of persecution throughout Zimbabwe as a result of her profile and of the stated country conditions information.

[23]     In conclusion, having considered all of the evidence, the panel determines that there is a serious possibility that the claimant would be persecuted in Zimbabwe for her political opinion. Her claim is accepted.

— DECISION CONCLUDED

Categories
All Countries Palestine

2020 RLLR 50

Citation: 2020 RLLR 50
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 20, 2020
Panel: Kerry Cundal
Counsel for the Claimant(s): N/A
Country: Palestine
RPD Number: VB9-04099
Associated RPD Number(s): VB9-04100, VB9-04101, VB9-04102, VB9-04103, VB9-04104, VB9-04105
ATIP Number: A-2021-00655
ATIP Pages: 000132-000138

— DECISION AND REASONS BY THE MEMBER

PRESIDING MEMBER:

Reasons for the decision

[1]       This is the decision of the Refugee protection Division in the claims of the principal claimant, [XXX] and the joint claimants, his [XXX] and their children [XXX] and the two American-born twin boys, [XXX].

[2]       The claimants are seeking refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[3]       Your identities have been established by copies of your passports for each of the claimants.

[4]       As I’ve indicated, the two twin boys [XXX] are citizens of the United States and the other five claimants are from the Palestinian Occupied Territories, Specifically Gaza and your former habitual residences for the principal claimant are Libya, Oman and Gaza. The former habitual residences for the other claimants is Oman as well as Gaza..

Allegations

[5]       You fear return to Gaza because you fear political persecution at the hands of Hamas. You’ve been involved with the [XXX] in the past when you lived in Gaza and you were subjected to a militia attack against the radio station in which you were physically harmed, including on your right leg and right arm.

[6]       You were also detained twice by Hamas forces and during which time you were physically and psychologically abused during both of those detentions.

[7]       You’ve also given testimony regarding your status in Libya and Oman as the principal claimant, that you were a child when you left Libya, when Khadafi forced out the Palestinians and you’ve also testified that more recently you were forced to leave Oman when you were terminated from your work as a [XXX] in Oman.

[8]       Further details are found in your Basis of Claims forms, some of which I will highlight in this decision.

[9]       I also note that I have applied the Chairperson’s Guideline Number 4 with respect to victims of gender-based persecution, specifically for the joint claimant [XXX] and the three joint minor claimants which are girls.

Determination

[10]     I find for the principal claimant, [XXX], the joint claimants, [XXX] that you are Convention refugees pursuant to section 96 of the Act for the reasons that follow.

[11]     With respect to the two joint minor claimants [XXX], I find that they are neither Convention refugees pursuant to section 96 nor persons in need of protection pursuant to section 97 because there is not sufficient evidence with respect to the claim against the United States.

[12]     You testified today as their designated representative. The principal claimant you were the designated representative for all of your children and you testified that with respect to the United States your concern was family separation, that you did not want to be separated from your two minor sons who were born in the United States.

[13]     When I asked you for more examples or details or asked you directly about either persecution for your two boys in the United States or a risk to their lives in the United States, you testified that you did not have those concerns against the United States for your boys and it was more about family separation.

[14]     Accordingly, I find that their claims are not established either as a serious possibility of persecution in the United States or on a balance of probabilities that they face a person risk to their lives, or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in the United States.

[15]     As I’ve indicated earlier, identity has been established by copies of your passports.

[16]     With respect to credibility, you both testified in a straightforward and consistent manner today and I find that you are both credible witnesses.

[17]     You also provided corroborative documentation in support of your claim at Exhibit 4 and this included a number of item, including letters from the [XXX] and human rights organizations supporting the attack as well as the summons that you’ve received in 2007, in 2010 and further summons from Hamas authorities in 2016 and 2018.

[18]     You also submitted a medical report from [XXX] 2010 as well as – as I’ve indicated – a letter from the [XXX] supporting your work with the [XXX].

[19]     You’ve also provided the termination letter from your employer in Oman and I find that your corroborative evidence also supports your testimony today and supports your credibility.

[20]     For you, the principal claimant, you gave testimony regarding your time in Gaza as a young man, your time with the [XXX]. You also gave testimony regarding engaging in peaceful demonstrations against the human rights abuses by Hamas. You were around 25 years at that time.

[21]     You also gave consistent testimony about the physical abuse that you suffered while you were in detention – and psychological abuse – hitting, beatings, being forces to sit on small chair for extended periods of time, also including psychological abuse during that time.

[22]     You also testified that you did receive some medical help including medication and at least five sessions of counselling after you were released that time from detention.

[23]     Based on the totality of the evidence before me, I find that you have established a nexus to political opinion with respect to your fears of Hamas in Gaza.

[24]     The international law and the refugee law as adopted here in Canada for Stateless Palestinians requires that you must demonstrate that you have a well-founded fear of persecution in one of the former habitual residences and that you are unable to return to any of the former habitual residences, and I find that you have met this legal test.

[25]     You have demonstrated through reliable evidence that you have a serious possibility, a well-founded fear of persecution in Gaza if you were to return today and you’ve also given sufficient evidence that you have no right of return either in Libya or Oman which are also former habitual residences for you.

[26]     Accordingly, I find that you have established your case under section 96.

[27]     Now, for your spouse, [XXX] and your three daughters – your three daughters [XXX] I find that they have also a nexus under a Convention ground, specifically membership in a particular social group, not only as family members to you, a victim of political persecution, but also because of gender.

[28]     Your wife and you both gave credible testimony with respect to your fears for your daughters because they are girls. It’s not just because they’re Palestinian, it’ s also because of the different treatment that girls and women receive both in Oman and in Gaza; so restrictions on travel, restrictions on their freedom of movement – not being able to leave the home without males or permission, also not able to dress how they wish. As you testified, even as children, young girls are forced to wear the hijab in Gaza and you’ve testified that you do not wish to have your young girls forced to wear the hijab, that they may not have the understanding of religion until they’re a little bit older and that you’re against this mandatory rule by some of the authorities both in Oman and in Gaza.

[29]     Accordingly, I find that the joint female claimants also have a nexus to gender, membership in a particular social group and that you would face a serious possibility of persecution if you return to Gaza today.

[30]     The test is the same for you and your daughters as stateless Palestinians; that you must have a well-founded fear in one of the former habitual residences and be unable to return to any of the former habitual residences.

[31]     For you, you lived in Gaza, that is a former habitual residence for you and I find that you have established a well-founded fear if you were to return to Gaza today.

