Tag: Political Opinion

2020 RLLR 32

Citation: 2020 RLLR 32
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 4, 2020
Panel: Antoine Collins
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Ian D Hamilton
Country: Ethiopia
RPD Number: TB9-09989
ATIP Number: A-2021-00655
ATIP Pages: 000008-000015

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division in the claim of [XXX], who claims to be a citizen of Ethiopia, and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to section 90 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Act).¹

Determination/Nexus

[2] I find that you, the Claimant, are a Convention Refugee, pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, as you have a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground, because of your anti-government political opinion and your membership with the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF).

Allegations

[3] Your allegations are set out in your Basis of Claim Form (BOC)².

[4] In summary, you allege fear of persecution in Ethiopia at the hands of the Ethiopian authorities due to your anti-government political opinion and being a member of the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF).

ANALYSIS

Identity

[5] I find that your personal and national identity has been established on a balance of probabilities by way of your testimony and a Certified True Copy of your Ethiopian Passport, found at Exhibit 1.

Credibility

[6] The onus rests on the Claimant to establish his/her allegations on a balance of probabilities. When a Claimant swears/affirms to tell the truth, this creates a presumption that those allegations are true unless there be reasons to doubt their truthfulness.³ However, standing alongside this is the recognition that I am entitled to make reasonable findings based on inconsistencies, omissions, implausibilities, common sense, and rationality. I am also entitled to reject un-contradicted evidence if it is not consistent with the probabilities affecting the case as a whole.

[7] In assessing your credibility, I have considered several factors, including your age, level of education and experience, cultural and social factors, the unfamiliar hearing environment and the challenges inherent in responding to questions through an interpreter. As such, I find that your testimony was in-line with what I would reasonably expect of a Claimant with your particular profile regarding your support and membership with the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) and your anti-government political opinion.

[8] You testified in a forthright, genuine, and voluntary manner. I found your testimony to be detailed, and you intelligently described the political landscape in Ethiopia. Furthermore, I find that you were a credible and reliable witness as to your personal and political circumstances in Ethiopia. There were no relevant contradictions, omissions or inconsistencies between your testimony and the other evidence before me that were not satisfactorily explained.

[9] Overall, I find you to be credible witnesses and therefore I believe what you have alleged in support of your claim.

Supporter and Member of the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF)

[10] Mr. [XXX], you testified that you were a supporter of the OLF since [XXX] of 2014 and became an official member on [XXX], 2018. You indicated that your support and your membership stems from the longstanding mistreatment of the Oromo people that you witnessed firsthand. You testified that growing up you used to hear about the struggle of the Oromo people from your parents and other relatives. I asked what prompted you to become an official member of the OLF at the time when you did. You responded that even though you were a supporter of the OLF since 2014 your knowledge about politics was rather general and that you decided to become an official member of the OLF because you wanted to contribute to the human rights struggle of the Oromo people in whatever way you could. You were able to give me details as to the history of the OLF, and the process to become an official member. In support of your claim you tendered your Oromo Liberation Front Membership Identification document.

[11] I find that you have established, on a balance of probabilities, that you were a supporter and member of the Oromo Liberation Front while in Ethiopia.

Attended Human Rights Demonstrations in Support of the Oromo Community

[12] You testified that while in Ethiopia you participated in three public demonstrations. You were able to give fulsome details as to the peaceful nature of the protests, what they were about, the location, size, and how government authorities used violence to disperse the crowds. You testified that after each demonstration you witnessed many participants who were either injured or killed. I questioned you as to why you would continue to participate in these demonstrations when there was a possibility that you could be injured or killed. You indicated that since you are part of the Oromo community and know the injustice and human rights violations against your community you could not just sit home and do nothing.

[13] I find that you have established, on a balance of probabilities, that you attended three demonstrations in Ethiopia: two in November of 2018 and one in December of 2018.

Claimant was Detained

[14] Your testimony as to your detention on two separate occasions was spontaneous, detailed, and consistent with the information you provided in your BOC and narrative. You were able to describe the circumstance surrounding your detentions, including the appearance of the detention rooms, the questions asked during your interrogations and the circumstances surrounding your releases, in a manner consistent with your BOC.

[15] Regarding your first detention on [XXX], 2019, you testified that you went to the municipality to renew your business license, however, instead you were stopped and taken to a hidden location by two government security officers. You testified that a second arrest/detention occurred on [XXX], 2019, when you went back to the municipality to inquire about your business license and was told that your business license had been cancelled because you were a supporter of the OLF and that you could no longer run a business in the country. You indicated that when you were leaving the municipality you were stopped by city police and taken to [XXX] Prison.

[16] You testified that during both your detentions you were physically abused, accused of facilitating and inciting anti-government movements and organizing Oromo youth to act against the government. You indicated that after you were released from the second arrest on [XXX] 2019 you had to pay a [XXX]-birr bail with the condition of not being involved in any activities of the OLF.

[17] In support of your claim, you provided two witness statements, including one from your wife, [XXX] which confirms your two arrests, and how she accompanied you during your hospital stay after your first detention. Your sister, [XXX] also provided a witness statement, which attests to the action she took to find you after your detentions and what she observed regarding your appearance and physical condition when she was allowed to visit you during your second arrest at [XXX] Prison. You also provided, your Business License Certificate along with a Commercial Registration. I find that these documents are consistent with your testimony and with what you have alleged in your claim.

[18] I asked why you did not provide the board with any documentation regarding your hospital stay and any medical treatment that you alleged to have received. You testified that you were not given any discharge papers and when your wife went to retrieve your medical records, she was unsuccessful. Given the current political climate in Ethiopia, in particular, the treatment of individuals within the Oromo community, I find this answer reasonable and take no issue with it.

[19] I find, on a balance of probabilities, that you were arrested and detained on [XXX] 2019 to [XXX] 2019 and again on [XXX] 2019 to [XXX] 2019.

Political Activities in Canada

[20] You testified that since your arrival in Canada on [XXX], 2019, you have been involved with the Oromo community by attending meetings at the Oromo Canadian Community Association, by joining the Oromo Christian Church of Toronto and participating in several peaceful protest demonstrations in downtown Toronto. You were able to give details as to the peaceful nature of the protests, what they were about, the location, size, and a list of dates that they took place. You testified that you spoke at a number of these demonstrations on how the Ethiopian government is abusive, divisive, and violates human rights. To support your claim, you tendered a letter of support from both organizations⁴, several photographs⁵of you attending demonstrations in Toronto and a compelling video of you attending and speaking at a demonstration held in Toronto after the killing of an Oromo singer/activist.⁶

[21] I find that you have established, on a balance of probabilities, that you have been actively involved within the Oromo community here in Canada and continue to hold an anti-government opinion.

[22] I find on a balance of probabilities, that you have established that you hold an antigovernment opinion and therefore risk being persecuted by the Ethiopian authorities if you were to return to Ethiopia. As such, you have established a subjective fear.

OBJECTIVE BASIS

[23] The objective evidence is consistent with your accounts of fearing persecution because of your anti-government political opinion in Ethiopia.⁷

[24] The evidence establishes, on a balance of probabilities, an objective basis for your fear of persecution upon return to Ethiopia. Specifically, Item 2.1 of the National Documentation Package (NDP), the US Department of State 2019 Human Rights Report for Ethiopia which indicates, that authorities arrested and detained opposition party members. It also states that the government uses a widespread system of paid informants to report on activities of individuals, such as opposition members, who report intimidating visits to their homes and offices. Furthermore, Ethiopian police are widely known to engage in serious human rights abuses against actual and perceived government opponents, including arbitrary arrest and detention, excessive use of force, and torture.

