Categories
All Countries Nigeria

2021 RLLR 45

Citation: 2021 RLLR 45
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: August 4, 2021
Panel: Heidi Sprung
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Anthony P Navaneelan
Country: Nigeria
RPD Number: TB9-26476
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-00978
ATIP Pages: 000128-000130

[1]       MEMBER: I’ve considered your testimony and other evidence in the case and I am ready to render my decision. You will receive a transcript of this decision. It might be edited to correct grammar or add references to personal and country conditions documents. This is the decision in file TB9-26476. The claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, a citizen of Nigeria who is claiming refugee protection pursuant to Section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[2]       XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, you’ve claimed that you fear returning to Nigeria because you are bisexual. Your allegations and the hearing was conducted in accordance with Chairpersons Guideline 9 regarding proceedings before the IRB involving sexual orientation and gender identity and expression. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, I find that you are a Convention refugee and your claim is accepted.

[3]       The allegations in your Basis of Claim form are briefly summarized as follows. You are a bisexual man who has been in Canada since XXXX XXXX XXXX 2013. You began studying at the University of XXXX with a sponsorship of a Nigerian MP. When that sponsorship ended you continued to work during the summers in various places, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver for example, and you paid your fees and studied as much as you could. You now live in Toronto.

[4]       During the time that you’ve been in Canada and particularly during your summer jobs at XXXX and XXXX in Vancouver, these locations being away from a predominantly Nigerian community, you felt free to meet and having sexual encounters with men and a few with women. You have realised and come to accept your identity and have come out as a bisexual man. Initially you were careful not to let people in the Nigerian community know your identity, nevertheless several of your friends and other friends in Canada are now aware of your identity. There are multiple affidavits and supporting letters from friends supporting your claim. Your Basis of Claim also documents your continued attempts to renew your student visa and other options for staying in Canada.

[5]       With respect to your identity which is always the first issue, I am satisfied that your identity as a citizen of Nigeria is established through your testimony and a copy of your passport and other documentation on file.

[6]       With respect to your testimony the panel is mindful of the principal that when a claimant swears to the truth of certain allegations this creates a presumption that those allegations are true unless there is reason to doubt their truthfulness. I am aware of the many difficulties faced by refugee claimants in establishing their claim, including the stress of the hearing and all the questions that are asked, as well as other cultural factors.

[7]       I find that generally XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, you testified in a straightforward and compelling manner. Your testimony was clear and consistent with your allegations. It was internally consistent and consistent with the documentary evidence on file. You described coming to the realization that you were attracted to men. You described your first relationships. You readily answered questions regarding your social life and activities in the LGBTQ community including get togethers at your apartment in Toronto that were known as safe spaces for queers. Your testimony was compelling as I mentioned before.

[8]       I note that the case is well documented with corroborative evidence, relevant recent social media posts including one that predates the refugee claim are in evidence as well as several affidavits supporting your allegations of being bisexual. You reasonably described the time and explained the time it took for you to realize and be comfortable in your sexual identity as well as the time it took to realize that you could make a refugee claim. In this regard you explained that no one in the Nigerian community talks about their immigration status and you explained that you didn’t realize that the refugee process would be a private process and this also led to a delay in making a refugee claim. I find on a balance of probabilities that you are bisexual and that the objective evidence supports your allegation that you can’t return to Nigeria and live safely as an openly bisexual man.

[9]       With respect to the objective evidence, the Nigerian government outlawed same sex relationships in 2014. Same sex relations for men are criminalized throughout Nigeria and the recent report for the initiative for equal rights in the National Documentation Package as well as the UK Country Policy and Information note on sexual orientation and gender identity and expression, and the Response to Information Request on anti­LGBTQ vigilante groups clearly indicate that there is a climate of impunity for perpetrators of violence against the LGBTQ community members and that there would be no protection from the state.

[10]     To summarize I find that there is clear and convincing evidence that you would be at risk and that the state would be unwilling to protect you. For the same reasons you have no viable Internal Flight Alternative in Nigeria. You should not be expected to conceal your bisexual identity to live in Nigeria.

[11]     Just to conclude XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, is a person in need of protection pursuant to Section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the claim is accepted.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———

Categories
All Countries Burma

2021 RLLR 43

Citation: 2021 RLLR 43
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 7, 2021
Panel: Jan Mills
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Maureen Silcoff
Country: Burma
RPD Number: TB8-11538
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-00978
ATIP Pages: 000101-000105

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: This is the claim for refugee protection made by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, a citizen of Burma.  The claimant entered Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, having travelled directly from Burma. He made a refugee claim on arrival. At that time, the claimant was accompanied by his mother, who also made a claim. Their claims were later separated, at the request of the claimant, due to the sensitivity of his claim. The claimant is a 20-year-old transgender man who submits that he is at risk of persecution by the government and civil society because of his religion and sexual identity as transgender man.

[2]       For the following reasons, I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee based on both his religion and sexual identity. In coming to my decision, I have considered the Chairperson’s SOGIE guidelines.1

[3]       I accept that the claimant is a citizen of Burma, based on his passport, and I accept that he is a Muslim, based on his testimony and national identity card.

[4]       The allegations are set out in the narrative portion of the claimant’s Basis of Claim. There is no need for me to go into great detail into those allegations except to say that the claimant is a Sunni Muslim who is also identified by some factions as Rohingya due to a familial relationship with a member of the Rohingya community. As a member of the Muslim community, he has been discriminated against throughout his life. This discrimination included the inability to pursue his chosen profession because of an unofficial policy of not allowing Muslims to enter the higher professions such as medicine, which he wished to do. The claimant also testified as to the fear that he experienced as a member of the Muslim community and that violence towards Muslims is not unusual.

[5]       The claimant also testified as to his sexual identity as a transgender male and is fearful of the treatment he would experience in his home country should he return there. The claimant testified as a young person exploring his gender identity, he was attracted to females, and later came to realize that he identified as male. His sexual identity manifested itself in his home country as sexual orientation towards females, that was not accepted by his family or society at large. The claimant’s testimony was consistent in all material aspects, with his Basis of Claim and narrative, and I find the claimant to be a credible witness.

[6]       Based on the claimant’s testimony and the documents submitted, I find that the claimant has a subjective fear of persecution should he return to Burma. In doing so, I have also considered the cumulative impact of being a young, transgender, Muslim man, whose sexual identity also makes him vulnerable, not only in society at large, but also within his own Muslim community.

[7]       My definition of a Convention refugee is someone who has a well-founded fear of persecution. Fear is, by its very nature, subjective, while the well-founded nature of that fear is an objective matter. Both subjective and objective components are required to meet the definition. The definition of Convention refugee is also forward-looking, and I must consider what risk the claimant would face today if he were to return to Burma. I must also find that there is credible, trustworthy and reliable evidence that establishes, on a balance of probabilities, that there is more than a mere possibility that the claimant would be persecuted if he were to return.

[8]       S. 34 of Myanmar’s constitution entitles all Myanmar citizens to freedom of conscience and the right to freely to profess and practice religion, subject to public order, morality or health. S. 361 of the constitution recognizes the special position of Buddhism as the faith professed by majority of citizens. This applies only to Theravada Buddhism. That is Item 1.9, s. 3.47 of the country documentation.

[9]       There are four laws known as the Protection of Race and Religion laws which concern interfaith marriage, religious conversion, monogamy, and population control. These were originally proposed by the Committee for the Protection of Nationality and Religion, an organization led by nationalist Buddhist monks, and were passed by the government in 2015. The UN’s special rapporteur for human rights in Myanmar has criticized the laws for undermining the rights of women, children, and religious minorities, particularly Muslims. These laws remain in force.

[10]     At 12.1,2 the Department of State Report, of page 3, indicates that since 1999 — and they used the word “Burma”, so I am using them interchangeably throughout the country documents — “Burma has been designated a country of particular concern under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 for having engaged in or tolerating particularly severe violations of religious freedom.” I also note that Myanmar is not party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. At 1.5,3 the country information indicates that there are several distinct Muslim communities living throughout Myanmar with different cultural and ethnic backgrounds. At the time of the 2014 census, Muslims made up approximately four percent of the population, and the majority lived in northern Rakhine State. Muslims are underrepresented in the public sector, there are no Muslim members of parliament, and consistent with the claimant’s testimony, Muslims have been excluded from a range of government jobs, including teaching and health professionals. Businesses owned by Muslims are reported, in order to procure contracts, to have to have a Buddhist interlocuter.

[11]     Furthermore, Muslims experience a range of limitations on their ability to practice their faith freely. In recent years, authorities have blocked the rebuilding of mosques and madrassas that have been either damaged, destroyed or sealed. Muslims have also been denied access to basic rights and services. The Burma Human Rights Network documented multiple incidents of Muslims of all ethnicities being refused national registration cards. Reasons varied, ranging from the Muslim applicant being unable to provide extensive, and often difficult to obtain, documents to prove family lineage before 1824, and the refusal of immigration authorities to register a Muslim person as Bamar, the majority ethnicity.

[12]     Anti-Muslim sentiment is prevalent throughout the country and is circulated through social media, some state institutions and mainstream news websites. In the same Item, at 3.72, “Muslims in Yangon have described increasing restrictions on their ability to practice their faith in recent years. Public events marking Islamic days were cancelled by authorities in Yangon in 2017 due to pressure from Buddhist nationalist groups. In April 2017, authorities closed two madrassas that educated several hundred primary school students in Thaketa Township, Yangon. The reduced tolerance for Islamic faith activities has been, at least in part, propagated by a rise in anti-Muslim sentiment at both an official and societal level and its most extreme form has resulted in violent incidents against the Muslim community.”4

[13]     Muslims are also not permitted to enter some villages designated by communities as ‘Muslim-free zones’. The Burma Human Rights Network documented at least 21 Buddhist villages across Myanmar from 2012-2017, whereby villagers, with support from local authorities, erected signposts warning Muslims against entering the villages. DFAT at 1.45 assesses the Muslims outside of Rakhine State to face “moderate levels of official and societal discrimination.”

[14]     The country documentation, again the Department of State report on religious freedoms at 12.1, indicates that “Religious leaders and civil society activists reported that some government and military officials continued to deploy anti-Rohingya and anti-Muslim rumours and hate speech in official events.”6 While local and international experts said deeply awoken prejudices led to abuses and discrimination against religious minorities, some civil society groups have worked to improve inter-religious tolerance.

[15]     Nonetheless, hate speech against Muslims continued to be widespread on social media. Recently, Facebook removed 89 Facebook accounts, as well as 5 Instagram accounts, for engaging in and coordinated authentic behaviour. An investigation found that some of this activity was linked to individuals associated with the military. According to media reports, the military conducted a coordinated effort to spread anti-Muslim and anti-Rohingya sentiment through dummy Facebook accounts and other social media.

[16]     Local and international experts said [inaudible] awoken prejudices led to instances of abuse and discrimination against members of religious minorities by societal actors. [inaudible] prominent military, civil and religious leaders continued to promote the idea that Burmese Buddhists culture was under assault by Islam and Muslims and would come through the mountains of Western Burma, northern Rakhine State where the Rohingya live.

[17]     While the country has taken some steps to rein in ultra-nationalist Buddhist monks, those steps fall short and the military, who largely control the government, continues to propagate anti-Muslim rhetoric. Country documentation also demonstrates that for minority communities, including Muslims, they do not trust the government to assist them.

[18]     Furthermore, same-sex conduct is illegal in Myanmar and subject to up to 10 years imprisonment. LGBTQ, and in particular transgender people, are said to have been targeted by the police and subject to abuse at the hands of the authorities. Although there has been some ability to organize same-sex activities, such as a pride parade in 2019, these continue to be met with opposition from the government. That is at 6.1.7 There is a high level of societal discrimination in Myanmar, including amongst families, who often insist on forced heterosexual marriage. DFAT at 1.5 assesses a “Moderate risk of official and societal discrimination against members of the LGBTQ community.”