[32]     For your daughters, I also find that they have established a well-founded fear in Oman, as young girls, as Palestinian young girls, who would not have freedom of movement, who would face ongoing discrimination not only because of their heritage as Palestinians, but also because of their gender and would not have freedom of movement or even freedom to control their own bodies or wear what they wish in Oman as well.

[33]     They would also face a forward-looking serious possibility of persecution and based on the totality of the evidence I find that you’ve each established that also do not have a right of return, to return to either Oman or, of course, we’ve indicated already the persecution in Palestine due to your husband’s detentions and the threats that were made by Haas authorities directly against his family members to intimidate him during detention as well.

[34]     With respect to state protection and internal flight alternative, the objective evidence in the National Documentation Package also supports your testimonies today. For example, the National Documentation Package item 2.1 which is a US Department of State Report with respect to Gaza and the Palestinian-occupied territories indicates that Hamas is responsible for unlawful and arbitrary killings, reports of systematic torture, reports of arbitrary detention, political prisoners, arbitrary unlawful interference with privacy, family and home, undue restrictions on freedom of expression, undue restrictions on freedom of the press and journalists and radio, substantial interference with rights to peaceful assembly and freedom of association, significant restrictions on freedom of movement, restrictions on political participation — there has been no national election since 2006 — corruption, unlawful recruitment of child soldiers, threats of violence motivated by anti-Semitism, violence or threats also targeting women, and women are also discriminated further with respect to their dress and even further restrictions on their freedom of movement as well in the Hamas-controlled Gaza.

[35]     National Documentation Package item 10.6, a Human Rights Watch Report 2018 reiterates much of the same evidence and gives more specific details with respect to the kind of physical and psychological persecution that the Hamas authorities mete out against their detainees which is consistent with your testimony.

[36]     This report indicates that the Hamas authorities in Gaza will blindfold detainees. They’ll force them stand or they force them to sit in small chairs for extended periods of time, usually during interrogations, to pressure them to confess. Detainees cannot speak, move, take medicine, sleep or eat without the permission of the guards.

[37]     The torture as practiced by the Palestinian Authority as well as Hamas may amount to crimes against humanity given its systemic practice over many years.

[38]     The National Documentation Package with respect to Oman – and this is somewhat dated in the National Documentation Package but you’ve also given credible testimony which is more recent given your previous residence in Oman. Nonetheless, it is somewhat dated. This is a document from 2014 unfortunately. It’s also a United States Department of State Report, also indicates the restrictions on women’ s freedom of movement and restrictions on women’s dress by authorities in Oman.

[39]     It also indicates that the government does not protect refugees in Oman, tight control over the entry of foreigners, limited access to protection for refugees in Oman. The authorities apprehend and deport hundreds of presumed economic migrants. It also will deport people if they don’t have authorized status by the employer, all consistent with your testimony today.

[40]     Also, it indicates a lack of access to basic services, so without an official sponsor – which is what you testified to with respect to an employer – it’ s very difficult for foreigners to have any access to basic services and this is somewhat dated but there were deportations as well as those who voluntarily chose to leave because of the conditions and treatment by the authorities in Oman.

[41]     So, I find that this evidence also supports not only the objective basis for your fears of return to Gaza and the kinds of persecution will suffer there if you return to Gaza today, but it also supports the lack of operationally effective state protection in Gaza for you as well.

[42]     With respect to internal flight alternative, as you’ve testified and as the objective evidence indicates, Gaza is a very small area controlled by Hamas at this time and very difficult – any kind of movement out or in is under the control of Hamas at this time and given that Hamas is the group that you fear and the group that has targeted you directly and has also made threats against your family members I find that it is neither safe nor objectively reasonable in all of the circumstances, including your particular circumstances to expect you to try to relocate somewhere within Gaza which is a very small, tightly-controlled area by Hamas and accordingly there is no internal flight alternative available to you in your particular circumstances.

Conclusion

[43]     For the foregoing reasons, I determine that principal claimant, [XXX], the joint claimant, [XXX] the joint claimants [XXX] are Convention refugees pursuant to section 96 and the Board therefore accepts your claim.

[44]     This is a split decision and I also find that with respect to the joined minor claimants [XXX] they are not Convention refugees pursuant to section 96 of the Act nor are they persons in need of protection pursuant to section 97(1) of the Act as US citizens.

[45]     As I’ve indicated there’s not sufficient evidence to make out that claim today against the United States of America. Accordingly, the Board rejects their claims.

[46]     Thank you very much. I wish you and your family all of the best. Thank you counsel. Have a good day everyone. Thank you very much.

—PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED

Categories
All Countries Cuba

2020 RLLR 49

Citation: 2020 RLLR 49
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 6, 2020
Panel: Miryam Molgat
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Kevin Rosales
Country: Cuba
RPD Number: VB9-01922
ATIP Number: A-2021-00655
ATIP Pages: 000128-000131

DECISION

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

Determination

[2]       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 Cuba. Its reasons are as follows.

Allegations

[3]       The claimant’s complete allegations are set out in the Basis of Claim form and need not be repeated here in detail. To summarize briefly, the claimant is a man born in Cuba [XXX], he is from a place called [XXX]. His claim is based on his political opinion as a perceived “counter-revolutionary”, he has suffered at the hands of the Cuban government who threatened to throw him in jail. On one occasion an agent told him that if he wanted he could easily end up dead in a jail cell. The claimant believes the agent was implying he could easily have him killed, the claimant yearns for freedom of expression. He became known in high school for defending his classmates rights, he would refuse to join the [XXX] in the Spanish acronym. As a result, he was unable to study medicine simply because of his political opinion not his grades. He and his family complained without any result. After he finished his two-year compulsory military service he was denied training in fields of his interest, there was no reason provided for the refusal, he believes it was because of his perceived political opinion. In 2014, while working as a [XXX] he was questioned by the police for refusing to participate in regime celebrations linked to the Committee of Revolutionary Defense. Those who refuse to donate to the celebration were threatened with losing their jobs. While questioned by the police the claimant was punched in the face, he complained about it after he was released but there was no follow up by the authorities. After this, it became impossible for the climant-, the claimant to find a job, this was because he was marked as a counter­ revolutionary. He started working as a [XXX], he continued to have problems with the police. The claimant tried to leave Cuba illegally on [XXX] 2015 but was forced to paddle back to shore. His parents then received a visit by officials looking for boat parts, his parents complained to the authorities in vain. The claimant went to the town of Trinidad-,

[4]       INTERPRETER: (Inaudible) so just a moment.