[25] Reports from Human Rights Watch 2.3 of the NDP and Amnesty International 2.2 of the NDP still show that there are problems relating to opposition figures. However, in making my independent analysis, I have also looked to the International Criss Group (ICG) report found at 4.1 of the NDP. To summarize the ICG report, it states that “Prime Mister Abiy Ahmed had taken important steps to move the country toward more open politics. But his efforts to dismantle the old order have weakened the Ethiopian state and given new energy to ethnonationalism. Hostility among the leaders of Ethiopia’s most powerful regions has soared.” The report goes on to say “such tensions could derail Ethiopia’s transition. Meanwhile, reforms Abiy is making to the country’s powerful but factious ruling coalition anger opponents, who believe that they aim to undo Ethiopia’s ethnic federalist system and could push the political temperature still higher.”

[26] The objective evidence is consistent with your testimony and what you have alleged in your claim. Especially, your testimony regarding the treatment that you witnessed and suffered because you were a supporter and member of the OLF. Your testimony was clear that anyone who speaks out against the government becomes a target. You provided several news articles in your country document evidence⁸ that is in-line with what is seen in the NDP.

[27] The situation in Ethiopia is still evolving, and while significant changes are certainly underway, I must consider the circumstance as they are right now. When doing so, I find the risk of persecution of those with anti-government opinions still stands as a serious possibility⁹. The stated intentions of those in control is not enough, the change needs to be durable.

[28] I find that on a balance of probabilities, the country condition evidence establishes an objective risk.

[29] I further find that your profile, specifically, as an individual who has already come to the attention of Ethiopian authorities through past detentions, who is actively involved in protesting the Ethiopian government here in Canada, and as someone who will continue to hold an antigovernment political opinion, is consistent with your subjective fear.

[30] Accordingly, I find that you have established a well-founded fear of persecution.

STATE PROTECTION

[31] Ethiopian authorities are responsible for widespread human rights violations committed with impunity throughout the country, including arbitrary arrest, excessive use of force and torture.¹⁰

[32] Given that the state is the agent of persecution, I find that it would be objectively unreasonable for the you to seek protection of the State in your circumstances, and that adequate State protection would not be reasonably forthcoming.

INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE

[33] The Ethiopian government exercises its power throughout the whole of its territory and those who oppose the Ethiopian State are unlikely to be able to avoid attracting the attention of officials by relocating.¹¹

[34] Given that the State is the agent of persecution with control over the entire country, I find that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Ethiopia, and therefore that a viable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) does not exist.

CONCLUSION

[35] Having considered the totality of the evidence, I find that you, Mr. [XXX], would face a serious possibility of persecution upon return to Ethiopia due to your anti-government political opinion pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA.

[36] Accordingly, I accept your claim.

(signed) Antoine Collins

November 4, 2020

¹ Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
² Exhibit 1.
³ Maldonado [1980] 2.F.C. 302 (C.A).
⁴ Exhibit 3
⁵ Ibid.
⁶ Provided at the hearing a recording of the video on Claimant’s phone.
⁷ National Documentation Package, Ethiopia, June 30, 2020.
⁸ Exhibit 6.
⁹ Item 4.1, National Documentation Package, Ethiopia June 30, 2020.
¹⁰ National Documentation Package, Ethiopia, June 30, 2020.
¹¹ Ibid.

All Countries Eswatini

2020 RLLR 21

Citation: 2020 RLLR 21
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 28, 2020
Panel: Sarah Charow
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Robert Gertler
Country: Eswatini
RPD Number: TB9-01448
Associated RPD Number(s): TB9-01495, TB9-01515, TB9-01516, TB9-01517
ATIP Number: A-2021-00540
ATIP Pages: 000130-0000134

[1] MEMBER: This is the decision for [XXX], file TB9-01448 and the associated claimants. [XXX], file TB9-01495. The associated minor claimants [XXX], file TB9-01515; [XXX], file TB9-01516; and [XXX], file TB9-01517.

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

[3] Your claiming to be a citizen of — or you and your family are claiming to be citizens of Eswatini and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I find that you are Convention refugees for the following reasons.

[4] The allegations of your claims can be found in your Basis of Claim Forms at Exhibit 2. In short, you allege persecution from the Eswatini authorities and police based on your imputed political opinions, as you had agreed to [XXX] for PUDEMO, P-U-D-E-M-O, a prohibited political party. You allege that you had [XXX] for the PUDEMO as an act of charity, as you had helped other people and groups in similar ways before. You had six [XXX] before completing a large order and kept two.

[5] When you [XXX] you were arrested. You were interrogated about your involvement with various prohibited political parties before being released through the assistance with — of a lawyer. You noticed that the authorities began to follow you and monitor you. You were stopped and questioned repeatedly. You came to Canada on previously obtained visitor visas and claimed refugee protection. You fear future arrests and physical harm for yourself and fear the Eswatini authorities.

[6] You allege that your wife and children, these seated claimants, could face harm from the same people because the Eswatini authorities would want to find you. You allege there’s no state protection available for you, nor any available internal flight alternative in Eswatini.

[7] In terms of identity, you’ve submitted copies of your Eswatini passports, which can be found in Exhibit 1. I therefore, find that on a balance of probabilities that identity and country of reference have been established.

[8] The adult claimants have offered evidence at Exhibit 7 that they had Pakistani citizenship. note that they — their passports state that they were born in Pakistan. However, at Exhibit 7, I note evidence about renouncing that Pakistani citizenship in order to become citizens of Swaziland or Eswatini. I note that each of the minor claimants were born after that renunciation. I note from the passports available at Exhibit 1, that each of the claimants required visas to visit Pakistan after this renunciation.

[9] In terms of country of reference, a claimant may be considered to be a national of a country where the evidence establishes that it is within his or her control to acquire the citizenship of a country, for example, where the application for citizenship is a mere formality and the authorities of that country did not have any discretion to refuse the application. I reference the Williams case, neutral citation of 2005 FAC 126.

[10] “After a thorough review of the documentary evidence, including the National Documentation Package for Pakistan at Exhibit 8, and an updated response to information request at Exhibit 9, the law regarding the resumption of Pakistani citizenship after renunciation as an adult is still unclear. Available Pakistani law states that in situations like this, the law is not explicit.” (as read)

[11] All indications point to this still being good case law. Accordingly, I cannot find that an application to resume Pakistani citizenship would be a “mere formality” as it is unclear as to whether the authorities of Pakistan have any discretion to refuse that application. As such, I cannot find Pakistan to be a country of reference for any of the claimants. The only country of reference in this matter is Swaziland, or Eswatini, as it is now called.

[12] In terms of credibility, I find that on a balance of probabilities you have established credibly that you will be at risk of persecution because of an imputed political opinion. I have found you to be credible, generally. Your testimony about your political involvement was straightforward and was in keeping with your Basis of Claim Form. There were no significant inconsistencies that went to the core of your claim that were not explained. I did note some minor omissions, however, I do believe that you’ve offered a reasonable explanation for each omission.