[19]     In addition, while I cannot find any direct information regarding the availability of treatment for transgendered (sic, derogatory) people in Myanmar, the claimant’s testimony, which I accept, suggests that treatment is unregulated and dangerous and can only be accessed by those with the ability to pay for it. In my view, this is consistent with the country information indicating that same-sex conduct is illegal and societal condemnation of sexual orientation, and by extension, sexual identity — and condemnation of anything other than mainstream.

[20]     The claimant has indicated that he would not subject himself to such treatment given the safety concerns. In my view, even were he to do so, I find a lack of professional, family, and social supports were he to return to his home country, make the transition particularly arduous.  Furthermore, given entrenched societal views, it would be unreasonable to believe that the claimant could lead a life free from discrimination. He would not have access to identification that properly acknowledges his sexual identity, and this would likely impact his ability to work and to access appropriate healthcare. Furthermore, he would not be free to openly express his gender.

[21]     In my view, the nature of the discrimination cumulatively amounts to persecution. For these reasons, I find that the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution should he return to Burma.

[22]     Since the agent of persecution regarding anti-Muslim rhetoric is, at least in part, from the military, who continue to have 25 percent of parliamentary seats, control various government portfolios, including the Ministry of Interior Defence and Border, and a veto power — that is found at Item 1.9, page 58 — and from the state in regard to sexual orientation and identity, I find there is no state protection available to the claimant, and he would face the same risk of persecution anywhere in the country. Myanmar has a centralized government and, as I indicated, the same conditions exist throughout the country. For these reasons, I find there is no viable internal flight alternative available to the claimant.

[23]     Therefore, after the above reasons, I find on a balance of probabilities, that there is than a mere possibility that the claimant would be persecuted were he to return to Myanmar, or Burma, and his claim is accepted.

[24]     Thank you.

1 Chairperson’s Guideline 9: Proceedings Before the IRE Involving Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression, Guidelines issued by the Chairperson pursuant to paragraph 159(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, Effective date: May 1, 2017.

2 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Myanmar (Burma), version 30 October 2020, item 12.1.

3 Ibid., item 1.5.

4 Ibid.

5 Ibid.

6 Ibid., item 1 2. 1.

7 Ibid., item 6.1.

8 Ibid., item 1.9.

Categories
All Countries India

2021 RLLR 42

Citation: 2021 RLLR 42
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: May 14, 2021
Panel: Alexandre Lussier
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Deepak Pawar
Country: India
RPD Number: MC1-00105
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-00978
ATIP Pages: 000089-000092

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: I have considered your testimony and the other evidence in the case and I am ready to render my decision orally. So, these are the reasons for the decision in the claim of XXXX XXXX who claims to be a citizen of India and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[2]       In rendering my reasons, I have considered the Chairperson’s Guideline 9, Proceedings Before the IRB Involving Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression.

ALLEGATIONS

[3]       You alleged the following. You left India in XXXX 2017 as you were forced to hide your sexuality as a homosexual. You feared societal violence and your family’ s reproval. You came to Canada on a student visa and claimed asylum in XXXX 2019 on the basis of your sexual orientation.

[4]       In a recent amendment to your narrative, you claimed that you discovered your gender identity while you were in Canada. You alleged that you are a transgender person. That you had been hiding your true self. If you were to return to India, you fear to be killed or tortured because of your sexual orientation and gender identity.

DECISION

[5]       I find that you are a refugee pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA as there exists a serious possibility of persecution should you return to India on account of your gender identity. My reasons are as follows.

Identity

[6]       I find that your identity as a national of India is established by the passport provided.

Credibility and Subjective Fear

[7]       I note that once in Canada, you delayed for two (2) years before claiming refugee protection. However, you indicated that you came to Canada on a student visa and that you completed your studies. It was upon finishing your studies when you were faced with the obligation to return to India and to your family that you sought information about the possibility to stay in Canada.

[8]       This explanation seems reasonable in your alleged circumstances. And therefore, does not raise significant concerns with respect to subjective fear or credibility.

Credibility Other Elements

[9]       I find you to be a credible witness and therefore, generally believe what you alleged in support of your claim. You testified in a straightforward manner. And there were no relevant inconsistencies in your testimony or contradictions between your testimony and the other evidence before me that were not reasonably explained.

[10]     You testified about your realization of being a transgender instead of a homosexual in 2019 when you consulted the 519 organization. You testified about the medical treatments you are considering concerning your gender identity. You also testified about your relationship with your family and how they learned of your sexual orientation while you lived in India.

[11]     In particular, the following evidence establishes your allegations as set out above. You provided letters from friends in Canada who attest that you are a transgender. You also provided a copy of a membership card of the 519 Community Center for LGBTQ. And pictures of yourself with a boyfriend between 2019 and 2021.

[12]     After reviewing the documents, I have no reason to doubt their authenticity. When a claimant swears to the truth of certain allegations, this creates a presumption that those allegations are true. Unless there are reasons to doubt their truthfulness. This is the principle established in Maldonado.

[13]     Although you had a relationship with a boyfriend for a while in Canada and had not alleged it, you explained that you thought that it would be enough to provide pictures as exhibits. I find this explanation reasonable in your circumstances and it does not raise sufficient concerns concerning your credibility.

Objective Basis

[14]     The National Documentation on file indicates the following about persecution faced by transgender persons in India. According to Amnesty International at Tab 2.2, many repressive amendments were made into laws such as the Transgender Persons Act. In December 2019 during the winter session of the Parliament, the Transgender Persons Protection of Rights Act was passed.

[15]     The Act undermines the rights of transgender and intersex persons and violates India’s international human rights obligations. And the 2014 ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of N-A-L-S-A v. Union of India. Amongst other flaws, the Act lays out vague bureaucratic procedures to be followed for legal gender recognition of the transgender persons.

[16]     Human Rights Watch agrees with the statements. Human Rights Watch states at Tab 6.1 of the National Documentation Package that the decriminalization of same-sex conduct will not immediately result in full equality for LGBT people in India. Transgender people in particular including hijra communities face discrimination in employment and housing. Human Rights Watch also notes that transgender people face discrimination in health care.

[17]     The United States of America Department of State report on Human Rights for 2020 at Tab 2.1 contains the following quote, “LGBTI groups reported they faced widespread societal discrimination and violence, particularly in rural areas”.

[18]     Activists reported that transgender persons continued to face difficulty obtaining medical treatment. Some police committed crimes against LGBTI persons and used the threat of arrest to coerce victims not to report the incidents.

[19]     Given that there are no serious credibility issues with respect to your allegations, coupled with the documentary evidence set out before, I find that you have established a perspective risk of being subjected to hostility and outbursts of violence because of your gender identity. As well as cumulative discrimination in work and public services that become tantamount to persecution.

Nature of the Harm

[20]     I have examined your claim under section 96 of the IRPA as I conclude that the risk you described constitutes persecution based on at least one (1) of the grounds prescribed in section 96. Specifically, that gender identity has been recognized as a social group of protected Nexus in the Convention.

State Protection

[21]     I find that it would be objectively unreasonable for you to seek the protection of the state in light of your particular circumstances. Objective information on file at Tab 6.1 indicates that the attitudes and behaviour of the police is one of the biggest barriers to queer persons. Access to the justice system in India. Several people spoke to the ICJ about violence, abuse, and harassment they suffered at the hands of the police. Furthermore, in several cases, the police have refused to file complaints submitted by queer persons, owing to bias or stereotypes.

[22]     You also testified of an event in 2016 when there was an attempt to kidnap you and the police did not file your first information report.

Internal Flight Alternative

[23]     I have examined whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for you. Based on the evidence on file, I find that you face a serious possibility of persecution throughout India as LGBTI groups reportedly face widespread societal discrimination and violence throughout India.

[24]     I have considered whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for you. I find that there are no other parts of the country where you would not face a serious possibility of persecution.

CONCLUSION

[25]     In light of the preceding, I conclude that you are a refugee pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA. Accordingly, I accept your claim.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Categories
All Countries Rwanda

2021 RLLR 41

Citation: 2021 RLLR 41
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: June 3, 2021
Panel: Elsa Kelly-Rhéaume
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Melissa Singer
Country: Rwanda
RPD Number: MC0-03009
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-00978
ATIP Pages: 000079-000082

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: We are back on the record, it is 11:25 on June 3rd, 2021. The Board has heard the evidence with regards the claim filed by XXXX XXXX and is ready to render its decision from the bench.  The claimant alleges she is a citizen of Rwanda and is seeking refugee protection under s. 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. For the purpose of the present asylum determination analysis, the Board took into account the Chairperson’s guideline 9, entitled proceedings before the IRB involving sexual orientation, gender identity and expression. At the hearing, the claimant expressed a preference for the use of the pronoun “she”, which is what the Board will use in rendering its decision.

[2]       The claimant alleges that she would face persecution if she were to return to Rwanda based on her sexual orientation. More specifically, she alleges that she always felt like a girl in the body of a boy, starting as a young teenager. In XXXX 2018, she met a guy on return to a trip to Uganda, with whom she had had an intimate relationship. On XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, a family servant caught the two of them in the claimant’s bedroom, and they were subsequently beaten by the claimant’s family. However, they denied that they were in an intimate relationship. For this, the claimant was punished by her family. They took away her phone, limited her outings, but relaxed some of those restrictions when she obtained a visa to study in the United States as they considered that perhaps she would change if she went to study there. So, the claimant’s aunt sent her to study in the US in XXXX of 2019, after several months there, around the month of XXXX, the claimant got a call from her mom, where she was told that they had found nude pictures of the claimant and her former boyfriend in her old laptop, and that the family had called the police, that they had beaten her former boyfriend, and that basically they were so disappointed in her and were rejecting her completely. The claimant was cut off financially after this phone call and has not had any contact with her mother, father, or most of her siblings or her aunt.  And the claimant tried to obtain a scholarship to continue her studies in the US, but no scholarship was forthcoming, therefore she decided to come to Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2020, and her asylum claim was deterred three days later to the Refugee Protection Division.

[3]       The Board finds, in this case, the claimant has established that she faces a serious possibility of persecution, on the basis of her membership in a particular social group, for being gay, and also for identifying with the gender is not their biological sex at birth.

[4]       The claimant’s identity has been established on a balance of probabilities, by a copy of her passport, which was filed with the Board.

[5]       With regards to credibility, the claimant was a credible witness, she provided details about growing up and feeling like a girl, being interested in hair and make up and being attracted to boys, contrary to the other boys that were around her. She testified about her relationship with her first boyfriend, XXXX, and how her family reacted when a servant found out that they were a couple. She also described the feelings of shame that she experienced when she realized she was different, since in her community it is considered to be an affront against Rwandan culture to be gay, and that she would potentially be spoiling, her words, people around her, this was the perception in her community. The claimant also described to the Board how her participation in the LGBTQ community centre in Montreal has helped her be more accepting of her own identity, and be more open about it, despite those feelings of shame in that cultural upbringing.

[6]       The claimant also provided several documents to support her claim. C-1 is a letter from the LGBTQ+ centre, where they also refer to the claimant as “she” and describe her participation and the activities at the centre. C-2 is a letter from her former partner that she had in Montreal, and C-3 is a copy of an email from her sister who lives in Uganda, who, while expressing a disapproval for her sexual orientation, discussed her attempts to trace XXXX and see what had happened with him.

[7]       The claimant’s failure to seek asylum in the United States when she studied there from XXXX 2019 to the end of 2019, is not — is justified by the claimant’s explanation. She said that once her family cut her off finically, her legal status in the US was tied to her status as a student, and she has tried to look into applying for asylum in the US, but when she discovered that there were no or fewer resources such as shelters for people who are awaiting the outcome of their asylum claim, she decided to come to Canada, as she felt that there were more resources available. And thus, no negative inference is drawn by the Board with regards to the claimant’s overall credibility due to this failure to seek asylum in the US, and the Board also notes that as soon as she came to Canada, she did apply for refugee protection.