[5]       MEMBER: No-, ok.

[6]       INTERPRETER: Nine

[7]       MEMBER: Ok just a minute because I haven’t read Paragraph 8 yet ok. So, I’m just-, I’ll try and speak more slowly so I’ll, I’ll say Paragraph 8 and then we can continue together.

[8]       INTERPRETER: Ok, I’ve just finished 8.

[9]       MEMBER: Ok.

[10]     MEMBER: So, the claimant went to the town of Trinidad Cuba where he worked as a [XXX], a few months later he started getting visits from people who knew about every single aspect of his file in [XXX]. They would ask him to work for them, he did not want to, he realized he could not be safe in Cuba. Ok, so, the claimant tried to leave Cuba illegally on [XXX] 2016, he and his friends bought a boat, they had to give up and return to land as the cheap engine seized. He was detained upon returning to Cuba but not jailed, police boss [XXX] was the presumed author of the police operation. In [XXX] 2017 the claimant started studying to be a [XXX], he also started studying [XXX] at university. Everything was fine for a year until he was contacted by [XXX] in [XXX] 2018, he wanted the claimant’s help in finding a robber. [XXX] said the claimant have a large police file, he warned him he would be jailed for five years if he failed to co-, cooperate. The claimant relented offering to help, he was so pressured he stopped going to university, he returned to [XXX] to his family. The claimant went to Havana where he took advantage of a Panamanian law allowing Cubans to travel there without a visa, he bought a ticket with his tips, he arrived in [XXX]. He immediately traveled to [XXX], once there, a man said he could help him get to Canada, at the airport the man handed him a passport. The claimant has relatives in Canada, the claimant’s cousin has also arrived in Canada, another cousin had to leave Cuba on account of his pro-LGBT activism. The claimant left Cuba on [XXX] 2019, in Cuba he still has his parents and siblings, his claim was referred in [XXX] 2019. The claimant also alleges fear of risk to his life, risk of torture or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment of 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

[11]     The main issue is credibility.

Identity

[12]     The claimant’s national identity has been established by the testimony and supporting documentation filed and entered in these proceedings. The current passport is on file along with other documents, the Panel is satisfied of the claimant’s identity.

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. 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 his political opinion opposed to the government of Cuba.

Credibility

 [14]    When credibility is assessed there are two principles that are followed. 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. 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 was credible, his allegations do not run counter to generally known facts, his testimony was direct, it was consistent with his BOC allegations. His Exhibit 1 handwritten statement is consistent with his BOC allegations, he has supported his allegations with corroborating documents in counsel disclosure.

Subjective Fear

[15]     The claimant failed to make an asylum claim in Panama or Costa Rica, this is not determinative given that he is credible. He provided a reasonable explanation for his failure to make a claim in panama or Costa Rica, namely that he has family in Canada, he has no family in Panama or Costa Rica. His relationship with his uncle in Canada is established via the documents on file.

Similarly Situated persons and Objective Basis

[16]     The government of Cuba persecutes those they believe are in political opposition and represses political dissent. There are serious consequences for those who criticize the government or express views that are in opposition to the government. The US Department of State report, which is NDP Item 2.1 states the government of Cuba has little tolerance for political criticism of government officials or programs and limits public debate on issues that are considered to be politically sensitive. The US Department of State also discusses severe restrictions on freedom of association, assembly and freedom of speech. In the NDP Item 2.6 from Freedom House it says that, political dissent is a punishable offence and dissidents are systematically harassed, detained, physically assaulted and frequently imprisoned for minor infractions. NDP Item 2.4 states this, the government continues to use other repressive tactics including beatings, public shaming, travel restrictions and termination of employment against critics. The Panel finds that there is an objective basis for the targeting of the claimant by the authorities of Cuba.

State Protection

[17]     Claimant’s 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 claimant to have sought state protection. The objective country conditions evidence on Cuba demonstrate that there is no available state protection for the claimant in Cuba, the claimant fears the Cuban State itself. His experiences establish his past persecution by the State.

Internal Flight Alternative

[18]     There is no internal flight alternative if the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution throughout Cuba, the Cuban authorities control their whole territory.

CONCLUSION

[19]     Having considered all of the evidence, the Panel determines that there is a serious possibility that the claimant would be persecuted in Cuba for one of the five grounds enumerated in the refugee Convention, namely, political opinion. Having come to this conclusion, the Panel has not conducted further assessment under Section 97(1) of the Act. The Panel concludes that the claimant is a Convention refugee and the Panel therefore accepts the claim.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Categories
All Countries Hong Kong

2020 RLLR 45

Citation: 2020 RLLR 45
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: October 8, 2020
Panel: Avril Cardoso
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Evan Andrew Karmazyn
Country: Hong Kong
RPD Number: TB9-15472
ATIP Number: A-2021-00655
ATIP Pages: 000106-000110

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: This is the decision for [XXX]. You are claiming to be a citizen of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Peoples Republic of China. And you’re claiming refugee protection pursuant to s. 96 and 97 (1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

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

Determination

[3]       I find that you are a convention refugee on the ground of anti-government political opinion for the following reasons.

Allegations

[4]       You allege the following: In 2015 and 2016, you experience threats and pressure to resign from your position as a [XXX] because of your pro-democracy views and activities.

[5]       After obtaining a study visa for Canada, you left Hong Kong in [XXX] 2018. You fear returning to Hong Kong because of your anti-government views in relation to the autonomy and pro-democracy views of Hong Kong.

[6]       You allege if you return, you will be persecuted. You allege that there is no state protection for you or an internal flight alternative.

Identity

[7]       I find that your personal identity as a citizen of the Hong Kong Special Administration Region People’s Republic of China has been established on the balance of probabilities by your testimony and the supporting documents filed in the exhibits, specifically your passport, Hong Kong permanent identity card, and driver’s license found in Exhibit-1.

Nexus

[8]       I find there is a link between what you fear and the ground of political opinion, and your claim is therefore assessed under s. 96.

Credibility

[9]       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. I find that you are a long-standing pro­ democracy activist in Hong Kong.

[10]     Your testimony about your long-standing involvement and participation in the quest for genuine democracy and an autonomous Hong Kong was detailed and spontaneous. You described your strong belief in the rule of law, of human rights, and universal suffrage, and testified about your participation in protests during the Umbrella Movement. You submitted photos of your participation in protest activities in Exhibit-7.