[13] You were able to provide detailed testimony about your businesses, your charitable work, and why you agreed to help the PUDEMO members. You were able to describe in detail the steps you took to obtain the PUDEMO [XXX] and to deliver them to the party members. Your testimony about your arrest was specific, detailed, spontaneous, and all in all, consistent with your allegations. I place a great deal of weight on these lines of testimony.

[14] I also note that in support of these aspects of your claim, you provided documentary evidence. I note Affidavits from employees from your store who witnessed you being arrested and witnessed that you had to close down these stores after the arrest. You also provided a medical report from the day you were released from detention. That documented injuries that you’ve sustained while in detention. I further note the — a letter from your brother saying that the police were still searching property that used to be owned by you and that they had been questioning your brother about your location. Furthermore, I note a letter from the lawyer that you had hired in Eswatini to help you get out of detention. These documents can be found at Exhibit 6.

[15] I further note that today you were able to provide a documentation, your travel documentation that you had used in order to travel to South Africa to obtain the [XXX] for the PUDEMO party members. I note that the travel dates are stamped specifically on this document, and this document can be found at Exhibit 10.

[16] I did note some issue with some of the Court documents that you had provided. This would be bail documents and an Affidavit in order to obtain bail. Also, at Exhibit 7, I noted some issues in — regarding stamps or lack of stamps, lack of signatures. I do have concerns about these documents, however, overall these concerns are not enough to find that on a balance of probabilities that these documents are non-genuine, or non-credible. I put some weight on those documents specifically. Those Court documents, again, can be found at Exhibit 6. The other documents, as noted at Exhibit 7 and 10.

[17] In terms of documentary support, although this is not technically a document, I note that you were also able to show me one of the extra PUDEMO [XXX] here today at the hearing. I do place a great amount of weight on the documents that had no issues. They do go to help establish your credibility.

[18] I further note that you had travelled outside of Eswatini to South Africa and then returned to Eswatini. This travel happened after your arrest. I must assess whether this travel impacts your credibility in terms of the failure to claim asylum and then reavailment, as you did not claim protection in South Africa at that time and indeed returned to Eswatini. I asked you about these issues and you explained that it was because South Africa was dangerous for foreigners because of issues with Xenophobia. I also note that your family did not travel with you on these trips. You explained that this travel was necessary because you were wrapping up your business in order to obtain funds to flee Eswatini.

[19] In light of your other credible evidence regarding your imputed political opinion, I find that you’ve offered a reasonable explanation for both the failure to claim refugee protection and the reavailment. These issues do not impact your credibility.

[20] Overall, as I said before, I do find you to be a credible witness. I find that you’ve established your profile as someone with an imputed political opinion on a balance of probabilities, and as such, your family’s profile as family members of somebody with a imputed political opinion, I find that your allegations about the risks that you face due to these political opinions, real or imputed, as outlined in your Basis of Claim Forms and your testimony, to be credible.

[21] I find that you’ve established your subjective fear. I find that there’s a link between what you fear and two of the five Convention grounds, specifically, you ‘ve been persecuted by the Eswatini government because of an imputed political opinion, therefore your claim has been assessed under section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Your family faces persecution because of their membership in a particular social group as family members of someone with an imputed political opinion. Their claims as well has been — have been assessed under section 96.

[22] In terms of objective documentation, I note that the available documentation supports your allegations that individuals in your circumstances face persecution in Eswatini. I’ve referenced the National Documentation Package as found at Exhibit 3, specifically Item 2.1:

[23] “Human rights issues included restrictions on political participation and corruption. The Government often did not investigate, prosecute, or administratively punish officials who committed human rights abuses. With very few exceptions, the government did not identify officials who committed abuses. Impunity was widespread.”

[24] I note Item 2.7:

“Individuals have been charges with terrorism and sedition for participating in peaceful assemblies and/or associated — associating with political parties, especially PUDEMO.” (as read)

[25] I note Item 4.1 which states that “PUDEMO was officially banned in the country under the Suppression of Terrorism Act.” Excuse me. It’s also noted that “those found associating with PUDEMO may face prison terms of between 25 years and life.” The same item states that:

“Persons or groups that abet, aid, sympathize with, shelter, or provide logistical support to the organizations invite ‘the wrath of the law’.” (as read)

[26] I’ve considered these — this documentary evidence in conjunction with your credible allegations about your experiences in Eswatini. Having considered these factors, I find that you face a serious possibility of persecution based on your imputed political opinion.

[27] In regards to your family members, the associated claimants, I note the claimant’ s Exhibit 6 at page 35, this is Objective Country Condition Evidence. It states that:

“The use of various forms of intimidation, torture, and murder to silence dissidence is a long standing tradition in Eswatini.” (as read)

[28] I do find that this is enough to establish that there is more than a mere possibility of persecution for the associated claimants, as well as the family members of a political dissident, again, whether real or imputed. I find there is an objective basis to their fears as well, and that a well founded fear of persecution has been established for each of the claimants.

[29] As the agent of persecution is the state, which acts with impunity, I find that there is clear and convincing evidence that state protection would not be available to you, nor would it be reasonable for you to seek such protection.

[30] Likewise, as the agent of persecution is the state and membership in PUDEMO has been criminalized across the country, I find that there would be no safe place for you anywhere in Swaziland where you would not face a risk of persecution because of your imputed political opinions. And your family, in terms of their association with somebody with a political opinion, real or imputed. As the test for an internai flight alternative fails on the first prong, I find there is no viable IFA or internal flight alternative for you anywhere in Swaziland or Eswatini.

[31] Based on the totality of the evidence, I find the claimants to be Convention refugees. Your claims are therefore accepted. So this will conclude today’s hearing.

[32] I would like to thank everyone for their participation. Thank you, Mr. Interpreter, and thank you counsel, and thank you sir. Counsel, l’m going to ask that you explain this to the associated claimant and remind her that a copy of this decision will corne in the mail to remedy any issue caused by her not being present for this decision.

— DECISION CONCLUDED —

All Countries Nicaragua

2020 RLLR 17

Citation: 2020 RLLR 17
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 3, 2020
Panel: Kevin Fainbloom
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Elizabeth Jinsook Kim
Country: Nicaragua
RPD Number: TB8-25737
Associated RPD Number(s): TB8-25768
ATIP Number: A-2021-00540
ATIP Pages: 000111-0000113

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: These are the reasons for the decision into the refugee claims of [XXX] and her husband, [XXX]. The claimant, the principal claimant, [XXX], is a citizen of Nicaragua, her husband, [XXX], is a citizen of both Guatemala and Nicaragua. They claim refugee protection pursuant to Section 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[2] The allegations of the couple are contained in the Basis of Claim form narrative, I’m going to briefly summarize those allegations.