[8]       There is also an objective basis for the future risk that the claimant faces if she were to return to Rwanda. The document evidence that is found in the national documentation package does support the claimant’s allegations and the fact that she would face a serious possibility of persecution upon return to Rwanda. Now, it must be said that the evidence can be contradictory with regards to the treatment of members of the LGBTQ community in Rwanda, and like many neighbouring countries, same-sex relations are not prohibited by law in Rwanda. However, there was an attempt to legislate in that manner in 2009, and homosexuality remains highly stigmatized within society. Tab 6.2 states that members of the LGBT community can suffer violence, discrimination, and harassment in general because of the cultural and religious beliefs which are highly intolerant of homosexuality. Homosexuality is viewed as disease coming from the west, and as an immoral thing. And it is very rare in Rwanda to encounter people who are openly gay and who are able to live their identity freely, because being openly gay will normally cause total isolation and cause gay people to be rejected by their family and their friends, and the claimant’s testimony is in line with that reality, where she was rejected by her family upon them learning of her sexual orientation.

[9]       Furthermore, tab 6.1 states that gay people in Rwanda will suffer discrimination in trying to get a job, in trying to get access to housing, because they can be evicted by landlords, or families will kick gay people out of the households where they have always lived. And so, the fact that gay people in Rwanda will face human rights violations with regards to their basic, fundamental rights, such as housing, lodging, on a systemic basis and a systematic basis for the Board amounts to persecution. So, in light of the way members of the LGBTQ community are treated in Rwanda as stated in this documentary evidence, and in light of the claimant’s past experience within her family where she was beaten for being in a relationship with another young man, she has established on a balance of probabilities that she faces a future risk of illegal detention, suffering violence, or persecution, if she were to be open about her sexual orientation in Rwanda.

[10]     With regards to state protection, the Board finds that there is clear and convincing that the state is unable or unwilling to provide the claimant with adequate protection. 6.2 of the national documentation package states that it is possible to ask for state protection, but whether that protection will be forthcoming will depend on the individual who receives the complaint, and their own personal beliefs. Tab 6.1 has stated that while there are some ethical police officers who will help people from LGBTQ community, they can also be arrested on behalf of lies that the arrestees were stealing, or were causing insecurity, or that the LGBT community is the root cause of several social ills. So, in large numbers, police officers do not want to hear about the existence about the LGBTQ community, and that is true also within the judicial system. Furthermore, tab 6.1 states that the police can arrest and illegally detain gay people for indefinite time based on morality laws, and there are very few cases brought before the courts for cases of violence against people from the LGBT community. So, in light of this evidence, there is not adequate protection that can be provided to the claimant, were she to return to Rwanda, and she has rebutted the presumption of state protection.

[11]     Finally, the Board analyzed whether the claimant could possibly relocate safely within her country of origin. However, the sentiment with regards to homosexuality is the same, all throughout the country, and as the Board has found that there is no adequate state protection available to members of the LGBTQ community if one is attacked or suffers discrimination or persecution due to their sexual orientation, the Board finds that the claimant would thus face a serious possibility of persecution anywhere in the country, and there is thus no viable internal flight alternative available to the claimant.

[12]     In conclusion, the Board has analyzed evidence as a whole, and finds that the claimant has discharged her burden of establishing a serious possibility of persecution based on one of the grounds set out in s. 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and the claim is therefore accepted. This is the end of my decision.

———-REASONS CONCLUDED———-

Categories
All Countries Colombia

2021 RLLR 40

Citation: 2021 RLLR 40
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 3, 2021
Panel: Catherine Solyom
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Robin Dejardin
Country: Colombia
RPD Number: MB9-19195
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-00978
ATIP Pages: 000055-000063

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

Introduction

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

[2]       This claim has been decided without a hearing, according to the Immigration and Refugee Board’s Chairperson’s Instructions Governing the Streaming of Less Complex Claims at the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) and paragraph 170(f) of the Act.

Allegations

[3]       The claimant, a 26-year-old citizen of Colombia, alleges that he is queer, and wants to undertake gender reassignment surgery. Because of his sexual orientation and gender identity, as well as his advocacy for the LGBTI community, he was targeted by the Gulf Clan, the country’s largest criminal organization, as well as by unknown members of the community.

[4]       In 2017, he was sexually assaulted by a group of men because he was public about his sexual orientation on Facebook.

[5]       Then in 2019, while working for the LGBTI Social Alliance of Antioquia, in Medellin, he was targeted by the Gulf Clan because he counseled transexuals and other members of the community not to give in to threats of extortion by the Gulf Clan and to report these threats to the police.

[6]       On XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, after a tour of the city centre to commemorate the 50 years of the XXXX XXXX XXXX – the riots outside a gay bar in New York City that marked the beginning of the gay rights movement in 1969 – an armed man accosted him on his way home and threatened to kill him if he did not stop his work with the LGBTI Social Alliance. The aggressor also told him if he wished to continue working as a prostitute in the neighbourhood – which he did occasionally – he would have to pay a portion of this earnings to the Gulf Clan.

[7]       On XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, after representing the LGBTI group on a float in the gay pride parade in Medellin, the claimant was threatened again by an armed man who said he knew where he worked and where he spent his free time, as well as where he lived, with his mother and his dog. The claimant also received threatening messages on Facebook and Grindr, a dating app.

[8]       Two weeks later, on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, the claimant flew to the United States. The next day he crossed the border into Canada and claimed asylum.

Decision

[9]       The Tribunal finds that the claimant is a refugee, pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA, as there exists a serious possibility of persecution, should he return to Colombia, on account of his membership in a particular social group, specifically gay and transgender people in Colombia. The reasons are as follows.

Identity

[10]     The Tribunal finds that the identity of the claimant as a national of Colombia is established by the documents provided, notably his passport.

Credibility

[11]     Based on the documents in the file, the Tribunal has noted no serious credibility issues. In particular, the evidence establishes the allegations as set out above.

[12]     Medical reports dated XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX 2017, corroborate the allegation that the claimant was drugged and assaulted on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017 (Exhibit C-1 and C- 3).

[13]     Photographs of the claimant at training and public events corroborate the allegations that he volunteered with the LGBTI Social Alliance of Antioquia and took part in events to mark the 50th anniversary of the XXXX XXXX XXXX riots. Other photos of the claimant at a Drag Queen contest and at the Gay pride parade in 2019 also corroborate the allegation that he is queer himself and was an advocate for the community (Exhibits C-10 to C-13).

[14]     Facebook posts denouncing violence against the LGBTI community after the murder of a transgender woman corroborate the allegation that the claimant spoke out publicly on behalf of the LGBTI community (Exhibit C-6). Threats receives online after those posts, as well as threats on a dating app, corroborate the allegation that the claimant was targeted because of his public advocacy for the LGBTI community (Exhibit C-15).

[15]     This is also confirmed by the submission of a survey given to participants at the 2019 pride parade in Medellin, by the social alliance (Exhibit C-14). This exhibit includes a photograph of the claimant marching at the front of the parade, which appeared in a Colombian newspaper.

[16]     A police complaint dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, corroborates the allegation that the claimant sought police protection following the threats he received after the gay pride parade on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, and threats he received online, as an advocate with the LGBTI Social Alliance. It also confirms that the local police response was that it was not in their jurisdiction to act on this complaint (Exhibit C-16).

[17]     A second complaint, filed with police XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, also details the incidents in question, and the claimant’s fears and reasons to suspect that the Gulf Clan is behind the threats in person and on social media. The police response is to advise the claimant to hire a private investigator to find out exactly who made the threats (Exhibit C-16).

[18]     A letter of support by the Montreal LGBTQ+ Community Centre affirms that the claimant has been an active member of the centre since XXXX 2020, and took part in activities and discussions with the centre even before becoming a member (Exhibit C-18).

[19]     After reviewing the documents, The Tribunal has no reason to doubt their authenticity.

Objective basis

[20]     Given that there are no serious credibility issues with respect to allegations of the claimant, and in light of the documentary evidence set out below, the Tribunal finds that the claimant has established a prospective risk of being assaulted or killed by the Gulf Clan, or other armed groups because of his sexual orientation, and because of his work as a social leader and advocate for the LGBTI community.

[21]     This risk is corroborated by the following documents in the National Documentation Package for Colombia, August 31, 2021 version, at tabs 2.1, 2.17, 2.18, 2.19, 6.3, 6.5, 7.13, 7.21, and 7.28.

[22]     Colombia decriminalized same-sex sexual relations in 1981 and has laws and recent court decisions prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

[23]     However, sources have indicated that a “significant proportion” of the Colombian population still has prejudices against LGBTI people and there were reports of sexual assaults against members of the community.

[24]     According to a report by Colombia Diversa in 2018, 110 persons belonging to sexual and gender minorities were murdered in 2017, while in 2018, 109 individuals were killed. At least 33 percent of these murders and around 34 percent of threats were motivated by the victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

[25]     Antioquia, where the claimant lived, was the department with the highest number of incidents of violence against sexual and gender minorities in 2018, and the highest number of assassinations that year (23 victims).

[26]     Armed groups, like the Gulf Clan, were behind many of the homicides and threats toward LGBTI persons. According to the Colombia Diversa report from May 2020, this kind of violence is used as a “war strategy” and to exercise social control in an area. Between 2014 and 2019, armed groups had issued 75 threats against people belonging to sexual and gender minorities.

[27]     The Gulf Clan, responsible for the threats made against the claimant, is said to be the largest and most powerful of the paramilitary groups in Colombia. It is also described as a major drug trafficking group and the largest criminal organization in Colombia.

[28]     At the same time, LGBTI people were also at risk of violence by the police. Between 2014 and 2019, there were 431 incidents of police violence against sexual and gender minorities, including 87 in 2018.

[29]     While a majority of the members of the community said they did not experience discrimination in their workplaces, this was not true for transgender persons, 40 per cent of which were unemployed because of discrimination in hiring practices.

[30]     The claimant would not have been affected by this while he was in Colombia. However, given his stated desire to transition to a different gender, he would face this risk of discrimination as well if he were to return to Colombia and express his gender identity.

[31]     There is also a wealth of objective evidence pertaining to the risks of persecution in Colombia facing social leaders and human rights defenders.

[32]     According to the U.S. State Department’s Human Rights Report for 2020, several illegal armed groups perpetrated human rights abuses and violent crimes, including murders, kidnapping, torture and threats against journalists, women, human rights defenders and social leaders.

[33]     In the first six months of 2020 alone, there were 13 kidnappings of human rights and social leaders.

[34]     Citing statistics from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the same report stated that between January 2016 and August 2020 more than 400 human rights defenders were killed.

[35]     According to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, since 2017, when Colombia recorded its lowest overall homicide rate in the last 30 years, there has been a significant and alarming increase in the number of murders of human rights defenders and social leaders in the country- including a 13% increase in the number of human rights defenders killed from 2018 to 2019.

[36]     LGBTI human rights defenders, like the claimant, are in a particularly dangerous situation, the Commission noted, as they are targeted both because of their efforts to defend people who are victims of discrimination and because of their own sexual orientation or gender identity.

[37]     With respect to who is responsible for the killings, according to the Office of the Attorney General of Colombia, in a 2018 report, the main perpetrators are, by order of responsibility, individuals, local criminal organizations, the Gulf Clan, and Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) dissidents and the National Liberation Army.

[38]     Civil society organizations point out the difficulty of identifying those allegedly responsible for these crimes. However, many concur in identifying illegal armed groups, first and foremost the Gulf Clan, as the main source of violence.

[39]     In this context, and having examined this claim under section 96 of the IRPA, the Tribunal concludes that the risk the claimant faces constitutes persecution based on at least one of the grounds prescribed in the Refugee Convention, specifically his membership in a particular social group – members of the LGBTI community in Colombia – and his political opinion, as a human rights defender working with that community.

State Protection

[40]     The Tribunal finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that the state is unable or unwilling to provide the claimant with adequate protection, either as a member of the LGBTI community, or as a social leader and human rights defender.

[41]     According to several sources, LGBT persons’ rights were included in the 2016 peace agreement with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and they are recognized as a specific category of victims of the armed conflict in the agreement.

[42]     Furthermore, according to information provided by the State, in 2020, 3,686 human rights defenders and social leaders did receive protection through the National Protection Unit (UNP), equivalent to roughly half of the total number of people protected by the UNP.

[43]     On the other hand, civil society organizations note that there has hardly been any development of protection measures for LGBTI members by the State since 2016, despite the promises of the accord. And they characterized the protection measures for human rights defenders as “soft”, even in areas with serious security situations, and therefore ineffectual.