[11]     As the result of your activities, I find on a balance of probabilities, that you face threats and harassment from anti-democracy persons. You’ve provided detailed testimony about the threats and the steps you took to report them to school management and other colleagues. You explained that as a result of the ongoing threats, you were experiencing [XXX] which was [XXX], and you also tried [XXX]jjjl4po-0l with the symptoms.

[12]     Your testimony about the fear and worry you felt when you came to school each day was most compelling and without embellishment. Your testimony was corroborated by medical report which is found in Exhibit-7. You also testified that reported the issues to the police liaison officer who was assigned to your school, but no action was taken.

[13]     Based on legal advice from a colleague who is a lawyer, you decided not to file an official report to the police because of their violent response to protests and their bias against democracy and actions which demonstrate they are a tool of the communist government.

[14]     In support of your testimony, you filed a complaint letter and a letter from the episcopal delegate for education, both found in Exhibit-7 which are consistent with your testimony and basis of claim form.

[15]     Most compelling was your testimony about the significant impact the threats and harassment had on your [XXX] health and marriage.

[16]     You provided detailed testimony about your political activities in Canada as they relate to Hong Kong. And I find you’ve attended a number of protests in Canada to support your brothers and sisters in Hong Kong. You provided testimony which is corroborated with photos and other supporting documents found in Exhibit-7 about your attendance at the Canada-Hong Kong Link event on [XXX] 2019, a protest on [XXX] 2020 at Old City Hall, an event about forgiveness in the context of the Hong Kong protest on [XXX] 2020, and another protest on St. George Street outside the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office.

[17]     Some of these events have been posted online, and papers you have written with political content about Hong Kong protests and anti-democracy policies are also published in writing and online.

[18]     I find that your reavailment to Hong Kong in [XXX] 2018, [XXX] 2019, and [XXX] 2019 was reasonably explained. You testified that you were experiencing difficulties in your marriage and returned to Hong Kong to save your marriage in [XXX]. And returned in May 2019 to support your wife during the difficult time she faced with the Joss of her mother.

[19]     I also find that your delay in claiming protection for about nine months is reasonably explained. You explained that it was not until the extradition law was proposed in mid-2019 that you were really fearful of returning to Hong Kong given your pro-democracy activist profile. You also testified that with the recent introduction of the Security Law, you are more fearful of harm given the dilution of democratic principles contained in this legislation.

[20]     I therefore find that your subjective fear is established by your credible testimony and supporting documents, and I believe what you’ve alleged on a balance of probabilities.

Objective Basis

[21]     Your fear of being deported to Hong Kong in the present circumstances is a fear that is well-founded in the objective documents.

[22]     Item 2.1 of the NDP indicates that the government increasingly moved to restrict the expression of views it found objectionable even when those expressions occurred abroad.

[23]     This item also reports the following: That the government also expanded attempts to control the global dissemination of information online. Economic leverage on the mainland was used to suppress freedom of expression in Hong Kong. For example, employees of Cathay Airlines who engaged in protests or who demonstrated radical conduct were not permitted to work on flights entering the Chinese airspace. The government heavily censored the Hong Kong protests and blocked any neutral or positive reports about the protestors.

[24]     Item 2.2 reports that the founders of the Occupy Central campaign were charged with public nuisance­ related offences for their involvement with the Umbrella Movement. Also, four elected pro-democracy legislators were disqualified for failing to meet the National People’s Congress standing committee interpretation of the Hong Kong basic law when they took their oaths of office.

[25]     The Freedom House report found in item 2.3 reports a downward trend due to the expulsion of four pro­ democracy lawmakers from the legislature, jail sentences against protest leaders, and other apparent efforts by pro-Beijing authorities to stamp out a movement calling for local self-determination.

[26]     Item 4.1 reports that the 2014 Hong Kong protests and 2016 Legislative Council elections caught Beijing’s attention, and since Beijing seems to be tightening it’s posture towards Hong Kong’s governance, Beijing views all protest and pro-democracy political voices as potential challenges to China’s one-party rule. But it perceives Hong Kong’s calls for democracy as particularly threatening because of the city status as an international economic hub.

[27]     Your Counsel has submitted more current, objective evidence from reliable sources. In particular, the BEC news report found in Exhibit-7 reports that a new security law came into force on June 30th 2020 which gives Beijing powers to shape life in Hong Kong like never before. This article reports that the provisions of this legislation effectively curtails freedom of speech and protest and includes the ability of referral of some cases for trial in mainland China.

[28]     The July 2020 Amnesty International report also found in Exhibit-7 states that the new security law is overly-broad and vague and almost anything could be construed as a threat to national security. A New York Times article dated April 23rd 2019 also in Exhibit-7 reports that Umbrella Movement activists have been sentenced with terms up to 16 months for their roles in demonstrations in 2014.

State Protection

[29]     In this case, the agent of persecution is the state, as the persecution you would face should you return to Hong Kong is at the hands of the authorities. Accordingly, I find there is no state protection available to you.

Internal Flight Alternative

[30]     I find that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Hong Kong and therefore, no internal flight alternative is available to you, as the state is the agent of persecution and would be motivated to find you.

Conclusion

[31]     Based on the totality of the evidence, I find you to be a convention refugee, and I accept your claim.

REASONS CONCLUDED

Categories
All Countries Turkey

2020 RLLR 40

Citation: 2020 RLLR 40
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 25, 2020
Panel: J. Kim
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Aleksandar Jeremic
Country: Turkey
RPD Number: TB8-27767
Associated RPD Number: TB8-27831
ATIP Number: A-2021-00655
ATIP Pages: 000071-000075

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: Okay, this is a decision for the following claimant’s [XXX] File number TB8-27767. I’ve considered your testimony and other evidence in the case and I’m ready to render my decision orally.

[2]       You are claiming to be citizens of Turkey and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to Section 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[3]       I find that you are Convention refugees for the following reasons.

[4]       You allege the following; that you are citizens of Turkey and are Alevi’s and that if you were to return you will face persecution due to your active involvement with HTP and CHP. You allege that there is no state protection for you or an internal flight alternative.

[5]       You allege that you were detained multiple times by the police and that even after you left Turkey people who knew you were being asked about you by the police when they themselves were detained.

[6]       Your personal identity as citizens of Turkey has been established by your testimony and the supporting documents including your passports and your identity as Alevi has been established by your testimony and the supporting documents including a support letter from your father, [XXX] and a letter from Canadian Alevi Culture Centre.