[3] After the couple were married, the, they lived in Guatemala. In Guatemala, in [XXX] 2016, the principal claimant was robbed at gunpoint, this was an extremely traumatic event for her. The couple decided to relocate to Nicaragua, which they did in 2017. In [XXX] 2018, the principal claimant and her husband both became involved in the demonstration against the Ortega regime. Not only were they involved in protest, the principal claimant also shared articles and videos on her Facebook page and also expressed her support of the opposition to the Ortega regime. She began to s-, receive suspicious anonymous phone calls in [XXX], mid, late [XXX] 2018. During these calls, at one point, she was called a traitor. She also began to receive threatening text through her phone. She was involved in protest on [XXX], in which people were, were shot at. She continued to receive threatening text messages and phone calls after the demonstration. [XXX], her husband, also participated in demonstrations in Managua and he too began to receive threatening text messages. The problems became more severe in the country and they began to look for a way to get out of the country. They applied to come to Canada as, as visitors, however, their applications were denied. They went into hiding. On [XXX], 2018, the principal claimant’s sister received a notice for her and her husband to attend court the following day, accusing them of altering public order, participating in demonstrations and so on. The couple fled Nicaragua, travelled to Guatemala. However, the principal claimant was unwilling to remain in Guatemala, as she had been quite traumatized by the armed robbery that had occurred in 2016 and her presence in Guatemala was worsening her symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. So, the couple made their way to Canada, made a refugee claim upon their arrival and they’re now fearful of returning to, to Nicaragua.

[4] Having considered the totality of the evidence before me, the Panel finds that the principal claimant, again that’s [XXX], has established that, that she is a Convention refugee pursuant to Section 96 of IRPA.

[5] Her husband, [XXX], as a dual citizen, must establish a well-founded fear in both Nicaragua and Guatemala.

[6] As he’s provided no evidence to support any fear of returning to Guatemala, his claim fails.

[7] The analysis of the claim is as follows.

[8] First, with respect to their identities, the claimants’ identities as citizens as, as the gentleman’s dual citizen of Nicaragua and Guatemala, and [XXX] as a citizen of Nicaragua, was established by the documents on file, which include copies of their passports.

[9] With respect to credibility, I have no significant concerns.

[10] Firstly, I, I thought they were able to describe their involvement adequately in terms of the questions they were asked during the hearing and most significantly, there’s a number of, of, I thought, quite strong documents to corroborate their allegations. These documents include photos taken at the demonstrations, they include copies of the threat letters they received, includes the two summons for the couple to appear in court, there are a number of corroborative statements provided by friends who were aware of their situation in Nicaragua. There’s also a, a number of medical documents to corroborate [XXX] post-traumatic stress disorder diagnosis, as well as issues with anxiety and the documents indicate it’ s, this is both from the robbery but it’ s also her, her situation has been made more serious by the events that occurred in Nicaragua.

[11] So, in, in consideration of both the oral and the written evidence, on a balance of probabilities, I accept their allegations as to what occurred to the couple in Nicaragua to be credible. Given that I accept the credibility of their allegations, the documents before me make it clear that there’ s an objective basis to their fear of returning to Nicaragua. The government’s response to the [XXX] 2018 protest has been quite severe, heavy-handed and many people have been killed and many more have been arrested and exiled.

[12] I’m just going to briefly look at the, the DOS report, that’s Item 2.1 of the Nicaraguan Package. It notes that President Ortega ordered police and parapolice forces to put down with violence peaceful protests. The government’ s excessive response included the use of lime, live ammunition and snipers. As of late [XXX] 2018, the conflict of less le-, had left at least 325 people dead, more than 2000 injured, hundreds of illegally detained and tortured and more than 52,000 exiled in neighboring countries. Beginning in [XXX] of that year, the government, the Ortega government, instituted a policy of exile, jail or death for anyone perceived as opposition. The document notes that human rights deteriorated significantly during 2018 and so on.

[13] So, the, the documents make it clear that there’s an objective basis to their fear of returning to Nicaragua now that they’ve been labelled, involved in the protest, now that the authorities believe they’re involved in the protest, they are in danger in Nicaragua. And clearly IFA and state protection is not a relevant issue, as it’s the State that they are afraid of and there’s no information that the State does not have complete control allo-, over and of, all of Nicaraguan territory.

[14] So, for these reasons, I find the principal claimant, [XXX], to be a Convention refugee pursuant to Section 96 of IRPA.

[15] As I stated at the outset of the decision over her husband as a dual citizen of Guatemala, he needs to establish that he has a well-founded fear of each country that he is a citizen of. He was asked if he had any reason to fear returning to Guatemala, he indicated that he has no reason to fear returning to Guatemala.

[16] So, there’s no evidence before me that the-, this gentleman has a well-founded fear of persecution in Guatemala or that there’s a reason why he is a person in need of protection due to what might happen to him in Guatemala.

[17] So, given there’s an insufficient amount of evidence to find otherwise, I conclude that he is not a Convention refugee and he’ s a person-, not a person in need of protection by virtue of his citizenship in Guatemala and a Jack of evidence that he would be persecuted or harmed in that country.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

All Countries Sierra Leone

2020 RLLR 5

Citation: 2020 RLLR 5
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: September 15, 2020
Panel: David Jones
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Nduka Ahanonu
Country: Sierra Leone
RPD Number: VB9-03895
ATIP Number: A-2021-00540
ATIP Pages: 000033-000036

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada for the claim of [XXX], who is a citizen of Sierra Leone, seeking protection pursuant to s. 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Allegations

[2] The specifics of the claim are set out in the claimant’s Basis of Claim form. In summary, the claimant fears persecution from government security forces, Malen chieftain, and local vigilantes, due to his advocacy related to the land conflict in the Malen area in southern Sierra Leone. The following is a brief overview of the claimant’s allegations.

[3] The claimant is from [XXX] (ph) village in the [XXX] area in Pujehun District in southern Sierra Leone. In 2011, the claimant became involved as a volunteer with the [XXX], otherwise known as [XXX]. In 2017, after the claimant returned to Sierra Leone from [XXX] in the [XXX], he became an active volunteer with [XXX]. The claimant lived and worked in [XXX] but would travel to Malen region to consult with the affected communities and raise their concerns with the local authorities, including the Malen chieftain.

[4] On [XXX], 2019, the claimant was involved in the organization of a peaceful protest in the Malen region. Government security forces and local vigilantes cracked down on the protest, and two protestors were shot and killed. Security forces started arresting members of [XXX], and local vigilantes raided homes targeting members of [XXX], including the claimant’s home in [XXX]. The claimant hid in a neighbouring village for five days before making his way back to [XXX]. The claimant remained in hiding until he left on [XXX], 2019 for Canada and applied for refugee protection. The claimant fears he’ll be arrested or killed if he were to return to Sierra Leone.

Determination

[5] I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to s. 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Analysis: Identity

[6] The claimant’s identity as a citizen of Sierra Leone has been established on a balance of probabilities by a Sierra Leone passport located at Exhibit One.

[7] The claimant’s allegations support a nexus to the Convention ground of “Political opinion, actual or imputed,” for his [XXX].

Credibility

[8] I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant is an active member of [XXX] and has been an [XXX] of the local Malen people. I also find, on a balance of probabilities, that the Sierra Leone security forces and the Malen chieftain perceive the claimant to have a political opinion which is in opposition to them. In making these findings, I am guided by the principle that a claimant who affirms to tell the truth creates a presumption of truthfulness unless there are reasons to doubt their truthfulness. In this regard, the claimant testified in a consistent and straightforward manner that was consistent with his Basis of Claim form and supporting documents. The claimant was able to speak clearly and provide specific details about the purpose of [XXX], the concerns of the Malen people, his involvement with the group, why the government and the local chieftain would see that his involvement is in opposition of their interests, and he was able to answer specific questions when asked. There were no relevant inconsistencies in his testimony, or contradiction between his testimony and the other evidence. I find the claimant is a credible witness.