[44]     Furthermore, as mentioned above, the police themselves are the instigators of violence against the LGBTI community – for example they were responsible for 87 cases of violence against members of the LGBTI community in 2018. As such there is a reluctance by members of that community to seek police protection for fear that they may be re-victimized.

[45]     The claimant states and has provided documentary evidence that he sought police protection from the Gulf Clan on two occasions. The first time, in XXXX 2019, he was told by police that it was not in their jurisdiction to investigate the threats he received at the Gay Pride march. The second time, in XXXX 2019, he was told that a police investigation could only begin once the claimant identified a specific person responsible for the threats within the Gulf Clan. The police suggested he hire a private investigator.

[46]     Given the objective evidence and the personal experience of the claimant, the Tribunal finds he can not rely on police protection from the threats he received or could face, should he return to Colombia.

Internal Flight Alternative

[47]     The Tribunal has also examined whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for the claimant.

[48]     According to several sources, the Gulf Clan, who the claimant believes was responsible for the threats levelled against him, has control over the entire territory of Colombia and most of its ports. In 2017, the Colombian government estimated that it had some 2,000 members, who were particularly concentrated in Colombia’s northern region, especially in the Pacific departments of Antioquia, Choco and Cordoba.

[49]     While the National Documentation Package for Colombia does not provide specific information on the Gulf Clan’s ability to track individuals to other parts of the country, it does reveal that the Gulf Clan, on top of being the largest and most widespread of the illegal armed groups, also has allies both within and outside of Colombia.

[50]     The documentary evidence also shows that members of the LGBTI community, human rights defenders and social leaders are particularly vulnerable to threats and illegal groups, not to mention violence and discrimination, in rural areas and smaller cities.

[51]     Based on the evidence on file, the Tribunal finds that the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution throughout Colombia.

CONCLUSION

[52]     The Tribunal concludes that the claimant is a Convention refugee, pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA, and accepts his claim.

(signed) Catherine Solyom

November 3, 2021

Categories
All Countries El Salvador

2021 RLLR 39

Citation: 2021 RLLR 39
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 19, 2021
Panel: Heidy Melissa Arango
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Mabel E. Fraser
Country: El Salvador
RPD Number: MB7-23221
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-00978
ATIP Pages: 000034-000040

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

[1]       The claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (also known as XXXX), is a citizen of El Salvador. She1 claims refugee protection in Canada pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).2

ALLEGATIONS

[2]       The claimant fears to be killed by the members of gangs if she returns to El Salvador.

[3]       On XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017, the claimant was kidnaped by members of the Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13). While abducted, she was mistreated and tortured by members of the MS-13. They threatened to kill her unless her mother paid a ransom.

[4]       The claimant alleges she was kidnaped because she is a transsexual person and because the gang members knew her mother works for the supreme court of justice.

[5]       On XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017, the claimant left El Salvador and she entered Canada with a visitor’s visa.

[6]       She claimed refugee status around November 21, 2017.

[7]       Being a transgender, transsexual person, the claimant fears to be persecuted due to her gender identity should she return to El Salvador.

DETERMINATION

[8]       The tribunal finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee for the following reasons.

ANALYSIS

[9]       In assessing this claim, the tribunal considered the Chairperson’s Guideline 9: Proceedings before the IRB Involving Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression.3

Identity

[10]     The tribunal is satisfied with the identity of the claimant, which was established by a copy of her passport on file.4

[11]     The tribunal notes that claimant chose to identify herself as a man when filling her Basis of Claim Form (BOC)5. The tribunal suspects that this was to keep in conformity with her passport. Nevertheless, the claimant provided documents from medical professionals regarding her medical transition from male to female. The tribunal is satisfied that the claimant is indeed transgender, transsexual.

Credibility

[12]     The tribunal considers the claimant’s allegations in her BOC to be credible. The tribunal considered all the documentary evidence on file and found no significant contradictions or inconsistencies that would undermine the claimant’s credibility.

[13]     As to the claimant’s gender identity, the claimant provided numerous documents to corroborate her claim. These include documents from medical professionals indicating that she is transgender.6

[14]     In support of her claim, the claimant provided a letter from her psychiatrist indicating that she initiated hormonal therapy.7 The psychiatrist confirms that, after evaluating the claimant, he determined that she was a person with a transsexual gender identity.8

[15]     The claimant also submitted a letter from her XXXX that indicates that during 20 sessions of XXXX with the claimant, which began on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, she has observed XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX associated with XXXX XXXX and the traumatic events experienced by the claimant in her country of origin.9

[16]     The claimant submitted a letter from her family physician who confirms that he has assisted her to medically transition from male to female.10

[17]     Additionally, the claimant provided a police report that confirms that she was kidnapped by gang members on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017.11

[18]     The claimant provided a photo of herself to corroborate her transition from male to female.12

[19]     All this is consistent with the claimant’s allegations as stated in her BOC. In light of the documentary evidence submitted, there is no doubt that the claimant is a transsexual person.

[20]     Therefore, the tribunal finds the main allegations at the heart of this claim to be credible.

[21]     Moreover, the objective documentation supports the claimant’s allegations that individuals in her circumstances face persecution due to their gender identity.

[22]     The claimant also submitted different news articles regarding the situation of sexual minorities and violence against LGBT persons in El Salvador.13

[23]     According to the most recent US Department of State Country Reports14, there is widespread discrimination and violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons, even though the law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

[24]     According to Amnesty International, LGBTI persons in the Northern Triangle of Central America “are frequently the target of different forms of violence due to their real or perceived sexual orientation and/or gender identity, such as, for example, intimidation, threats, physical aggression, sexual violence and even murder”.15

[25]     Another report by Amnesty International indicates that trans women, who are particularly stigmatized because of patriarchal social norms, are especially subjected to violence and extortion by gangs and often face greater obstacles to accessing justice due to discrimination.16 Furthermore, since the eruption of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, the situation has definitely deteriorated and the measures taken by the government have put many trans women in an extremely vulnerable position.17

[26]     After considering the documentary evidence submitted, the tribunal concludes the claimant has established a reasonable fear of persecution if she returns to El Salvador.

State Protection

[27]     The tribunal finds that adequate state protection would not be available to the claimant in El Salvador.

[28]     The objective documentary evidence indicates that the authorities also engage in violence and discrimination against LGBTI people18:

NGOs reported that public officials, including police, engaged in violence and discrimination against sexual minorities. Persons from the LGBTI community stated that the PNC and the Attorney General’s Office harassed transgender and gay individuals when they reported cases of violence against LGBTI persons, including by conducting unnecessary and invasive strip searches.

[29]     Furthermore, impunity persisted despite government steps to dismiss and prosecute abusers in the security forces, executive branch, and justice system.19

[30]     In fact, many LGBTI people prefer not to report to the authorities the attacks they suffer and the few people who dare go to the authorities to report a crime “are frequently re-victimized or treated with disdain, indifference and discrimination due to their gender identity and/or expression, and so they rarely follow their case up and even, sometimes, withdraw it”.20

[31]     The tribunal notes that the claimant did seek protection from the authorities in XXXX 2017, after she was kidnaped, but there was no further action from the authorities.

[32]     Based on the claimant’s personal circumstances, specifically a transgender person, as well as the objective country documentation, the tribunal finds that the claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection.

Internal Flight Alternative (IFA)

[33]     The tribunal also considered whether the claimant could reasonably and safely relocate to another city in El Salvador. The tribunal is of the opinion that the claimant does not have a viable IFA in El Salvador.

[34]     It appears from the objective documentary evidence mentioned above that the situation of sexual minorities in El Salvador is the same throughout the country.

[35]     Given the claimant’s profile, a transsexual person who has transitioned from male to female, and also considering that gangs are present all over the country, the tribunal concludes that the claimant faces a reasonable possibility of persecution throughout El Salvador.

[36]     Therefore, there is no viable IFA in the claimant’s particular circumstances.

CONCLUSION

[37]     For these reasons, the tribunal finds that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (also known as XXXX) is a “Convention refugee” pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA.

[38]     Therefore, the tribunal accepts her claim.

(signed) Heidy Melissa Arango

19 February 2021

1 The claimant is identified as male in her passport but self-identifies as female according to her allegations. The feminine has been used in this decision.

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended.

3 Chairperson’s Guideline 9 of the Refugee Protection Division: Guideline issued by the Chairperson pursuant to paragraph 159(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act: Involving Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression. Effective date: May 1, 2017

4 Document 1 — Package of information from the referring Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA)/Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC): Copy of the claimant’s passport.

5 Document 2 – Basis of Claim Form (BOC)

6 Document 4 – Exhibits P- 10 to P-15

7 Document 4 – Exhibit P-10: Letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, dated XXXX XXXX, 2017.

8  Ibid.

9 Document 4 – Exhibit P-12: Letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX, dated XXXX, 2019.

10 Document 4 – Exhibit P-15: Letter from family physician. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.

11 Document 4 – Exhibit P-9: Report to the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, dated XXXX XXXX 2017.

12 Document 4 – Exhibit P-22: Photo of the claimant.

13 Document 4 – Exhibit P-16 to P-18

14 Document 3 – National Documentation Package on El Salvador, November 30, 2020 (NDP El Salvador), Tab 2.1: El Salvador. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2019, United States Department of State, March 11, 2020.

15 Document 3 – NDP El Salvador, Tab 6.1: ‘No Safe Place’: Salvadorans, Guatemalans and Hondurans Seeking Asylum in Mexico Based on Their Sexual Orientation and/or Gender Identity, Amnesty International, November 27, 2017.

16 Document 3 – NDP El Salvador, Tab 6.4: For many trans women, living in El Salvador is a death sentence.

Coronavirus is making it even worse, Amnesty International, 6 November 2020.

17 Ibid.

18 Supra, note 14.

19 Ibid.

20 Supra, note 15.

Categories
All Countries Turkey

2021 RLLR 9

Citation: 2021 RLLR 9
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 9, 2021
Panel: Sandeep Chauhan
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Marianna Jasper
Country: Turkey
RPD Number: VC1-05783
Associated RPD Number(s):
ATIP Number: A-2022-00665
ATIP Pages: 000019-000026

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

[1]       These are the reasons for the decision in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX (the “claimant”), who is a citizen of Turkey, and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).i

[2]       In rendering my reasons, I have considered the Chairperson’s Guidelines on Proceedings Before the IRB Involving Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression.

ALLEGATIONS

[3]       The following is a brief synopsis of the allegations put forth by the claimant in her Basis of Claim (BOC) form.ii She fears persecution at the hands of society and authorities in Turkey due to her gender identity.

[4]       The claimant is a XXXX-year-old woman, who was born a male. Since early childhood, she would dress up and behave like girls and was bullied by other boys in school due to this. Tired of harassment, the claimant went to Germany in 2013, where she lived with her uncles and explored surgeries for transformation of her gender from male to female. In order to ease off the pressure of getting married to a female of her family’s choosing, the claimant married her female friend in Germany. After the German authorities determined that the claimant’s marriage with her friend was fake (of convenience), she was forced to return to Turkey as she could no longer stay in Germany. Her marriage to her friend was dissolved by the Turkish authorities after the claimant completed a series of gender reassignment surgeries in 2014 and got herself registered as a female. The claimant participated in rallies for the rights of LGBTQ community in Turkey and was detained by the authorities on two occasions in 2015 and 2016.

[5]       She travelled to Sweden and claimed refugee protection, which was denied by Swedish authorities as they ruled that she would be safe living in Turkey. The claimant returned to Turkey in 2017 and continued to live in Istanbul. She started getting threats from her extended family, who told her parents that she is bringing shame and dishonour to the family, and that she has to exit Turkey. Her uncle threatened to throw acid on her and make Turkey an unlivable place for the claimant. Fearing for her life, the claimant travelled to the United States (US) on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019 and crossed over to Canada, where she filed for refugee protection.

DETERMINATION

[6]       I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee as she has established a serious possibility of persecution on account of her membership in a particular social group for the following reasons.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[7]       I find that the claimant’s identity as a national of Turkey is established, on a balance of probabilities, based on a certified copy of her Turkish passport on file.iii

Credibility

[8]       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. (Maldonado [1980]

2.F.C. 302 (C.A.))