[7]       I find that on a balance of probabilities that your personal and religious identities have been established.

[8]       I find that there is a link between what you fear and one of the five convention grounds specifically political opinion. I therefore assessed your claims under Section 96.

[9]       In terms of your general credibility I have found you to be credible witnesses and I therefore believe what you have alleged in your oral testimony and in your basis of claim forms. Your testimony was straightforward and was in keeping with your basis of claim form and there are no significant inconsistencies or omissions that went to the heart of the claim.

[10]     I therefore find the following to be credible; that you are people who face persecution due to your involvement with the oppositional parties, namely HTP and CHP, at the hands of the state authorities.

[11]     Your oral testimony today included details regarding your involvement with HTP and CHP and the incidents you experienced with the police. You testified how you became involved with both parties and the roles and responsibilities you had.

[12]     You also describe the number of protests and rallies you attended as well as the work you did helping with referendum and election campaigns which lead to a house raid where your parent’s house was raided by the police and all of your sisters including yourself was taken into the police station and was interrogated.

[13]     You testified prior to the house raid that you experienced violent encounters with the police and were detained multiple times after protests. You also testified that you received phone calls that threatened you to stop your political engagements.

[14]     Your sister the associate claimant also testified regarding her involvement in political parties and rallies and the subsequent detainment and the house raid she also experienced.

[15]     You also provided documents in support of your testimony that you have been active members and supporters of HTP and CHP and that you have been experiencing threats and risk from the police and these documents include letters of support from your friend, father and sister, photographs of the associate claimant as she was campaigning for the referendum and a letter from Canadian centre for victims of torture.

[16]     You also submitted social media posts that were critical towards the government, the letter from your sister and your friend who was detained and interrogated after you left Turkey which describes how police were still looking for you and harassing your family members and friends to get information about you.

[17]     Your testimony and the supporting documentation all establish that you have been actively involved in the HTP and CHP and therefore have been targeted by the state authorities.

[18]     The objective documentation supports your allegations that individuals in your circumstance face persecution at the hands of state authorities and society at large.

[19]     According to the national documentation package Item 1.6, 2.1, 2.3, 13.1 and 13.3 the persecution that the HTP supporters and those who voice criticism against the government face, they face discrimination and violence.

[20]     National documentation package Item 13.1 speaks to it by stating that the anti Kurdish sentiment is high in Turkey and permissive political environment turns this sentiment into violence in some cases.

[21]     Item 13.3 describes that the anti terrorism legislation led members of the Kurdish community to be vulnerable to violence and that there are significant restrictions on their rights to freedom of expression and association as well as (inaudible), arrest and detention and persecution.

[22]     In your case it’s not that the state authorities identify you as Kurdish people but as those who are active in supporting HTP and their goals.

[23]     Item 2.3 describes the correlation between the heightened conflicts between the resurgence and how the Turkish government has been using these conflicts to justify a crackdown on Kurdish political parties, media outlets and civil society organizations.

[24]     NDP Item 1.6 and 2.3 also describe how the different laws such as anti terror and defamation laws have been used to stop political opponents as well as ordinary citizens from voicing criticism by filing criminal charges against and persecuting a wide range of individuals.

[25]     According to the national documentation package Item 2.1 during the year of 2018 the government opened investigations into thousands of individuals including minors for insulting the president and the detainees charged against anti terror laws had no substantial link to terrorism and that they were detained to silence critical voices or weaken political opposition to the ruling AKP particularly the HTP members and officials.

[26]     Specifically Item NDP Item 11.3 and 11.4 describe the lack of freedom of speech on the internet and how the government recently started to crackdown on those who post, posted critical things against the government through criminal investigation and persecutions which have affected a wide range of people from journalists and human rights activists to high school and university students and construction workers.

[27]     I therefore find that you have a well founded fear of persecution. I find that you have rebutted the presumption of state protection because the state is the agent of persecution in this case and it would be unreasonable for you to seek state protection in this case.

[28]     According to the national documentation package Item 2.1 the government continues to take limited steps to investigate, prosecute and punish members of the security forces and other officials accused of human rights abuses and that impunity for such abuses remained a problem.

[29]     In Item 2.3 it describes that the issues of corruption remains a major problem in Turkey.

[30]     Based on your personal circumstances as well as the objective country documentation l find that the adequate state protection will not be available to you as the state will be unwilling to protect you in Turkey.

[31]     As you have rebutted the presumption of state protection and since the country documentation indicates that the situation for individuals in circumstances such as yours is the same throughout the country, I find that you do not have a viable internal flight alternative.

[32]     Based on the totality of evidence I find that you have established that there is a serious possibility of persecution on the convention ground namely the political opinion. I therefore find that you are Convention refugees and I accept your claims.

[33]     Thank you.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Categories
All Countries Burundi

2020 RLLR 36

Citation: 2020 RLLR 36
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 13, 2020 (date of transcription)
Panel: N/A
Counsel for the Claimant(s): N/A
Country: Burundi 
RPD Number: MB8-27400
ATIP Number: A-2021-00655
ATIP Pages: 000035-000039

[1]       This is the claim of [XXX] in file number MB8-27400, citizen of Burundi, and claiming refugee protection under Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. And, alleging a well-founded fear of persecution, by reason of your imputed political opinions.

DETERMINATION

[2]       I conclude that you have established that there is a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground.

ALLEGATIONS

[3]       Regarding your allegations, you have alleged the following. You are [XXX], from Burundi and a member of the Tutsi ethnic group. You fear, that should you return to Burundi, you will be perceived as an opponent of the government and subsequently face persecution at the hands of State authorities, including NISS, members of the CNDD-FDD Party, and the Imbonerakures. This fear is based on a number of factors. One being that prior to leaving Burundi, in 2014, at the end of… at the early [XXX] … in [XXX] 2015, in 2014 you were a student activist, and you had represented students at your youth university opposing a change in school policy, which brought you to the attention of the authorities at that time.

[4]       Not long after that event, you went to the U.S. on [XXX] 2015, with a Student Visa. And, you did seek asylum in the U.S. Your asylum application is still pending, but after receiving a letter from the Immigration authorities advising you that your asylum processing would be on the basis of a last… and first out, you decided to come to Canada because of the delays in having your claim processed in the U.S.

[5]       While being in the U.S.A., the situation in Burundi deteriorated, and there was also persecution towards ex-FAB members. The fact that your father is an ex-FAB, and the fact that you are a young Tutsi from Bujumbura, and who has resided out of the country for a number of years, are additional reasons why you fear persecution should you return to Burundi.