[9] The claimant also provided documents to support his claim. For example, documents found at Exhibit Five include a newspaper article about the security forces searching for the claimant, specifically for his involvement in [XXX]. Also at Exhibit Five is a [XXX] that supports the claimant’s description of the events related to the protests, including the killing of two civilians, the arrest of [XXX] members, and the ongoing search for other [XXX] members. I have no reason to doubt the genuineness of these documents and, since they relate to the claimant’s involvement in [XXX], and the response by security forces, I place significant weight on these documents to support the allegations and overall claim. As such, I find that the claimant has established, on a balance of probabilities, the facts alleged in his claim.

Objective Basis

[10] The objective evidence supports the claimant’s fear of returning to Sierra Leone. The somewhat limited National Documentation Package for Sierra Leone, located at Exhibit Three, indicates some positive conditions exist in the country. For example, a 2019 report from the US Department of State, found at item 2.1, indicates that in 2018, there were no reported killings or disappearances connected with government authorities. But it does note that there are significant human rights issues in Sierra Leone, including life-threatening prison conditions, official corruption, and impunity of government officials. However, with respect to the government’s response to protests, the National Documentation Package indicates significant concerns.

[11] An Amnesty International report found at item 10.1 is titled “Impunity for Lethal and Excessive Use of Force by Police During Protests.” And this report indicates that the police in Sierra Leone have used lethal and excessive force to disperse protests with impunity, noting that Amnesty is not aware of any police officer being held criminally responsible for using excessive force. Further, the report states that “The heavy-handed approach of the police limits the rights and freedoms of peaceful assembly and creates a chilling effect, with people reluctant to exercise this right due to fear of intimidation and violence.”

[12] The claimant also provided country condition documents, which are found at Exhibit 5. These include a 2019 Amnesty International report that indicates there are concerns about public order management by Sierra Leone police, and highlights a number of incidents, including the protest the claimant participated in in January 2019. That report further notes that 19 human rights advocates with [XXX] were arrested pursuant to that protest, and that as of December 31st, 2019, their cases were still pending.

[13] I’m also guided by the principle that a victim of politically motivated persecution is not required to abandon his commitment to political activism in order to live safely in his country. The claimant testified that he would [XXX] in the Malen region. As such, given the country conditions noted above and the use of protests as a way to express these concerns, the claimant would face a future risk if he were to return to Sierra Leone. Based on the testimony and the claimant’s supporting documents and the country condition documents, I find that the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution.

State Protection and Internal Flight Alternative

[14] Given that the state is the agent of harm, I find there’s no state protection available to the claimant. In making this finding, I note that the claimant attempted to seek state protection when he was in hiding in [XXX]. The claimant contacted by telephone the [XXX] police, and the police in Pujehun District where the incident occurred. The police in the Pujehun District said that the [XXX] organizers were at fault for inciting people. The police in [XXX] did not take the claimant’s complaints seriously. I also note that the objective evidence indicated above is clear that impunity for government security forces remains a problem in Sierra Leone. Further, given the state’s capacity, I find that the claimant would face a serious possibility of persecution throughout Sierra Leone. Accordingly, I find there is no internal flight alternative available to the claimant.

[15] For the forgoing reasons, I determine that the claimant is a convention refugee pursuant to s. 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and the board therefore accepts the claimant.

[16] Okay, thank you. Do you have any questions before we conclude today?

[17] CLAIMANT (without interpreter): No, I don’t have a question.

[18] MEMBER: Okay, great. And Counsel, thank you very much for your assistance, especially -

[19] COUNSEL: Thank you, Member.

[20] MEMBER: — assistance with some of the country condition documents, because, as I noted, the NDP was lacking in this regard. All right.

[21] COUNSEL: Thank you very much, sir.

[22] CLAIMANT (without interpreter): Thank you.

[23] INTEPRETER: Thank you.

REASONS CONCLUDED

All Countries Colombia

2020 RLLR 27

Citation: 2020 RLLR 27
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: October 23, 2020
Panel: Bjorn Einarson
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Leonardo Jose Di Leone Velasquez
Country: Colombia
RPD Number: VB8-06573
Associated RPD Number(s): VB8-06586, VB8-06592, VB8-06593
ATIP Number: A-2021-00540
ATIP Pages: 000157-0000165

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

[1] These are the reasons for the decision in the claims of [XXX] (the “principal claimant”), [XXX] (“the associate claimant”, his wife), [XXX] “the second associate claimant, their daughter), and [XXX] (“the minor claimant”, their son). The minor claimant claims to be a citizen of Colombia and the United States of America, the second associate claimant a citizen of Venezuela and Colombia, the associate claimant a citizen of Venezuela, and the principal claimant a citizen of Colombia. All claimants are claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).¹

[2] The tribunal designated [XXX] as representative for the minor children included in the claim, being [XXX].

ALLEGATIONS

[3] The totality of the claim is contained the claimants’ Basis of Claim forms and corresponding narratives.²

[4] The risk to the claimants began in 2014. After living temporarily in the United States, the family moved to Colombia in 2012. In 2014, when political tensions in Venezuela were rising, the associate claimant traveled to her home country for three months to engage in political activism against the Maduro regime on behalf of the VOLUNTAD POPULAR political party. While in Venezuela she engaged in street protests and served as organizer for her political party in her local municipality of Lagunillas. She was involved in numerous efforts to encourage people to vote and to protest against the Maduro regime. After three months of these political activities, she was beaten by state agents and was visited at her home by state agents, which caused her to return to Colombia to live with her family. Because the agent of harm in this case was the Maduro regime, and because the agent of harm was motivated by the associate claimant’s political activity, the associate claimant sought to leave Venezuela.

[5] Approximately four years passed, and the associate claimant continued her support to her political party remotely from Colombia. In [XXX] 2018, the principal claimant began to receive a series of approximately fifteen threat-related phone calls from the EJÉRCITO DE LIBERACIÔN NACIONAL (ELN), which has close operational ties with the Maduro regime in Venezuela. The principal claimant received the calls from the ELN between [XXX] 2018 and the family’s departure to Canada on [XXX], 2018. At first the ELN appeared motivated by extortion, demanding payment, but as it became clear that the principal claimant did not have much money to extort, the nature of their threats shifted towards issuing death threats against the entire family for the associate claimant’s political activism against their ally, the Maduro regime.

[6] Because the associate claimant is a political opponent of both the Maduro regime in Venezuela and its operational proxies in Colombia, the ELN, the associate claimant fears she will be harmed anywhere she resides in either country. Although the principal claimant and second associate claimant are not themselves political activists, they fully support the political activities of the associate claimant. Because of their familial association with the associate claimant, and their support of her political activism, the other claimants claim they would be regarded by the ELN or the Maduro regime as having the same political opinions as the associate claimant.

[7] With respect to the minor claimant, no claim against the United States of America is being made.

DECISION

[8] I find that, with the exception of the minor claimant, all claimants are refugees, pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA, as there exists a serious possibility of persecution, should they return to Colombia or Venezuela, on account of their political opinion or imputed political opinion.