[9]       The claimant testified in a straightforward manner and there were no relevant inconsistencies in her testimony or contradictions between her testimony and the other evidence before me which have not been satisfactorily explained. Apart from her oral testimony, the claimant has provided corroborating documentary evidenceiv to support her claim. I have no reason to doubt the genuineness of these documents and accept them as genuine. Amongst others, the documents contain proof of claimant’s marriage in Germany with her friend and dissolution of the same by the Turkish authorities, proof of her gender reassignment surgery through an order of the courts in Turkey, threat note from the claimant’s uncle in Turkey, and support letter from claimant’s mother.

[10]     Based on the claimant’s straightforward testimony and the corroborating documentary evidence, I find her to be a credible witness and accept her allegations to be true on a balance of probabilities. In particular, on a balance of probabilities, I accept that the claimant was borna male and underwent gender reassignment surgery to a female, and that she has a subjective fear of returning to Turkey as alleged.

Nexus

[11]     For a claimant to be considered a Convention refugee, the well-founded fear of persecution must be by reason of one or more of the five grounds: race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion. The persecution that the claimant faces in this case is due to her gender identity after the gender reassignment surgery she went through from male to female. I find that she has established nexus to a Convention ground – membership in a particular social group; namely a claimant fearing persecution due to her decision to convert from male to female. As such, her claim is being assessed under section 96 of IRPA and not under section 97.

Well-Founded Fear of Persecution and Risk of Harm

[12]     To establish her status as a Convention refugee, the claimant had to show that there was a serious possibility that she would be persecuted if removed to Turkey.

[13]     I find that the objective evidence supports her subjective fears and establishes a serious possibility of persecution for the claimant if she is forced to return to her country. My reasons are as follows.

[14]     The US State Department 2016 Human Rights Practices Report noted that:

‘Minority groups, including …lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex (LGBTJ) individuals, continued to face threats, discrimination, and violence and reported that the government took insufficient steps to protect them. Progovernment media used anti-LGBTI …rhetoric.v

[15]     The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), Australia reports that:

Human rights observers report LGBTI individuals often feel the need to hide their sexual orientation or gender identity at work, and those ·who do nor (or cannot may face negative repercussions. High unemployment rates in the economy as a whole make LGBTI individuals reluctant to complain about discrimination, for fear of losing their livelihoods. Turkish employment law allows the dismissal of a government employee who is found ‘to act in a shameful and embarrassing way unfit for the position of a civil servant’, while other statutes criminalise the undefined practice of ‘unchastity’. Human rights observers report employers have used these provisions to discriminate against LGBTI individuals. Social stigma against HIV/AIDS leads many LGBTI individuals to avoid testing for fear the results may be used against them.vi

[16]     The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association, in its report on the treatment of sexual minorities notes that this group faced bias-motivated violence through political rhetoric.vii

[17]     The objective evidence discussed above establishes that sexual minorities, including transgender individuals face continuous threats and violence in Turkey. This is based on societal perceptions and political rhetoric against this particular social group. Therefore, based on all the evidence before me, I find that the claimant will face a serious possibility of persecution if she is forced to go back to Turkey. Her fears are indeed well-founded.

State Protection

[18]     I find that adequate state protection has not been forthcoming to the claimant in this case.

[19]     According to the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary detentions:

‘The challenges relating to the protection of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons are exacerbated by the attitude of some family members of such individuals, as well as the trend observed by the Special Rapporteur during his visit, whereby law enforcement officials and the judiciary seem to take a lenient attitude towards crime committed against such individuals.viii

[20]     DFAT reports that:

Transgender individuals can legally change gender, although a court must grant permission based on a medical report. Legal gender reassignment is conditional upon the individual remaining unmarried and undergoing surgery and sterilisation. Legislation does not explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in social institutions, government offices or corporations. 171e law does not guarantee LGBTI individuals certain rights enjoyed by others, including but not limited to marriage and associated partnership benefits such as retirement, inheritance. insurance. social security and access to the corpse in case of death.ix

[21]     A Response to Information Request (RIR) on the treatment of LGBTQ community in Turkey states that:

The Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs report notes that the ban on public LGBTI activities in Ankara “remains in force [as of 2019]” (Netherlands Oct. 2019, 43). The Australian DFAT reports that “in practice the ban in Ankara and many other provinces persists as officials refuse permission on a case-by-case basis, citing security concerns” (Australia Sept. 2020, para. 3.89). The same source notes that in the months after the ban was reversed, police used water cannons, rubber bullets, and tear gas to disperse Pride Month gatherings (Australia 10 Sept. 2020, para. 3.89).x

[22]     The objective evidence shows that LGBTQ community in Turkey suffers from lack of favourable treatment from the authorities in that country. The government not only fails to protect such individuals from violence at the hands of non-state actors but also indulges in curbing their rights. Therefore, I am satisfied that the claimant will be unable to access adequate state protection in Turkey and that the presumption of state protection has been rebutted in this case.

Internal Flight Alternative

[23]     I have also considered whether the claimant will be able to live safely anywhere else in Turkey as a transgender person. On the evidence before me, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that she does not have a viable internal flight alternative in her country. The societal attitudes against sexual minorities are prevalent throughout the country, which results in violence, threats, and discrimination against them. Objective evidencexi shows that transgender persons have a lot of difficulty securing rental premises, have extremely limited job prospects, and do not have access to adequate housing. Therefore, for these reasons and for the ones similar to those of state protection, I find that the claimant will not be able to live safely anywhere in Turkey and that she does not have a viable internal flight alternative in her country.

CONCLUSION

[24]     Based on the analysis above, I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 of IRPA. Accordingly, I accept her claim.

(signed) Sandeep Chauhan

December 10, 2021

i Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.

ii Exhibit 2.

iii Exhibit 1.

iv Exhibits 6, 7.

v Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Turkey, 16 April 2021, tab 1.14: Country Policy and Information Note. Turkey: Sexual orientation and gender identity. Version 2.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. June 2017.

vi Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Turkey, 16 April 2021, tab 1.17: DFAT Country Information Report:

Turkey. Australia. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 10 September 2020.

vii Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Turkey, 16 April 2021, tab 6.1: Turkey. Annual Review of the Human Rights Situation of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex People in Europe and Central Asia. International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association. ILGA-Europe. February 2020.

viii Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Turkey, 16 April 2021, tab 1. 14: Country Policy and Information Note. Turkey: Sexual orientation and gender identity. Version 2.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. June 2017.

ix Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Turkey, 16 April 2021, tab 1.17: DFAT Country Information Report: Turkey. Australia. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 10 September 2020.

x Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Turkey, 16 April 2021, tab 6.5: Treatment of persons with diverse sexual orientation and gender identity and expression (SOGIE) by society and state authorities, including state protection and support services (2018-November 2020). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 26 November 2020. TUR200360.E.

xi Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Turkey, 16 April 2021, tab 6.1: Turkey. Annual Review of the Human Rights Situation of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex People in Europe and Central Asia. International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association. ILGA-Europe. February 2020.

Categories
All Countries Jordan

2021 RLLR 36

Citation: 2021 RLLR 36
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 9, 2021
Panel: J. Eberhard
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Charlotte Suzanne Cass
Country: Jordan
RPD Number: TB8-32072
Associated RPD Number(s):
ATIP Number: A-2022-00978
ATIP Pages: 000001-000011

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]       This claim has been decided without a hearing, according to the Immigration and Refugee Board’s Chairperson’s Instructions Governing the Streaming of Less Complex Claims at the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) and paragraph 170(f) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act [IRPA or the Act].1

[2]       The claimant, XXXX XXXX , whose name at birth was XXXX XXXX2 claims to be a citizen of Jordan and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

DETERMINATION

[3]       I find that you are a Convention refugee because you have established that you face a serious possibility of persecution in Jordan, as a member of a particular social group, namely trans woman.

[4]       In deciding your claim, I have considered and applied the Chairperson’s Guidelines on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Expression [the “SOGIE Guidelines”], which were released on May 1, 2017 as well as the Guidelines on women fearing gender-related persecution.3

ALLEGATIONS

[5]       The details of your claim are set out at length in your Basis of Claim (BOC) form dated November 23, 2018 and amended on December 22, 2020 and 18 January 2021, respectively.4

[6]       In short, throughout your life you have experienced difference painfully, and almost entirely without support from your family or home community. Others who have failed to see and appreciate you have made fun of and endangered you, so that you have had to live in fear and under constant threat of humiliation, discrimination, and violence.

[7]       Specifically, in addition to your family’s unwillingness to accept you, your religious, social and military communities in Jordan reinforced the “wrongness” of who you were, including by teaching intolerance, threatening you, sexually assaulting you and, in your family’s case, trying to marry you off to a woman at a time when you identified as a gay man. You finally left the workforce in Jordan because you could no longer bear the mistreatment, discrimination and harassment you experienced based on others’ perceptions of who you were and their related conclusions about your worth.

[8]       You survived discrimination, erasure and violence in part because of successful romantic partnerships you formed with three men who could see, appreciate and value you. While the relationships were secret, they were yours until your partners were sent back to Iraq. In one case, you believe your homophobic parents are the persons who reported your then partner to Jordanian authorities, causing him to be deported.

[9]       At the time of these relationships, you identified as a gay man and others perceived you this way, because of the way you “look, speak, walk and even carry your bag,” to use your own words.5 Nowhere was safe for you; not state offices, not the streets, not police, not conservative religious communities, where the common belief is that all gay persons deserve to “burn in hell,” again to use your own description This belief has real consequences in Jordan, including risk to your very life in the event your sexuality (or the truth of your intimate relationships) was discovered, confirmed and became publicly known.

[10]     Since 2016, you have enjoyed the security of a trusting, loving relationship with your partner.6 Yet, it too had to remain secret in Jordan, so that you could both remain relatively safe, and to prevent your partner’s deportation from Jordan to his country of nationality, Iraq, a real possibility as your past experiences taught you.

[11]     Following painful rebukes from several family members who saw the two of your together in public and judged your relationship, the situation grew more dangerous for your both when your partner’s sister’s husband came uninvited to your apartment in XXXX 2018. Finding you and your partner together there, he assaulted you and threatened your safety. He also took your cell phones, which contained compromising information and images about your lives and relationship, and he threatened to use this information to have you detained and your partner deported.

[12]     After this incident, your partner immediately registered with UNHCR7 in Jordan, citing these threats. And you responded by also trying to protect your safety, including by taking steps to leave Jordan. You fled the country without delay, traveling to Canada in XXXX 2018. However, you returned to Jordan two weeks later at your partner’s request, to help him because he was suffering in hiding. Specifically, at the time he was living alone in a boiler room, where he was hungry and terrified of discovery and deportation to Iraq.

[13]     When you returned to Jordan to help your partner, you told no one except your niece’s husband, who you had come to trust. While you were in the country, your partner would come to see you at night only when he felt it was relatively safe to do so. You returned to Canada from Jordan in XXXX 2018 and sought refugee protection without delay.

[14]     In the intervening months, which became two years, you have found support in the LGBTQI community here, and you have come to identify yourself as a trans woman, something that was “impossible” before, including because of your own assimilation of some of the cultural limitations of Jordanian society. Until he safely arrived in Canada in XXXX 2020, as a resettled UNHCR refugee, you continued throughout this time to fear for your partner’s safety. You have remained joyfully together since your reunion now a year ago.

[15]     During this time, you have also taken steps to gather medical and psychological support from professionals who can and have begun to help you become increasingly more physiologically aligned with your true self, including by using hormones that promote “feminine” features. And, you have sought and received psychological treatment and care to tend your past and ongoing suffering, including as caused by the delay in having your claim decided.

[16]     Since you have been here in Canada together with your partner, your dream of living in “safety and dignity…able to express yourself’ without fear of harm, united in love and peace has moved closer to reality. Together, again to use your own words, you now “feel human for the first time in (y)our lives [and] it feels safe and normal to live here as a couple…[in a] beautiful life.”