ANALYSIS

IDENTITY

[6]       Regarding your identity, it has been established by acceptable documentation, namely your passport.

CREDIBILITY

[7]       Regarding credibility, the onus is on refugee claimants to demonstrate the elements of their claim for refugee protection. And, regarding credibility, there is also a principle which is laid out in the Federal Court decision called Maldonado, which states that when a refugee claimant swears that certain facts are true, this creates a presumption that they are true, unless there is a valid reason to doubt their truthfulness. In your case, you testified in a spontaneous and detailed manner, and your testimony was consistent with the evidence on file. And, I do not make a negative conclusion regarding your credibility. In support of your claim, you also filed a number of documents. You supported documents to confirm your attendance at university in Burundi in 2014. Documents to corroborate your father is an ex-FAB. And, documents regarding your asylum application in the U.S.A.

OBJECTIVE BASIS

[8]       Your allegations are also corroborated by objective evidence on country conditions. The documentary evidence in the National Documentation Package, in 13.6, indicates that Burundi has been in a crisis since the President announced in April 2015 a third mandate, and that since then the political and ethnic tensions in the country have increased, particularly for persons who would be perceived as an opponent. Which is a serious possibility, given your student activism, your father being ex-FAB and your ethnicity. Your father was a former soldier of the former Tutsi-dominated army called the ex-FAB. The documentary evidence in tabs 2.13 and 13.1 of the National Documentation Package support that ex-FAB members are being persecuted. According to sources, there is a purging of ex-FAB soldiers from the former Tutsi-dominated army. Human rights organizations have received on a regular basis information regarding assassinations, forced disappearance, torture, and arbitrary arrests of ex-FAB members.

[9]       With regards to ethnicity, you are a young male Tutsi, whose family resided in Bujumbura, an area that is at times considered hostile to the government. The objective evidence on country conditions supports that those who are perceived as opposing the government in power do face persecution, and the current situation in Burundi has deteriorated for political opponents and for the gen… the population in general in the country. Following the presidential elections held in July 2015, Burundi has been shaken by wave killings of members of political parties of all sides. These killings exemplify the climate of general insecurity in the country. A U.S. Country report stated that there were numerous reports the government, or its agents, committed arbitrary or unlawful killings, often against perceived supporters of the political opposition or those who exercise their lawful rights. The 2018 report of the U.N. Commission Inquiry, whose members were denied access to the country by the government, but who conducted interviews with more than 400 witnesses living in exile, restated its conclusion from the previous year and found reason to believe that arbitrary killings remain a widespread practice in Burundi, and that members of the National Intelligence Service, police and Imbonerakures, were mostly responsible for these killings.

[10]     Regarding your ethnicity, the documentary evidence would also indicate the following in 13.1, in a report that was published  in 2016 by the International Federation of Human Rights and the Burundian Human Rights League, state that while the ethnic factor is not always the primary motivation for crimes committed by the Burundian security forces, it tends to become an indicator of the violence exercised by the Burundian authorities against those they suspect of being opposed to the President’s third term. The same source states that Tutsi populations are thus perceived as being opposed by nature to the power in place and are persecuted for this reason. And that, according to another source, Burundi’s ongoing political crisis has not occurred primarily on ethnic nine… ethnic lines, nonetheless in some places in the country violence has taken on explicitly violent dimensions. In most instances of ethnically charged violence, and this is violence that has largely targeted Tutsis.

STATE PROTECTION

[11]     Regarding State protection, taking into consideration the objective evidence regarding the situation in Burundi and of those perceived as opponents, and those who are Tutsi, as I indicated earlier, there are reports that indicate authorities have been the perpetrators of acts of violence towards persons in your… in your situation or a similar situation. Therefore, due to the current situation in Burundi at this time and the overall insecurity in the country, I find that it would be unreasonable for you to seek State protection, and the presumption of State protection is rebutted.

INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE

[12]     Regarding an internal flight alternative, haven’t take… having taken into consideration your particular circumstances and profile, I find that the fear you have alleged would be found throughout the country, and therefore a viable alter… internal flight alternative would not be available.

CONCLUSION

[13]     Having analyzed the evidence as a whole, I find that you have discharged your burden of establishing that there is a serious possibility that you would be persecuted on a Convention ground, and therefore I accept your claim for refugee protection. Alright, ok. So, that puts an end to the hearing.

Categories
All Countries Egypt

2020 RLLR 35

Citation: 2020 RLLR 35
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 5, 2020 (date of transcription)
Panel: N/A
Counsel for the Claimant(s): N/A
Country: Egypt 
RPD Number: MB8-25654
ATIP Number: A-2021-00655
ATIP Pages: 000028-000034

[1]       This is the decision in the claim of Mr. [XXX], his wife Madam [XXX] and their minor children, [XXX], [XXX] and [XXX] who are citizens of Egypt and are claiming asylum pursuant to Section 96 and Subsection 97.1 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act hereafter referred to the IRPA.

[2]       The Claimant’s allegations appear in the Principal Claimant’s Basis of Claim form hereafter referred to as the BOC and his written narrative from which the tribunal retains the following central allegations.

[3]       So, the main Claimant was working for [XXX] as an [XXX] for [XXX]. In this capacity he had been mandated to represent the interests of his [XXX] and specifically for this case for the [XXX], or [XXX] on or about 2015. Having been informed of the cancellation of the [XXX] he took the initiative on or about [XXX], 2016 to organize a meeting with [XXX] [phonetic] of the [XXX].

[4]       During their conversation or discussion, should I say, he would have said to [XXX] that the military were indeed taking control over the country which was led [XXX] to terminate abruptly the meeting. Later on, his human resources department would have called him and told him that he was removed from [XXX], [XXX]. That wasn’t all. This episode led to the following incidents which are forming the basis of their refugee claim.

[5]       On [XXX], 2016 at about 3 o’clock the Claimant was arrested from home and brought to [XXX] where he was detained for [XXX] days plus one week and questioned about the Muslim Brotherhood, the revolution of the 25th of January, 2011 and the revolution of the 30th of June, 2013. He will eventually be released upon accepting to write a statement in which he engaged himself not to participate in future political events nor to express his political views in the future and therefore he was released.