[9] The minor claimant has not advanced any claim against the United States of America and has not presented any evidence about the risks he may face in the United States of America. Therefore, I cannot find that he faces a serious possibility of persecution, or on a balance of probabilities, a risk of s. 97 harm in the United States of America. Accordingly, his claims for protection are rejected.

Nature of the harm

[10] I have examined this claim under section 96 of the IRPA, as I conclude that the risk the claimants – apart from the minor claimant – described constitutes persecution based on at least one of the grounds prescribed in section 96, specifically their political opinion or their imputed political opinion.

Identity

[11] I find that the principal claimant’s, the second associate claimant’s, and the minor claimant’s identities as nationals of Colombia, and the associate claimant’ s and the second associate claimant’s identities nationals of Venezuela, and the minor claimant’s identity as a national of the United States of America is established by the documents provided, namely their passports.³

Credibility

[12] When a claimant swears to the truth of certain allegations, this creates a presumption that those allegations are true unless there be reason to doubt their truthfulness.⁴ However this presumption does not apply to inferences (conclusions drawn from facts) or speculation (for which there is no evidentiary basis).

[13] There is no evidence before me to rebut this presumption.

[14] I find that the associate claimant’s profile as a dissident against the Maduro regime to be credible in light her testimony and the documentary evidence before me, namely an official letter and registration card certifying her membership and participation in the VOLUNTAD POPULAR political party.⁵

[15] By establishing this credible profile with her testimony and documentary evidence, the profile of the principal and second associate claimant are likewise supported along with their own credible testimony. Through credible testimony from the principal claimant and the second associate claimant to the effect that they fully support the associate claimant in her political activism, I find that these claimants have credibly established their profile as persons who would be perceived as having imputed political opinions similar to the associate claimant.

Objective basis

[16] Given that there are no serious credibility issues with respect to the allegations, coupled with the documentary evidence set out below, I find that, with the exception of the minor claimant, the claimants have established a prospective risk of being subjected to the following harm: namely that they would face judicial or extra-judicial violence on the part of the Maduro regime or its proxies within Venezuela or violence on the part of the ELN in Colombia. As highlighted in the documentary evidence, this extra-judicial violence amounts to persecution.

[17] This risk is corroborated by the following documents in the National Documentation Package (NDP).⁶

Are opponents of the Madura regime persecuted in Venezuela?

[18] While the documentary evidence specifically focused on the VOLUNTAD POPULAR in the NDP is dated to 2014, it nevertheless establishes on a balance of probabilities that the VOLUNTAD POPULAR is viewed by the Maduro regime as its opponent and that even as early as 2014 they received persecutory treatment by the Maduro regime in the form of extra-judicial raids, arbitrary detention, political manipulation of the judicial system, and other forms of political intimation.⁷ The state of political conflict has significantly intensified since 2014 when that document was published, and even more so since 2018 and 2019 when the Maduro regime came into intensified conflict with the competing regime of Juan Guaido, president of the National Assembly. In this heightened environment of conflict, opponents of the regime and those perceived to be opponents of the regime are subjected to “unlawful or arbitrary killings, including extrajudicial killings by security forces of the [… ] Maduro regime, including colectivos (regime-sponsored armed groups); forced disappearances; torture by security forces; arbitrary detention by security forces; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; political prisoners; unlawful interference with privacy; and lack of judicial independence.”⁸ US State Department reporting notes that in the current climate, the Maduro regime uses the “judiciary to intimidate and prosecute individuals critical of regime policies or actions.”⁹

[19] The US State Department also notes that in “many cases, particularly regarding the political opposition, regime-aligned authorities searched homes without judicial or other appropriate authorization, seized property without due process, or interfered in personal communications. FAES and other security forces regularly conducted indiscriminate household raids. Media reports documented raids by security forces on the homes of at least 10 opposition party politicians during the year.”¹⁰

[20] These actions extend also to perceived opponents: “[r]egime-aligned intelligence agencies, which lacked independent oversight, conducted surveillance for political purposes. Courts relied on evidence obtained from anonymous patriotas cooperantes (cooperating patriots) to harass perceived opponents [emphasis added] of the[…] regime, and senior[… ] Maduro regime-aligned officials used personal information gathered by patriotas cooperantes to intimidate regime critics and human rights defenders.”¹¹

Does the ELN act as a proxy of the Madura regime in Colombia?

[21] Recent country countries reported in Exhibit 6 demonstrate a clear operational connection between the Maduro regime and the ELN. On July 5, 2019, the Washington Post reported that some analysts are now describing the ELN as a “Colombo-Venezuelan rebel army” given the strong operational links between the two. Reuters, citing Colombian military intelligence sources, reported June 5, 2019 that 45% of the ELN’s fighters – including its commanders – are hiding in neighboring Venezuela and receiving protection from the Maduro regime. On September 12, 2019, the Washington Post reported on Venezuelan intelligence leaks to a Colombia newspaper Semana that describe “Venezuela’ s relationship to Colombian “red groups” [like the ELN] as something close to Iran’s relationship with Hezbollah.” The reporting states that “The documents leaked to Semana imply Venezuela is mainstreaming ELN and the resurgent FARC into its intelligence systems, relying on the groups to help identify high-value military targets inside Colombia.” Recent reporting in January 2020 from InSight Crime highlights that while the Maduro regime does not officially recognize the ELN as a formal ally, the two entities share a significant covert operational relationship.¹²

[22] Given this considerations, I find that there is sufficient country condition reporting to conclude that, on a balance of probabilities, the ELN is sufficiently operationally enmeshed with the Maduro regime that an intelligence-sharing relationship exists such that the disclosure of the associate and principal claimant’s identities and activities to the ELN could be facilitated. In this sense, the claimants’ allegation of fear regarding the ELN targeting the family in Colombia because of the associate claimant’s activities and political profile in Venezuela is well-founded in objective country conditions.

[23] Considering the totality of the allegations and the country conditions of both Venezuela and Colombia, I find that there is an objective basis for the allegations the associate claimant faces persecution in both countries for her political activities and associations in Venezuela. I find further that the principal claimant and the second associate claimant, because of their relationship to the associate claimant, would face a serious possibility of persecution in both countries because of imputed political opinions; they would be perceived by the Maduro regime or the ELN as liable for the same political offences as the associate claimant and thus face a serious possibility of persecution.

State protection

[24] Whereas – insofar as Venezuela is concerned – the agent of persecution is the state, I find that adequate state protection would not be reasonably forthcoming in this particular case.

[25] Insofar as Colombia is concerned, and the ELN is the agent of persecution, I find that as per reporting in NDP 7.23, the ELN has the capacity to monitor targets across Colombia.¹³ That the ELN has the capacity to conduct surveillance operations across Colombia leads me to find that there is a serious possibility they could mount kinetic operations if sufficiently motivated. The same reporting notes that state protection against this threat actor is “very limited” and the “measures in place do not yet meet the needs on the ground and are not adapted to living conditions in the areas where most violence has been reported.”¹⁴ As such, I find that adequate state protection in Columbia would likewise not be reasonably forthcoming.

Internal flight alternative

[26] I have considered whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for the claimants.

[27] With respect to Venezuela, on the evidence before me and given that the agent of persecution is the state, and the state has effective control over the entire country, I find that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Venezuela.

[28] With respect to Colombia, given the above considerations regarding the capacity of the ELN to monitor its targets anywhere in Colombia, I find that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Colombia.