[17]     Your claim against Jordan is based on the fear of persecution you will face if you return, including by the state and others who have already threatened and harmed you. And, with the possibility of return to Jordan, you have continued to fear losing the “beautiful life” you have begun to build here in Canada together with your beloved partner.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[18]     You have established your identity as a national of Jordan on a balance of probabilities by your disclosure of relevant documents including a copy of your passport.8

[19]     I note you’ve also provided several additional identity documents including your original driver’s license and national identity card from Jordan. Copies of these and other identity documents, including your birth certificate from Jordan are in evidence.9

[20]     For record keeping purposes, your name as given at birth, which also presently appears on your identity documents, is included on this decision as an AKA or an “also known as.” In amending the IRB’s institutional record of your name, I am applying Operational Bulletin Number 7 and reading it together with the Chairperson’s Guideline on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Expression (the “SOGIE Guidelines”).10

[21]     In particular, I rely on Section 4 of the Guidelines which directs the use of appropriate language in hearings and decisions and states:

All persons in proceedings before the IRB have a responsibility to be respectful toward other participants. Part of this responsibility includes the use of appropriate language by all participants. Appropriate language is defined as language that reflects that person’s self­ identification and avoids negative connotations. Individuals should be addressed and referred to by their chosen name, terminology and pronouns. [emphasis added]

Credibility

[22]     I find you to be a very credible witness and I believe what you’ve alleged in support of your claim.

[23]     Your account of why you fear persecution in Jordan is set out in an open, direct, straightforward and clear manner, and there are no relevant inconsistencies between your BOC account, including amendments, and the other evidence before me.

[24]     In particular, I accept as fully reasonable and satisfactory your explanation for why you returned to Jordan after only two weeks in Canada after you first fled in XXXX 2018. You explained that you returned to assist your beloved partner who was suffering and living in immense fear, including of deportation to Iraq, having been threatened, assaulted and having had his phone with compromising information stolen. In your particular circumstances, this makes sense and is otherwise consistent with your account. In making this finding, I have considered that when you returned to Jordan, or reavailed, you remained in virtual hiding and your presence in Jordan was known only to your niece’s husband.

[25]     While you did not testify at a hearing, your “voice” was clear in your Basis of Claim form and the other many personal documents you presented to corroborate your claim. In particular, I note the shift in your self-identification as between your initial BOC and your later BOC Amendments from gay man to trans woman.11 Given the cultural context in Jordan, and your own personal experiences, it is entirely reasonable that you only appreciated the option of exploring your gender identity after you began to reside in Canada and grew more comfortable with the relative safety here, especially noting the supportive LGBTQI community of which you have become a part.12

[26]     Over the course of more than two years, you provided substantial personal documentation to corroborate all aspects of your claim, in fact, there are twelve exhibits before me, most of which are your personal documents.13 In sum, the documents corroborate your account of your life in Jordan, including your education and employment there, most notably your early studies at an Islamic religious school.14

[27]     I have also carefully reviewed the many medical reports in evidence, including those that demonstrate your continuing efforts to harmonize your inner self with your physiological body.15 There are several documents that indicate your efforts to see an endocrinologist, and later ones that show you had such appointments.16 Other letters by professionals including psychiatrists and psychologists also contain information that is consistent with what you have set out about your ongoing efforts, and indeed the struggles you have faced, to live authentically.

[28]     Notably, some of these reports were submitted in support of an application to have you designated as a Vulnerable Person, including because of the impact on your well-being of the realities you have faced before you arrived into Canada and the delay here in having your claim decided. As the member who ultimately assessed and decided your claim, I want to acknowledge this delay and express my deep regret for it, especially because of its impact on you.

[29]     The many support letters in evidence are also of particular note not only because they contain details about your life and risks you face in Jordan, but also because they are personal letters written by persons with direct personal knowledge of you, including past partners and your niece’s husband, who is a trusted family member and friend.17

[30]     Your lawyer in Jordan has also submitted a letter on your behalf, which is consistent with your account of his advice to you, which essentially was to leave Jordan for your safety.18 Specifically, his letter clearly corroborates your account of having been assaulted and threatened together with your partner in Jordan, which was the precipitating cause of your flight in XXXX 2018. It also provides insight into your inability, in your circumstances, to access state authorities and your ongoing risk of detention and prison by Jordanian authorities, including because of your family members’ continuing “pursuit” of you both.

[31]     For all of these reasons, I accept the evidence that you’ve presented both documentary and testamentary, and I find it to be credible.

Nexus, subjective fear

[32]     A person who seeks protection as a Convention refugee has to establish both that she is afraid of persecution in her home country based on a nexus ground, and that there is an objective basis for that fear, including as reflected in the country condition evidence.

[33]     In your case, the primary Convention ground is particular social group of which you are a member as a Jordanian trans woman. I also note that at the time you fled Jordan and initially made your claim in Canada, you self-identified as, and were perceived by others to be, a gay man. This is another basis for your membership in a particular social group, also because of the treatment in Jordan members of the LGBTQI community.

[34]     I find that your decisions and actions in leaving Jordan and claiming refugee protection in Canada as soon as possible are consistent with having a subjective fear of persecution. I note you left Jordan nearly immediately after you were assaulted and threatened when your relationship with your partner was discovered and confirmed by family members. Again, I have considered the context and circumstances that caused you to flee, those that caused you to return to Jordan in virtual hiding, and the situation that culminated in your final return to Canada, within months, to claim for refugee protection without further delay.

Objective basis

[35]     The country condition documents in the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Jordan dated 18 December 2020,19 as well as the documents disclosed by counsel20 are also consistent with your allegations that there is a serious possibility you will face persecution as a trans woman (including one who formerly identified and was perceived in Jordan as a gay man) if you return.21

[36]     In particular, NDP item 6.1 by Outright Action International entitled “Jordan. Activism and Resilience: LGBTQ Progress in The Middle East and North Africa: Case Studies From Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco and Tunisia,” reports that Jordanian authorities use morality and public decency laws to target LGBTQ persons. Trans women face specific risks under Penal Code Article 30722 which can impose a prison sentence of up to six months on “any man disguised as a woman who enters into a place reserved or restricted for the use of women.”23

[37]     Generally, Jordanian law does not explicitly recognize or protect transgender people and violence and discrimination against LBBT people is pervasive in both public and private spheres, including employment.24 This is consistent with your explanation for why you could no longer bear the discrimination you faced in the course of your employment in Jordan.

[38]     Moreover, as counsel’s country condition packages indicate, the Jordanian Parliament in 2018 passed a law criminalizing gender-affirming surgeries (“sex reassignment”) for trans persons. Article 22 of the Medical Liability law targets medical service providers, stating that anyone who performs a gender affirming surgery “shall be imprisoned for a period of not less than three years and not more than ten years with temporary penal labour.”25

[39]     Moreover, the very fact that there is little information in the NDP (one report) about the situation for sexual minorities is also consistent with the kind of repression that is at the core of your own personal experience of living in Jordan.26

[40]     Based on the totality of evidence before me, both personal and objective, I find your fear of persecution in Jordan is well-founded and you face a serious possibility of persecution in Jordan if you return because of your membership in a particular social group as a trans woman. In making these findings, I have also considered your past self-identification and perception by others in Jordan as a gay man.

State protection

[41]     There is a presumption that states can protect their own citizens except when they are completely broken down, which is not the case in Jordan. To rebut this presumption of state protection, a claimant has to provide “clear and convincing” evidence of the state’s inability or unwillingness to protect its citizens.

[42]     Again, with respect to the country condition documents in evidence, I find that you are precariously situated as a trans woman in Jordan. You are not free or permitted to be who you are, to express yourself as you choose, to dress as you prefer, to call yourself by your chosen name or to love who you love. And, you face risks at every level, from your family, to your community (religious and otherwise) to your state. In practice, these intersecting pieces of your life mean you face the realities of discrimination, mistreatment, exclusion and even violence, whether in employment, healthcare, walking down a street or greeting a family member.

[43]     I find state authorities will not adequately protect you in Jordan. Indeed, they may be the, or among the, agents responsible for persecuting you for being who you are, including through the misuse of morality laws, and the penal code.

[44]     For all of these reasons, following the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision of Ward,27 having regard to your own personal experience and the experiences of others similarly situated to you, I find you have presented sufficient clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption that adequate state protection is available to you in Jordan, on a balance of probabilities.

Internal flight alternative

[45]     I have also considered whether an internal flight alternative exists for you in Jordan. Generally speaking, internal relocation is not an option if a person has to conceal their sexual orientation or gender identity in a proposed new location.28 This principle is expressed in the SOGIE Guidelines. Anywhere you go in Jordan, you would face the same situation as you have described in your account, fearing the state, your community, particularly conservative religious men, and your family members. I therefore find you face a serious possibility of persecution throughout Jordan, and there is no internal flight alternative available to you.

CONCLUSION

[46]     For all of these reasons, I find you have established you face a serious possibility of persecution in Jordan on a Convention ground. I therefore find that you are a Convention refugee and I accept your claim.

[47]     I wish you all the best, especially as you settle into a newfound sense of security and joy in your life here.

(signed) J. Eberhard

9 March 2021

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, sections 96, 97(1)(a) and 97(1)(b).

2 The claimant’s identity documents continue to reflect the claimant’s birth and present legal name. However, her chosen name, and the name by which is now known, is XXXX XXXX

3 Proceedings Before the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Involving Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression Guideline [SOGIE Guidelines],Guidelines issued by the Chairperson pursuant to

paragraph 159(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, IRB, Ottawa, May 1, 2017 and Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-related Persecution: Update [Gender Guidelines], Guidelines 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;

4 Exhibit 2—Basis of Claim (BOC) form and BOC Amendments signed 22 December 2020 and disclosed under

cover dated 18 January 2021 (which incorporates 8 January 2021 changes).

5 Exhibit 2—Basis of Claim (BOC) and later Amendments in December 2020 and January 2021.

6 Please note, I have referred to your partner as such rather by name throughout this decision to protect your privacy.

7 The United Nations High Commission on Refugees (UNCHR).

8 Exhibit 1.

9 Exhibit 4.

10 Proceedings Before the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Involving Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression Guideline [SOGIE Guidelines], Guidelines issued by the Chairperson pursuant to paragraph 159(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, IRB, Ottawa, May 1, 2017.

11 Exhibits 2 and 2.1.

12 Exhibit 4.

13 Exhibits 4-6; 8-12.

14 Exhibit 4.

15 Exhibits 5, 8, 9, 10, 12.

16 Exhibits 5, 8, 9, 10,12.

17 Exhibit 4.

18 Exhibit 4.

19 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package for Jordan (NDP) 18 December 2020.

20 Exhibits 6 and 12, and as referenced in applications.

21 Exhibits 6, 12 and Vulnerable Person (VP) application dated 18 January 2021.

22 Exhibit 3, NDP, item 6.1 at pp. 9-10.

23 Exhibit 3, NDP, item 6.1 at p. 10.

24 Exhibit 3, NDP, item 6.1 at pp. 10-11.

25 Exhibit 12, Country Condition documents dated 18 January 2021, specifically Planet Transgender, “Jordan’ s Parliament Passes a New Law Related to Transgender People,” (December 16, 2018), pp. 15-20.

26 Exhibit 3, NDP, item 6.1.

27 Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, (1993) 2 S.C.R. 689.

28 The SOGIE Guidelines [Chairperson’s Guidelines 9] confirms that “a claimant cannot be expected to conceal their SOGIE as a way to avoid persecution.”

Categories
All Countries Ukraine

2021 RLLR 35

Citation: 2021 RLLR 35
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 16, 2021
Panel: Jessica Norman
Counsel for the Claimant(s): El-Farouk Khaki
Country: Ukraine
RPD Number: TB9-07374
Associated RPD Number(s):
ATIP Number: A-2022-00665
ATIP Pages: 000173-000180

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

[1]     These are the reasons for the decision in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, legally known as XXXX XXXX, who alleges that they are a citizen of Ukraine, and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “IRPA“).

[2]     This claim has been decided without a hearing, according to the Immigration and Refugee Board’s Chairperson’s Instructions Governing the Streaming of Less Complex Claims at the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) and paragraph 170(f) of the IRPA.