[6]       A second arrest took place on [XXX], 2017. In fact, the Claimant was about to leave his office located in [XXX] which is a neighborhood of [XXX] in order to meet a friend or a colleague from [XXX] and once at the [XXX] he was arrested by the police and taken to the national security building. He was slapped, interrogated, humiliated and later on put in detention under poor conditions.

[7]       His release was secured after [XXX] days. However, he soon realized that they were direct repercussions to his problems with the [XXX] as his employer had forced him to resign and accordingly, he was facing a loss of several benefits. He was told directly and indirectly that the intelligence unit or national security apparatus had informed the employer that to keep him in this position was not good for their business. And it is understood according to the Claimant that he was sacrificed on the basis of higher commercial interests of [XXX].

[8]       This led him to make the decision to visit Canada with his wife, his younger child and his mother on [XXX], 2017. However, as two of his children had remained in Egypt the Co­Claimant was forced to return to Egypt on [XXX], 2017 while the Principal Claimant remained in the Montreal area. It appears that he was trying to heal from the past incidents.

[9]       However, he was informed that the police raided his house on [XXX], 2018 in his absence as they were looking for him in order to arrest him. This prompted this decision to depart from Canada and return back to Cairn which he did on [XXX], 2018. Even though he was not arrested he was detained at the passport unit for two hours and let go.

[10]     Again, on [XXX], 2018 he was arrested from home by joint forces including police and army personnel, taken by truck outside Cairn and put in detention in a facility which was unofficial according to him. And where the regime opponents were detained. It is his understanding that the people there were mostly accused or suspected of having activities with the Muslim Brotherhood or to have western views or collaborating with western countries. He was later on taken to [XXX] [phonetic] where he was released as his wife was waiting for him.

[11]     Upon this last release the Claimant decided to go to the north part of Egypt to be as much as possible away from his family for their safety and it is on or about [XXX], 2018 that he took the decision to leave Egypt in order to seek international protection. As he was fearful of being controlled and possible arrested but also afraid of putting his wife and children in danger, he decided to contact people and try to organize a collaboration of state security apparatus in place by paying individuals that would facilitate his departure from Egypt without any problems.

[12]     It is therefore in those circumstances that the Claimant came to Canada with the idea of claiming refugee status which led to the current hearing.

[13]     Naturally as minor children are involved in the process of this hearing the tribunal had the opportunity to confirm that for this proceeding the main Claimant, Mr. [XXX] was appointed and accepted the responsibilities of Designated Representative for his minor children, namely, [XXX], [XXX] and [XXX]. This in accordance with Section 167(2) of the IRPA and RPD Rule 20 and Guideline No. 3.

[14]     Under the rubric of determination, the tribunal finds that the Claimants have established that they would face a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground should they return to their home country, Egypt. Therefore, the tribunal finds that they are “Convention Refugees”.

[15]     In making this assessment the tribunal considered all of the evidence including the oral testimonies and the documentary evidence filed by the board but also by their counsel.

[16]     The Claimant’s identities as citizens of Egypt is established through their original passports containing a Canadian visa. Their passports were seized by Canada Border Services Agency, CBSA and therefore the Claimants have met their burden of proof to the satisfaction of the tribunal.

[17]     Under the rubric of nexus in this case the Claimant’ s fear are linked to two Convention grounds. First political opinion and secondly, membership in a particular social group, namely the family group for the Co-Claimant and the children.

[18]     As for the credibility, when a Claimant swears that certain facts are true this creates a presumption that they are indeed true unless there is a valid reason to doubt their veracity. The determination as to whether a Claimant’s evidence is creditable is made on the balance of probabilities. In assessing credibility, the tribunal was mindful of the Claimant’s profile. The tribunal is cognizant of many difficulties faced by claimants in establishing a claim including cultural factors, the milieu of the hearing room, the stress inherent in responding to questions and sometimes through an interpreter and nervousness.

[19]     It is important to mention that the Claimant’s allegations were also supported by numerous documentary evidence establishing that they were targeted by the state security apparatus, the police force and or the military and that the Principal Claimant was detained on several occasions.

[20]     To this effect it is important to mention that the Principal Claimant professional and corporate profile was established through several documents including but not limited to his CV, social insurance contributions, internal communications at [XXX]. All of these documents were filed under Exhibit 4, Item P4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 16, 17 and 18.

[21]     As for the prosecutor incidents they were also corroborated by the Claimant’s letter of resignation to [XXX] and numerous police reports and lawyer’s letters. Indeed, we have the resignation letter filed under Exhibit 4, Item P9 but also, we have a police report filed as Item P10 for the arrest of [XXX], 2016, P11 concerning the disappearance of the Principal Claimant on [XXX], 2017, P12 concerning the police raid on the residence of the Claimant on [XXX], 2018 and finally Exhibit P14 pertaining to the arrest of [XXX], 2018.

[22]     Accordingly, we had also the benefit of seeing the letters from his lawyer pertaining to the raid of [XXX], 2018 filed as Item P13 and the letter to the Attorney General sent by his lawyer pertaining to his arrest and detention following the event of [XXX], 2018.

[23]     So, all this evidence stated above corroborated the Claimant’s allegations of the persecutory acts they have faced and also of their subjective fear of returning back to Egypt and facing again persecution at the hands of the state security apparatus.

[24]     In reaching this conclusion the panel also considering Section 203 of the UNHCR Handbook on procedures and criteria for determining refugee status as it states that it is hardly possible for refugee claimants to prove every part of their case and also Section 39 which states that a person would not normally abandon his home and country without some compelling reasons. As a matter of fact, under the objective basis the tribunal further finds that the Claimant’s evidence as a whole is generally consistent with the objective documentary evidence.

[25]     Indeed, Exhibit 4, Item 19, filed on behalf of the Claimant consists of three newspaper articles pertaining to the arrest of opponents to the regime or their suspicious disappearances. Moreover, the latest Human Rights Watch Report for 2018 refers to the regime’s campaign of intimidation, violence and arrests against political opponents, the civil society and whoever criticizes the government.

[26]     The fight against terrorism is the general pretext for the repression and multiple human rights abuses in order to silence even the most pacifist opponents. In fact, the poor human rights record of the current Egyptian regime is detailed throughout the National Documentation Package as it [phonetic] appears from Exhibit No. 3. Therefore, the Claimants allegations are plausible within the social and political environment prevailing in Egypt.

[27]     As for the state protection and the internal flight alternative even though the tribunal has not identified such issues it is important to mention that the state is the agent of persecution and the state of Egypt is in full control over its sovereign territory protection and state protection and IFA are not viable options in the case at bar.