CONCLUSION

[29] In light of the preceding, I conclude that the principal claimant, the associate claimant, and the second associate claimants are refugees, pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA. Accordingly, I accept their claims.

[30] The minor claimant did not establish that he faces a serious possibility of persecution, or that, on a balance of probabilities, he faces s. 97 harm in the United States. His claims are rejected on that basis.

(signed) Bjorn Einarson

October 23, 2020

¹ Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.
² Exhibit 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4.
³ Exhibit 1.
⁴ Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1980] 2 F.C. 302, 31 N.R. 34 (C.A.).
⁵ Exhibit 4.
⁶ Exhibit 3.
⁷ Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Venezuela, 30 September 2020, tab 4.11: The political party Voluntad Popular, its structure, as well as its main positions and officials; the conditions to become a party member, including a description of the membership card; the treatment reserved for members of this political party… Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 24 September 2014. VEN104949.FE.
⁸ Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Venezuela, 30 September 2020, tab 2.1: Venezuela. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2019. United States. Department of State. 11 March 2020. p. 2.
⁹ Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Venezuela, 30 September 2020, tab 2.1: Venezuela. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2019. United States. Department of State. 11 March 2020. p.11.
¹⁰ Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Venezuela, 30 September 2020, tab 2.1: Venezuela. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2019. United States. Department of State. 11 March 2020. p. 13.
¹¹ Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Venezuela, 30 September 2020, tab 2.1: Venezuela. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2019. United States. Department of State. 11 March 2020. p. 18.
¹² Exhibit 6.
¹³ Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Colombia, 12 June 2020, tab 7.23: The National Liberation Army (Ejército de Liberación Nacional – ELN), including number of combatants and areas of operation; activities, including ability to track victims; state response and protection available to victims (2016-April 2018). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 23 April 2018. COL106085.E. p. 8.
¹⁴ Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Colombia, 12 June 2020, tab 7.23: The National Liberation Army (Ejército de Liberación Nacional – ELN), including number of combatants and areas of operation; activities, including ability to track victims; state response and protection available to victims (2016-April 2018). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 23 April 2018. COL106085.E .. p. 10.

All Countries Colombia

2020 RLLR 23

Citation: 2020 RLLR 23
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 9, 2020
Panel: K. Bugby
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Keith MacMillan
Country: Colombia
RPD Number: TB9-12310
ATIP Number: A-2021-00540
ATIP Pages: 000138-0000142

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: So this is the decision for the claimant [XXX], the claimant seeks refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[2] I have considered the oral testimony and the other evidence in the case and I am ready to render a decision orally.

[3] I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee as defined under Section 96 of the act and I accept the claim.

[4] The allegations are set out in the basis of claim form, in summary the claimant has been targeted by FARC dissidents as a result of his work as a government employee responsible for the [XXX], [XXX] and [XXX].

[5] The nexus is political opinion and or imputed political opinion and it is expressed though the claimant’s employment.

[6] The claimant on a balance of probabilities has established his identity through his testimony and submission of his Columbian passport and other documents.

[7] Based on the claimant’s credible evidence I accept the following facts and find that the claimant has established on a balance of probabilities a well founded fear of persecution. The claimant was employed by the state and was responsible for [XXX], efforts subsequent to the signing of the 2016 FARC peace accord.

[8] The claimant’s duties included [XXX], [XXX] and [XXX] as obtained from demobilized FARC members.

[9] In [XXX] 2018 the claimant was approached and threatened by armed men demanding the names of ex combatants providing his department with [XXX] information. The men stated that they were acting on behalf of the leader of the FARC dissidents and threatened to kill the claimant unless he provided the information demanded.

[10] Following two subsequent contacts one in which the lives of the claimant’s family were threatened, the claimant fled the area.

[11] In [XXX] 2018 the claimant returned to Florencia and was attacked and threatened at gun point in front of his family. Following the advice of the authorities the claimant provided his attackers with fake information saved to a [XXX].

[12] Shortly after there were reports that the military had bombed the base camp of the FARC dissidents killing their leader and rumors began to circulate that the military learned of the location from a [XXX] and that reprisals would follow.

[13] Fearing that FARC dissidents would believe the claimant to be responsible for providing this information to the military, the claimant made the decision to flee the country and left Columbia two weeks later.

[14] Additionally the claimant is a gay man adding to his fear of the group as they are noted for targeting members of the LGBTQ population.

[15] The objective country documents are consistent with the claimant’s evidence. At Tab 1.2 the reports indicate that following the demobilization of the FARC in 2017 dissidents formed groups throughout Columbia and since a number of demobilized forces have rearmed having lost faith in the peace process.

[16] Further the maps contained in this report show the presence of FARC dissidents throughout Columbia.

[17] At tab 7.22 the reports indicate that many FARC dissident groups have formed alliances with both the ELN and the AGC further extending their reach.

[18] At Tab 1.7 the NDP speaks to the risk profiles of social leaders and human rights activists and at Tab 2.9 indicates a constant level of violence against social leaders and human rights activists perpetrated by the Bacrim.

[19] While the claimant did not self identify as a social leader or activist his employment reflects at the very least activities aimed at social changes and support and in support of demobilization and the peace accord.

[20] Lastly at Tab 6.3 the reports indicate societal abuse and discrimination against the LGBT community and notes that criminal groups target homosexual individuals, though the claimant’s sexual orientation may not be sufficient in itself to establish his claim there are reports that support the claimant’s position that criminal groups target homosexuals thus heightening the claimants level of risk and level of fear.

[21] Based on the forgoing I find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant has established a well founded fear and serious possibility of persecution in Columbia.

[22] The claimant reported each of the threats to government authorities who undertook to investigate. In the end all that was offered was advise to provide false information to the FARC, advise which the claimant followed in which he believes placed him at greater risk, no other protective measures were put in place.

[23] The claimant’s evidence is consistent with the objective country reports at Tab 7.3 which indicate that the claimant does not fit the profile of those eligible for protection.

[24] At Tab 7.23 the NDP indicates that protection measures for victims are very limited and the measures in place do not meet the needs on the ground.

[25] Based on the claimant’s personal circumstances and the objective country documentation I find that the claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence, adequate state protection is not available to the claimant.

[26] With respect to internal flight alternative, on a balance of probabilities I find that there is no viable internal flight alternative that would be safe for this claimant, the claimant was threatened by FARC dissidents demanding he provide information about ex combatants who were collaborating with the government regarding land mine location and removal.

[27] Following the advice of the authorities the claimant provided false information and is of the opinion that the risk intensified.

[28] In essence the FARC dissidents were seeking the person who assisted the military to locate and bomb the camp and the claimant fears he would be suspected given his past interactions with the group.

[29] While the claimant left the area and was not located by the FARC dissidents on two occasions I accept as reasonable that the motivation of the group to locate the claimant changed after the bombing of the camp.

[30] Further the parents, the claimant’s parents relocated after the claimant fled Columbia due to the presence of individuals in the area of their home who have, who it was suspected were looking for the claimant. The claimant fears that he would be at risk throughout Columbia.

[31] The country conditions are consistent with the claimant’ s position. At Tab 1.2 the reports indicate that following the demobilization of the FARC in 2017 dissidents formed groups throughout Columbia and since a number of demobilized forces have rearmed.