ALLEGATIONS

[3]     The details of the claimant’ s allegations are fully set out in their Basis of Claim form and narrative, dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019.1 To summarize, the claimant alleges that they fear persecution at the hands of the Ukrainian police and Ukrainian society, including far-right nationalist groups, due to their sexual orientation and gender identity as a bisexual, non-binary, transgender person.

DETERMINATION

[4]     For the following reasons, the panel determines that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA, because they face a serious possibility of persecution in Ukraine.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[5]     The panel finds that the claimant’s identity as a Ukrainian citizen is established, on a balance of probabilities, by a certified copy of their genuine Ukrainian passport.2

Nexus

[6]     The panel finds that there is a link between the claimant’s fear and the Convention refugee definition – namely, membership in a particular social group as a queer, non-binary, transgender person. Accordingly, the panel has assessed their claim pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA.

Credibility

[7]     The claimant’s narrative includes a detailed description of growing up in a repressive and abusive environment, where they were abused by their parents, bullied, and physically and sexually assaulted, including by their classmates, for not conforming to gender norms. The claimant also gives a detailed description of how they came to understand their own sexual orientation and gender identity after coming to Canada. The claimant’s BOC form and narrative are internally consistent, and entirely consistent with the other forms they completed upon initiating their refugee claim.

[8]     The claimant submitted relevant and probative documentary evidence corroborating their allegations.3 That evidence includes a copy of their birth certificate; copies of detailed social media posts expressing their sexual orientation and gender identity; detailed letters of support, including from the claimant’s partners and other friends described in their narrative; documents showing that the claimant attended the 519 “Among Friends” program well before initiating a refugee claim; photos of the claimant with partners and friends, including at Pride events; and a letter from the claimant’s XXXX corroborating their XXXX health issues.

[9]     The claimant’s documentary evidence is consistent, in content and chronology, with their basis of claim form and narrative and with the other evidence in their claim.

[10]   The panel believes what the claimant has alleged and finds that they have established on a balance of probabilities that they are a queer, non-binary, transgender person.

Subjective Fear

[11]   The panel notes that the claimant arrived in Canada in 2013 but did not file a refugee claim until XXXX 2019, at which point they had been out of status since XXXX 2017.4 The panel considered whether this gives rise to a negative inference as to their subjective fear of returning to Ukraine.

[12]   The claimant explained that prior to leaving Ukraine to attend university in Toronto in 2013, they were unaware of their sexual orientation and gender identity. It was only after becoming part of a community of transgender, non-binary and other queer persons that they began to explore this aspect of their identity. They began to identify as, and publicly came out as, a non-binary transgender person in XXXX 2016, at which point they changed their chosen name from XXXX to XXXX XXXX XXXX. The claimant has not returned to Ukraine since that time.

[13]   The claimant also explained that although they learned of the existence of the refugee claim system in XXXX 2017 after visiting the 519, their poor XXXX health and homelessness made it difficult to make decisions and seek information about anything outside day-to-day survival.

[14]   The claimant explained that in XXXX 2018, they were finally able to access healthcare for the first time since the expiry of their previous health insurance, and that after receiving XXXX health treatment they began working with a lawyer to prepare a refugee claim in XXXX 2018. However, after an exploitative employment situation, followed by the loss of their job, their XXXX health again worsened, and they were unable to continue. The claimant alleged that it was only after their partner reached out to their current counsel in XXXX 2018, and learned of the existence of legal aid, that the claimant felt able to continue working on their claim.

[15]   The claimant submitted evidence corroborating that they had begun working with a lawyer in XXXX 2018,5 as well as evidence corroborating their XXXX health challenges.6

[16]   The panel finds that the claimant has provided a reasonable explanation of how their poverty, homelessness and XXXX health issues led to their delay in filing a refugee claim. Accordingly, the panel does not draw a negative credibility inference, and finds that the claimant has established that they fear returning to Ukraine.

Objective basis

[17]   The panel finds that the claimant’s fear of persecution in Ukraine as a queer, non-binary, transgender person is objectively well founded, and that going forward the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution. In reaching this conclusion, the panel considered the documents in the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Ukraine dated June 30, 2020,7 as well as the country condition evidence submitted by counsel.8

[18]   Despite the fact that consensual same sex activity was decriminalised in Ukraine in 1991, the objective evidence suggests that “LGBTI people are by and large forced to hide their identities as a result of stigma”.9

[19]   Transgender persons additionally face unique challenges. They reported “difficulties obtaining official documents reflecting their gender identity, which resulted in discrimination in health care, education, and other areas.”10

[20]   There have been some minor improvements in state policy towards transgender persons. For instance, transgender individuals are no longer required to “undergo sex reassignment surgery to change their names and genders officially”. However, they are still required to receive “counseling and hormone therapy” to do so. Moreover, regulations “still prevent reassignment for married individuals and those with minor children.” Furthermore, “transsexuality” is still classified as a psychiatric disorder, and those individuals who do wish to have reassignment surgery “must spend 30 days in a psychiatric hospital amongst the mentally ill before this is considered”.11 A person with a diagnosis of “transsexualism” is “legally prohibited to be a guardian of a child.”12 Until very recently, forced sterilization was required as a part of the legal procedure for gender recognition.13

[21]   Societal violence against LGBTI persons in Ukraine continues to be prevalent and was “often perpetrated by members of violent radical groups.”14 Authorities reportedly “often did not adequately investigate these cases or hold perpetrators to account.”15 Attacks against members of the LGBTI community “were rarely classified under criminal provisions pertaining to hate crimes, which carried heavier penalties.”16 Moreover, such crimes and discrimination are considered underreported.17

[22]   Far-right nationalists and other radical groups “consistently tried to disrupt LGBTI events with violence or threats of violence.”18 For instance, at a “Trans March” held on Transgender Day of Remembrance in Kyiv, the eighty people marching were attacked by extremists from the “Tradition and Order” far-right group. While six attackers were detained by the police, they were only charged with “petty hooliganism”.19 Similarly, police intervened and detained members of the radical groups who attacked participants at the European Lesbian Conference in Kyiv with tear gas. However, the “attackers were subsequently released, and no charges were filed.”20

[23]   In summary, the panel finds that the objective evidence strongly corroborates that the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution in Ukraine on the basis of their sexual orientation and gender identity.

State Protection

[24]   There is a presumption that States are capable of protecting their own citizens. However, a claimant can rebut the presumption of State protection, and demonstrate that such protection would not be provided, with clear and convincing evidence of the unwillingness or inability of the State to protect them.21

[25]   The objective evidence described above details the inadequate response by police to violence and other abusive behaviour against the LGBTI community. A 2020 report from the “LGBT Human Rights Nash Mir Center” summed up the situation as such: “Hate crimes against LGBT people are investigated ineffectively, offenders often avoid responsibility, and the motives of intolerance on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity are ignored.”22

[26]   In addition to the incidents and patterns already described, there are also reports of police violence against members of the LGBTI community, and instances of the police luring members of the community through online ads and then extorting them for money.23 Moreover, police reportedly “used laws on human trafficking or prostitution as a pretext to target LGBTI persons”, including in a raid on a gay nightclub in Dnipro in April 2018.

[27]   With respect to police protection for Pride and other marches, a report by Freedom House states that “when police do provide protection, they often only protect the assembly itself, allowing participants to be attacked before and after the event.”24

[28]   Having considered all the evidence, the panel finds that the presumption of State protection has been rebutted.

Internal flight alternative

[29]   The panel considered whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for the claimant. Given the objective evidence already cited above, which confirms that the State and its agents are often among the agents of persecution, whether directly or indirectly, the panel finds that the claimant does not have an internal flight alternative. There is nowhere in Ukraine that they could safely live openly as a queer, non-binary, transgender person.

CONCLUSION

[30]   Having considered all the evidence, the panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA, as they face a serious possibility of persecution in Ukraine on the basis of their sexual orientation and their gender identity and expression. Their claim is therefore accepted.

(signed) Jessica Norman

16 March 2021

1 Exhibit 2.

2 Exhibit 1.

3 Exhibit 4.

4 Exhibit 2.

5 Exhibit 4.

6 Ibid.

7 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package for Ukraine (June 30, 2020) [Ukraine NDP].

8 Exhibit 5.

9 Exhibit 3, Ukraine NDP, Item 2.9, “Hate crimes and incidents in Ukraine.” LGBT Human Rights Nash Mir Center. See also Item 6.1, “Ukraine. Annual Review of the Human Rights Situation of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex People in Europe.” International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association. ILGA-Europe [Item 6.1]; and Item 6.2, “The Face of Hatred: Crimes and incidents motivated by homophobia and transphobia in Ukraine in 2014-2017.” LGBT Human Rights Nash Mir Center [Item 6.2].

10 Exhibit 3, Ukraine NDP, Item 2.1, “Ukraine. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2019.” United States. Department of State [Item 2.1].

11 Exhibit 3, Ukraine NDP, Item 1.13, “Country Policy and Information Note. Ukraine: Sexual orientation and gender identity. Version 2.0.” United Kingdom. Home Office [Item 1.13].

12 Ibid.

13 Ibid.

14 Exhibit 3, Ukraine NDP, Item 2.1.

15 Ibid.

16 Ibid.

17 Ibid.

18 Ibid.

19 Exhibit 3, Ukraine NDP, Item 6.1.

20 Exhibit 3, Ukraine NDP, Item 2.1.

21 Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, 1993 CanLII 105 (SCC), [1993] 2 SCR 689.

22 Exhibit 3, Ukraine NDP, Item 6.3, “Old problems, new prospects LGBT situation in Ukraine in 2019.” LGBT Human Rights Nash Mir Center.

23 Exhibit 3, Ukraine NDP, Item 6.2.

24 Exhibit 3, Ukraine NDP, Item 2.3, “Ukraine. Freedom in the World 2020.” Freedom House.

Categories
All Countries Bahrain

2021 RLLR 34

Citation: 2021 RLLR 34
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 5, 2021
Panel: J. Eberhard
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Reni Chang
Country: Bahrain
RPD Number: TB9-09367
Associated RPD Number(s):
ATIP Number: A-2022-00665
ATIP Pages: 000166-000172

DECISION

[1]     MEMBER: So let me give you an overview. So, what the decision says is, I believe that you are who you say you are. I believe that you’ve come to Canada for protection for the reasons that you say you have. Given the circumstances that you have faced, and that you are afraid of facing if you remain in Bahrain. You cannot live as a person who you are not. It is reasonable and fair and right, that you want to live as you are. And this is a place where you can do that. So it’s a privilege to be able to give you this decision today.

[2]     Clearly, the state is among those that you are afraid of, so you can’t go to them for protection. Even if it’s a little bit mixed about where they stand, and they sometimes have not been as awful as they might have been. They do arrest people. And they do punish people under morality laws. And it’s the way that you have chosen to hide and how you have managed your life looking over your shoulder and worrying all the time is nota fair way to live your life. It’s not reasonable, it’s not okay.

[3]     So, there isn’t anywhere else in the country that you could go where you wouldn’t face the same problems and risks. So, for all of those reasons, I will grant you protection in a slightly longer and more formal decision in just a minute. Do you have any question so far? No. Counsel, that’s about the gist of it.

[4]     COUNSEL: Thank you.

[5]     MEMBER: What I will say is, given the amount of documentation and the length of time that your claim covers, which is basically your whole life, you’re XXXX. I could say a lot more, we could have been here for longer. It’s not necessary, as I said before, for me to keep you. It’s not necessary for me to put every piece into the decision. You know your story, and the people in your life who matter to you know your story. But I wanted to reflect some of it there.

[6]     So the things that I haven’t put in, forgive me. The things that I have, I chose because they were some of the things that stood out tome, just in case you’re wondering, okay? Okay.

[7]     Let me see what the time is 03:14, okay.

[8]     So I’ve considered your testimony and the other evidence before me and I’m ready to render my decision orally. You will receive an unedited transcript of this decision in the mail in the near future. Your Counsel will also get a copy. So if you have any questions for her, you can ask her.