[28]     Finally, under the rubric of conclusion the tribunal finds that the Claimants have established that they would face a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground in Egypt.

[29]     Having considered all of the evidence the tribunal determines that Mr. [XXX], his wife [XXX] and their minor children, [XXX], [XXX] and [XXX] are “Convention Refugees” pursuant to Section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[30]     It is therefore unnecessary for the tribunal to conduct an analysis of Section 97(1) of the Act.

[31]     On behalf of all Canadians but in my personal name I welcome you to Canada and wish that you will be able to find happiness here and serenity and that you will be able to materialize your dreams.

[32]     Therefore, I would like to express my sincere thanks to Maître Beauchemin for his usual collaboration and to our interpreter and I wish you a wonderful day. It is now two minutes past eleven and this is ending today’s hearing in the case number MB8-25654. Have a nice day everyone.

Categories
All Countries Uganda

2020 RLLR 34

Citation: 2020 RLLR 34
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 16, 2020 (date of transcription)
Panel: N/A
Counsel for the Claimant(s): N/A
Country: Uganda
RPD Number: MB8-21947
ATIP Number: A-2021-00655
ATIP Pages: 000024-000027

[1]       These are the reasons for the decision in the claim of Madam [XXX], who claims to be a citizen of Uganda, and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I note that prior to the hearing, the Board has granted Counsel’s request to designate the claimant as a vulnerable person according to Chairperson’s guideline concerning procedures with respect to vulnerable persons appearing before the Immigration and Refugee Board. As per request of the Counsel, the Board has allowed the following procedure accommodations to ensure that the claimant was not disadvantaged in presenting her case. A female Member Panel, a small hearing room, and the taking of breaks according to the needs of the claimant.

ALLEGATIONS

[2]       The claimant alleges that she fears persecution by the government because of her political opinion and because of her sexual orientation as a lesbian. She believes that if she returns to Uganda, she will be imprisoned and seriously harmed by the government and there is no safe place for her to return to in Uganda.

DETERMINATION

[3]       Having considered the totality of the evidence, I find the claimant to be a “Convention refugee” under Section 96 on the grounds of her political opinion.

ANALYSIS

[4]       The determinative issue in this claim is credibility.

IDENTITY

[5]       Based on a certified true copy of the claim… claimant’s Ugandan passport and her national identity card, the original of which was seized by the CBSA, I’m satisfied with the claimant’s nationality and personal identity.

CREDIBILITY

[6]       In assessing the claimant’s credibility, I have taken into consideration her medical report from the [XXX] in the United States, and her psychiatric reports from the [XXX] in Montreal, and a letter from a psychotherapist. I note that she was diagnosed with [XXX] by Dr. [XXX] (phonetic) of the [XXX]. With respect to her political activism, I find that claimant was capable of giving a spontaneous and straightforward testimony. She answered all the questions posed to her without hesitation. She was able to elaborate on her motivation, involvement, and aspirations in human rights issues and politics in Uganda. She provided a detailed account of the alleged incidents that she and her family encountered at the hands of the State agents because of her anti-government views and opinions. There were no major inconsistencies, discrepancies or omissions between the claimant’s testimony, her previous declarations and the documentary evidence she provided in support of her alleged incident of persecution. In particular, the police reports and the medical certificate of her son corroborate her allegations of being targeted by the State. I have no reasons to doubt the authenticity of these documents.

[7]       With respect to the claimant’s subjective fear, I note that the claimant was in the United States from [XXX] to [XXX] 2014, during which time she did not claim refugee status. As to explain why, she testified that her children were in Uganda then, under the care of her elderly mother. And, there had been no serious incident that occurred to her yet. She missed her children and she wanted to be reunited with them, taking care of them, with the hope that things would turn better. She therefore did not claim asylum in the States and returned to Uganda. I find her explanations not unreasonable. The claimant went to the United States again at the end of [XXX] 2018 and stayed there for three days before coming to Canada to seek protection. She was asked why she did not claim refugee status in the States on this occasion. She explained that her plan was to come to Canada because her husband was here and she believed this is a good country where she can have all the freedom. Given the short stay she was in the United States, the Panel does not infer her failure to claim refugee status in the U.S. to a lack of subjective fear. For both reasons, I conclude that the claimant has established her subjective fear of persecution by reason of political opinion.

OBJECTIVE BASIS

[8]       I further examined whether there is an objective base to the claimant’s subjective fear of persecution. I note that the claimant’s allegations of the treatment of political opponents by the ruling party are supported by the following objective documentary evidence in the National Documentation Package for Uganda. The Amnesty International report 2017, 2018, states that rights of freedom of expression, association and assembly were restricted. Individuals in Uganda who express political views that do not align with the government in power face a risk of persecution. The Human Right Watch 2019 states that violation of rights to freedom of association, expression and assembly persisted, as security forces beat, and at times torture and arbitrarily detain protestors, journalists and opposition members. 33 people, including 6 parliamentarians, were arrested during the bi-election campaigns in Arua. They faced treason charges and alleged torture by the security forces, police and soldiers beat and detain journalist reporting in Arua and at ensuing protests. The United States Department of State country report on human rights practices for 2018 notes that significant h7uman rights issues were observed, including unlawful killings and torture by security forces, harsh prison conditions, arbitrary detention, restrictions on freedom of press, expression, assembly, and political participation as well as official corruption. The same report also notes that the Ugandan government was reluctant to investigate, prosecute or punish officials who committed human rights violations whether in the security services or elsewhere in the government and impunity was a problem. The police arrest and detain members of the opposition. Given all of the above objective country conditions, I find there is an objective basis to the claimant’s subjective fear.

STATE PROTECTION

[9]       I have considered whether the claimant would have State protection should she return to Uganda. In this case, given the agent of persecution is the State, which acts with impunity as it transpires in the documentary evidence I just referred to, I find that adequate State protection would not be reasonably forthcoming to the claimant in her circumstances. Hence, the presumption of State protection was rebutted.

INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE

[10]     I have also considered whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for the claimant. The documentary evidence indicates that the State authorities operate similarly throughout Uganda, and that the State is un control of all its territory. Therefore, I do not find that the claimant has a viable alternative of internal flight anywhere in Uganda.

CONCLUSION

[11]     Based on the foregoing analysis, I find that the claimant has established there is a reasonable chance or serious possibility that she would be persecuted for a Convention ground, that is by reason of political opinion, should she return to Uganda. I therefore accept her claim.