[32] Further the maps contained in this report show the presence of FARC dissidents across Columbia. At Tab 1.7 the country reports indicate that given the reported ability of guerilla groups to operate country wide a viable IFA may not be available to individuals at risk of being targeted by such actors.

[33] It is particularly important to note the operational capacity of the groups to carry out attacks in all parts of Columbia irrespective of territorial control.

[34] Further the country reports referred as societal abuse and discrimination against LGBTQ individuals and I also note that LGBTQ individuals are targeted by these criminal groups.

[35] The impact of this is twofold the claimant believes and I accept as reasonable that the fact that he is a gay male would provide additional motivation for the FARC to track him and the claimant’ s sexual orientation would render him more visible if he were to attempt to relocate in Columbia.

[36] Having given consideration to the claimant’s personal circumstances and the objective country conditions I find that there is no viable internal flight alternative that would be safe as the claimant faces a risk of persecution in all parts of the country.

[37] In conclusion based on the totality of the evidence I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee and I accept his claim and we are concluded.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

All Countries Saudi Arabia

2020 RLLR 22

Citation: 2020 RLLR 22
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 19, 2020
Panel: Ana Rico
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Mohamed Mahdi
Country: Saudi Arabia
RPD Number: TB9-06159
ATIP Number: A-2021-00540
ATIP Pages: 000135-0000137

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: These are the reasons for decision in the claim for refugee protection filed [XXX], under Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Allegations

[2] The allegations of persecution are fully set out in the Basis of Claim form, which can be found at Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 11. In short, the claimant alleges a fear of persecution at the hands of the Saudi authorities because of his political views. The claimant has voiced those views repeatedly on publicly accessible social s- media platforms, like Twitter and Snapchat. The claimant was also actively involved advocating for minority rights in Saudi Arabia. If returned to Saudi Arabia, the claimant fears that he will be detained by the authorities or disappeared, or in worse case scenario, killed. For the reasons outlined below, I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee, as he has established a serious possibility of persecution in Saudi Arabia, based on his real or perceived political opinion.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[3] The claimant’s identity as a national of Saudi Arabia is established, on a balance of probabilities, through the certified true copy of his passport, which can be found at Exhibit 1.

[4] Exclusion under Article 1 F(a) is not applicable. Exclusion is not applicable in this case, as the claimant’s time in the Ministry of Defence, does not engage any concerns related to Article 1 F(a). The claimant was a [XXX] in the Ministry of Defence for Saudi Arabia, for approximately [XXX] years. During his time of service, the claimant assisted with the [XXX] activities. The claimant never engaged in armed conflict, nor was he present for any armed conflict, nor was he aware of the Minister of Defence military activities in the eastern province of Saudi Arabia. While the Saudi Arabian military, in particular the Ministry of Defence, has been accused of committing war-crimes and crimes against humanity, the claimant’ s position was so far removed, that he could not have been complicit or willfully blind to any of the alleged activities, for which he would have had no knowledge. Lastly, I note, that the Minister decided not to intervene in this matter and noted the following in its letter: the claimant’s front-end security screening passed and was favourable.

Credibility

[5] It is trite law that testimony given under oath is presumed to be true, unless there are reasons to doubt its veracity. The claimant’s testimony and corroborating evidence, in particular, the plethora of evidence concerning his online activities, which can be found throughout Exhibit 10, establishes his political profile. The claimant clearly articulated his fear of returning to Saudi Arabia, specifically, his fear of being killed because he has spoken against the King; a fear that is well supported in the documentary evidence, within the National Documentation Package, for Saudi Arabia. While the claimant falsely presented himself as a security specialist in his visa application, I do not draw a negative inference, as it is clear that he only did so to be more likely to be successful in obtaining a visa; his only way out of the country. And, given that he was fleeing persecution, I will not fault the claimant for doing so. I do not draw a negative inference from the amendments to the Basis of Claim form, which can be found at Exhibit 11. It is clear that the amendments are only additions, that include events that have happened after arriving in Canada. And, even if one were to disagree with me, any concerns that could arise from these amendments are not sufficient to rebut the presumption of truthfulness with respect to the claimant’s political views which can be viewed publicly; online on Twitter. It’ s the nature of these political views that he voiced so publicly, that places him at risk in Saudi Arabia on his return. So, based on the above reasons, I find that on a balance of probabilities, the claimant’s allegations are true.

Well-Founded Fear of Persecution

[6] The documentary evidence, which can be found within Exhibit 3 of the National Documentation Package for Saudi Arabia, specifically, at Tabs 4.1 and 11.2, establishes that there is a well-founded fear of persecution for those persons, like the claimant, who are critical of the government on social media. In late 2010, the government moved to increase its control over independent blogs and websites, demanding that these too obtain official licences. The rule could not be effectively imp- implemented, but several Twitter users and bloggers have been arrested in recent years for alleged religious deviance. The government closely monitors social media and has its own operatives engaged in targeted counter-propaganda. Internet freedom in Saudi Arabia further declined in 2018, amid an escalating intolerance for all forms of political, social, and religious dissent. An anti-terrorism law, introduced in November 2017, laid out lengthy prison senten terms for offences linked to non-violent political and religious speech; such as portraying the King or a crown-prince in a manner that brings religion or justice in disrepute. Given the climate of oppression towards persons who post on social media views critical of the government, I find that the claimant’s fear of persecution is objectively well-founded.

State Protection

[7] As the agent of persecution is the government of Saudi Arabia, I find that it would be objectively unreasonable for the claimant to seek protection of the very agent of persecution whom he fears.

Internal Flight Alternative

[8] I also find that the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution throughout Saudi Arabia, especially given the country documentation that indicates that the authorities operate similarly throughout Saudi Arabia, towards those who are, or perceived to be, political dissidents. Therefore, viable internal flight alternatives are not available to the claimant.

[9] Based on the foregoing analysis, I conclude that the claimant is a Convention refugee and I accept his claim.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

All Countries Venezuela

2020 RLLR 13

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

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

NEXUS

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

ALLEGATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

DETERMINATION

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

ANALYSIS

Identity

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

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

Credibility

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

Objective evidence

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

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

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

[… ]

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

[…]

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

[… ]

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

[15] Amnesty International reports that:

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

[… ]

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

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

[…]

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

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

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

[…]

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

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

State protection

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

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

Internal flight alternative

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

CONCLUSION

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

[22] The panel therefore accepts her claim.

(signed) F. Mortazavi

February 18, 2020

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

All Countries Ethiopia

2020 RLLR 12

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

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

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

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

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

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

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

ALLEGATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

DETERMINATION

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

IDENTITY

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

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

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

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

CREDIBILITY

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

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

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

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

WELL-FOUNDED FEAR OF PERSECUTION

Imputed Political Opinion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[25] The DOS report further states that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Female Genital Mutilation (FGM)

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

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

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

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

[31] The Gender Index 2019 further finds that,

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

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

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

STATE PROTECTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[39] In addition, the report finds that,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[41] The report further finds that,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE (IFA)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

(signed) S. Seevaratnam

September 23, 2020

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

All Countries Palestine

2020 RLLR 9

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

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

ALLEGATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DETERMINATION

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

ANALYSIS

Identity

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

Credibility

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

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

2.1

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

4.8

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

State protection

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

2.1

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

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

Internal flight alternative

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

DECISION

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

(signed) Linda Doutre

September 22, 2020

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