[9]     The Claimant, XXXX XXXX, otherwise known as (XXXX) (ph), which we’re putting in parentheses, claims to be a citizen of Bahrain and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[10]   For the record, this claim was made in the name of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX which is the name that the Claimant was given at birth, and which appears on the Claimant’s passport. The Claimant has long lived as a male and has completed and signed the Immigration Refugees and Citizenship Canada’s request for a form — request form for a change of sex designation, what the form is called, to formerly request a change to his name on the record of this proceeding. The request form was signed on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019 shortly after the Claimant arrived into Canada on claim protection.

[11]   For record keeping purposes only, the name the Claimant was assigned or given at birth, which also appears as I mentioned on his passport will be included on the decision as an AKA or an also known as. In making this change to the IRB’s record I consulted with and I’m applying both the Operational Bulletin Number 7, together with the Chairperson’s Guideline on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Expression or the SOGIE Guidelines.

[12]   In particular, I noted Section 4 of the SOGIE Guidelines on the use of appropriate language which states the following, “All persons in proceedings before the IRB have a responsibility to be respectful toward other participants. Part of this responsibility includes the use of appropriate language by all participants. Appropriate language is defined as language that reflects that person’s self-identification, and avoids negative connotations. And this is the key part individuals should be addressed and referred to by their chosen name, terminology and pronouns”. I find that you are a convention refugee because you have established that you face a serious possibility of persecution in Bahrain, as a member of a particular social group, namely trans man.

[13]   In deciding your claim, again, I’ve considered and applied the Chairperson’s Guideline on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Expression, which was released on May 1, 2017.

[14]   The details of your claim are set out at length in your Basis of Claim Form dated March 29, 2019.

[15]   In short, you were born in Bahrain in 1993, to a family of five sisters and parents. As you grew older, you realized that you were different from your sisters and your other cousins in terms of your preferences, including for play, and dress. As you matured, you came to understand that your identity as — you came to understand your identity male rather than female, as your physical body suggested. You sought ways to express your genuine identity in dress and name and in your relationships over time.

[16]   You forged your own way, trying to walk a tightrope of conformity to please your family and meet social expectations while still being able to recognize yourself. You found support along the way from romantic partners, friends, and in time medical and legal professionals and others who helped you as you sought ways to be more authentic, including in time by physically changing your body first hormonal and later surgically.

[17]   Your decision to leave Bahrain for Canada was not spontaneous, but rather well informed, considered legally advised and still heartbreaking because it meant having to leave your family and your community at home.

[18]   You’ve still not been able to tell your parents that you’re not coming home, and your earlier attempts to be truthful with them about who you are, and your struggle with gender dysphoria were overwhelmingly painful for all of you.

[19]   You left Bahrain as soon as you were able after you received your Canadian (audio cut). You’ve established your identity as a national of Bahrain.

[20]   COUNSEL: Sorry, I think we just lost you for a moment there. After heartbreaking, overwhelmingly heartbreaking for all of you, I think we lost you right after there.

[21]   MEMBER: Okay, I’ll start after that. Okay so I’ll go back your decision to flee Bahrain for Canada was not spontaneous, but rather well informed considered legally advised and still heartbreaking because it meant leaving your family and community at home. You still have not been able to tell your parents that you are not coming home. And your earlier attempts to be truthful with them about who you are, and your struggle with gender dysphoria were overwhelmingly painful for all of you.

[22]   You left Bahrain as soon as you were able, after receiving your Canadian visa, and you sought protection without delay after your arrival.

[23]   You’ve established your identity as a national of Bahrain on a balance of probabilities by your testimony in the copy of your passport, which is in Exhibit 1, another copy is also in Exhibit 4. I note you’ve also provided several additional identity documents in Exhibit 4. These include your national identity card and driving licence from Bahrain.

[24]   I find you to be a very credible witness and I believe what you’ve alleged in support of your claim. You testified in an open, direct, straightforward and very natural manner about all of the central aspects of your account, and there were no relevant inconsistencies in your testimony or contradictions between it and the other evidence before me.

[25]   You provided substantial personal documentation to corroborate all aspects of your claim in Exhibit 4 and 6, which includes the documents I’ve just received today. You provided documents that were consistent in content and chronology with your testimony about your personal identity, including your transition to a trans man.

[26]   In particular, you provided a carefully documented photo essay of your life over 15 years from 2005 to 2019. You’ve entitled your photo essay “Born Different”, and the photos you have selected to share clearly illustrate your lifelong efforts to freely express your true male identity. They also reflect your ongoing and persistent efforts to balance this desire with the need to protect your safety in Bahrain, within your immediate family, community and in your country.

[27]   As you describe in your account, your awareness of the risks you faced in Bahrain only increased over time, and you hadn’t even always appreciated precisely how precariously you were living. For example, your double life included dressing in male clothing, as your life expanded to use your words appreciating the risk, but not deescalating danger, given that it can be seen as illegal to cross-dress in Bahrain, or to elect to call yourself a male name. You didn’t know this when you first chose to use the name Soud. I’ve considered and accepted the medical evidence before me of your decisions to change your physical body over time to comport with your self-identification as male.

[28]   This has been a lengthy and undoubtedly difficult process at times, including rejection by doctors who wouldn’t undertake the risk of performing your top surgery, boards of directors and others who regulated your personal choices, and who could place you at grave risk if your intentions and information were revealed.

[29]   Other documents and evidence corroborate your account of the efforts you undertook before surgery to shift your external appearance into alignment with your internal one, including by wearing shirt binders for many years and undergoing hormone therapy, which was largely unavailable to you in Bahrain until much later and then not particularly hopefully. Medical reports also document your efforts to seek legal and safer ways to transition including through chromosomal and hormonal analysis and abdominal ultrasounds.

[30]   Ultimately, these efforts were unsuccessful, as were your later efforts to seek professional legal assistance in claiming your own identity in Bahrain.

[31]   Over and again, you heard from psychiatrists and the legal expert that you have talked about that you would have to leave Bahrain in order to live freely and safely as yourself at the high cost of leaving behind your family and other people that you love.

[32]   The letters also in Exhibit 4 reflect the many persons you’ve known in a wide variety of capacities as close family, friends, former employers, volunteer coordinator. All of these letters indicate that you’re a well respected, capable and cared about human being, though not all of them reflect knowledge of your male identity.

[33]   While this synopsis doesn’t reflect the full breadth of the personal evidence that you’ve disclosed, I have considered it all carefully.  And I find that the documents that you’ve mentioned together with your testimony are consistent with what you’ve set out in your Basis of Claim Form account about why you fear returning to Bahrain.

[34]   In short, I accept the evidence that you’ve presented both documentary and testamentary. And I find it to be (unintelligible 02:03:48).

[35]   So a person who seeks protection as a convention refugee has to establish both that he’s afraid of persecution at home, and that there’s an objective basis for that fear.

[36]   In your case, the primary convention ground is as I said earlier, a particular social group of which you are a member as a trans man who’s subject to persecution in Bahrain. I find that your decision to leave as soon as possible after receiving your Canadian visa is consistent with having a subjective fear of persecution for the reasons that you have set out in great detail.

[37]   I accept your explanation for the delay in time as between when you got your visa and when you finally left the country. And mainly that you needed to cover your departure for the sake of your parents, who needed a good reason and you were waiting for leave from work to be able to go.

[38]   In making this finding, I’ve also considered your words on the final slide of your photo essay, namely, “I had to choose between the people I love and seeking protection in Canada. I chose to leave the country after consultations and confirmation that I have no future in Bahrain. I’ve been living as a man ever since”.

[39]   The country condition documents in the National Documentation Package for Bahrain dated 31, March 2020, which are in Exhibit 3, as well as those exhibited by — submitted by Counsel in Exhibit 5 are also consistent with your allegations that there’s a serious possibility you’ll face persecution as a trans man if you returned to Bahrain, particular I’ve looked at items 6.1, 2.1 and 2.6.

[40]   In short, well, there’s some mixed evidence, according to the United States Department of State report, the 1976 penal code.  In other words, the law in Bahrain does not criminalize same sex, sexual conduct between consenting adults of at least 21 years. But it does not extend anti-discrimination protections to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender intersex individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

[41]   According to human rights watch, the government prosecuted acts, such as organizing a, “gay party, or cross dressing” under Penal Code provisions against “indecency and immorality”. Discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity occurred in Bahrain, including in the areas of employment and obtaining legal identity documents.  In some cases, courts have permitted transgender individuals to update identity documents if they had undergone sex reassignment surgery, but as Counsel has suggested by drawing my attention to a case where somebody was granted permission to have this surgery and later ran into troubles nonetheless, things in Bahrain are not clear-cut, and the risks are too high.

[42]   Freedom House states that “same sex activity is not illegal, yet individuals have reportedly been punished for it”. And some organizations explain that it should be noted that there is morality or public decency laws in place in Bahrain that can be interpreted to include LGB and trans persons. Article 324 of the 1976 Penal Code states, that every person who entices a male or female to commit acts of immorality or prostitution, or assist in the acts of any matter whatsoever shall be liable for a prison sentence. This is very general and the fact that such a general morality law exist on the books and can be used puts you at risk.

[43]   Moreover, other documents say that law enforcement agencies in the courts have broad discretionary power to use fines or jail time for any activities that they deem to be in violation of traditional morality.

[44]   Another article by Middle Eastern news site Al Bawaba states that “gender non conforming individuals encounter harassment by police and Bahraini citizens alike”. Country Reports 2014 further states that in July of 2014, a foreign man was sentenced to a month in jail, followed by deportation for “wearing women’s makeup and accessories”. The source adds that the man was arrested because police thought he was walking in a feminine way. This kind of arbitrary, discretionary power is not what you would choose to be subjected to, and certainly would constitute persecution if you are constantly fearing it.

[45]   Moreover, sources indicate that there are no legal measures to prevent discrimination against sexual minorities in Bahrain. According to Human Rights Watch, and there are no organizations in Bahrain, to which sexual minorities may turn for recourse of protection.

[46]   As we discussed, during your hearing, the very fact that there’s almost no information in the NDP about the situation for sexual minorities suggests the kind of repression and discretionary over use of morality laws that is consistent with your account of your own personal experience living there.

[47]   Account of the objective evidence that I’ve just described and noting that Counsel has provided me with well over 100 pages of documentary evidence, which is consistent with what I just set out with more emphasis on cross-dressing and some other aspects of your claim. I find that your fear of persecution in Bahrain is well-founded.

[48]   So given the evidence before me both personal and objective, I find there’s a serious possibility that you’ll face persecution in Bahrain if you return because of your membership in a particular social group as a trans man.

[49]   There’s a presumption that states can protect their own citizens except when they’re in a state of complete breakdown. To rebut this presumption of state protection, a claimant has to provide what we call clear and convincing evidence of the state’s inability or unwillingness.

[50]   Again, with respect to the country condition documents that I have described, I find that you are precariously situated as a trans man in Bahrain, you’re not permitted to be who you are, to dress as you choose, to call yourself by your chosen name. And you face risks at every level, from your family level, to your community level, to your state level, with all of the intersecting pieces of that whether it’s employment or healthcare or access to a wide variety of what is the normal going about of life business.

[51]   Police will not protect you in Bahrain. Indeed, they may be the agents responsible for persecuting you by punishing your dress and your self expression.

[52]   So for all of these reasons, following the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision and award, I find you presented clear and convincing evidence that rebuts the presumption that adequate state protection is available to you on a balance of probabilities having regard to your own persona) experience and the experiences of others similarly situated to you.

[53]   I’ve also considered whether an internal flight alternative exist for you. Generally speaking, internal relocation is not an option if a person has to conceal their sexual orientation or gender identity in the proposed new location. Anywhere you go in Bahrain, you would face the same situation. I therefore find you face a serious possibility of persecution throughout Bahrain, and therefore there is no internal flight alternative available to you.

[54]   So for all of these reasons, I find you established you face a serious possibility of persecution in Bahrain on a convention ground. I therefore find that you are convention refugee and I accept your claim.

[55]   COUNSEL: Thank you, Madam Member.

[56]   MEMBER: You’re most welcome.

———-REASONS CONCLUDED———-