Tag: Race/Ethnicity/Nationality

2022 RLLR 25

Citation: 2022 RLLR 25
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: October 25, 2022
Panel: David Jones
Counsel for the Claimant(s): James Hill Lawson
Country: Ukraine
RPD Number: VC2-04081
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01960
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: So, this is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada for the claims of the principal claimant, XXXX XXXX and her husband, the associate claimant, XXXX XXXX who are citizens of Ukraine seeking refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I have also reviewed and applied the Chairperson’s Guideline on Gender Considerations and Proceedings Before the Immigration and Refugee Board.

ALLEGATIONS

[2] The claimants fear a risk to their lives from the Russian army and Russian supporters if they were to return to Ukraine. Principal Claimant is 77 years old, and the associate claimant is 84. The claimants from Dnipro in Ukraine. On February 24th, 2022, Russia began a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The claimants’ town was bombed at the start of the war. The claimants spent most of their time in a bomb shelter. The associate claimant became extremely ill due to the lack of water, food, and medicine. The claimants’ home has been damaged in the conflict. On XXXX XXXX, 2022, the claimants took a refugee train from XXXX XXXX XXXX, Poland. On XXXX XXXX, 2022, the claimants flew to Canada because they have family here in Canada. The claimants both have significant health issues. For example, the principal claimant is taking medication for her high blood pressure and kidney problems. The associate claimant has problems breathing, significant mobility issues and is scheduled to have heart surgery on XXXX XXXX, 2022.

DETERMINATION

[3] I find that the claimants are Convention refugees.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[4] The claimants’ identities as citizens of Ukraine has been established on a balance of probabilities by their Ukrainian passports located at Exhibit 1 as well as by their testimony.

Nexus

[5] The claimants fear persecution from the invading Russian army due to their Ukrainian nationality. Counsel for the claimants provided a sanitized RPD decision from January 30th, 2022 that is located at Exhibit 7. That decision provides for a detailed argument for why the current situation in Ukraine demonstrates that the claimants have a nexus to the Convention ground based on their nationalities. While other RPD decisions are not binding on me, the Federal Court has directed that administrative decisionmakers and reviewing courts alike must be concerned with a general consistency of administrative decisions as those affected by administrative decisions are entitled to expect that like cases will be generally treated alike and that outcomes will not depend merely on the identity of the individual decisionmaker. I do find that the decision at Exhibit 7 is persuasive, and I adopt the reasoning with respect to nexus to the Convention grounds due to the claimants’ Ukrainian nationality. And based on that analysis, I do find that the allegations before me support a nexus to the Convention grounds for the claimants based on their nationality as Ukrainians. In addition, the claimants’ allegations also support a nexus to the Convention ground based on membership in a particular social group as elderly persons with chronic health issues. Further, the principal claimant’s allegations also support a nexus to the Convention grounds based on their membership in a particular social group as a woman.

Credibility

[6] I find that the claimants are credible witnesses. In making that finding, I am relying on the principle that a claimant who affirms to tell the truth creates a presumption of truthfulness unless there are reasons to doubt their truthfulness. The principal claimant provided the majority of the testimony, and she was able to testify clearly about their fears of returning to Ukraine. The principal claimant explained their health issues and the associate claimant’s mobility issues and how they have no support or family left in the country. The principal claimant described the mental difficulties she faced when living in the bomb shelter for almost a month and also the physical pain that caused them. The principal claimant described their fears in the Russian army and fascist groups and spoke in details about how their home was invaded, how food and clothing were stolen and how their dog was unfortunately killed. Finally, the claimants testified that their pensions were their only source of income. The associate claimant confirmed the principal claimant’s testimony and also spoke about the risks to him from stress due to his health.

[7] In addition, the claimant provided personal documents to support their claims, which are found at Exhibits 4 and 9. Personal documents consist of identity documents and documents related to the associate claimant’s health conditions. I have no reason to doubt the genuineness of these documents. I find that given the claimants’ credible testimony, documents and the country condition documents discussed below, that they have established on a balance of probabilities the facts alleged in their claims, including a subjective fear of returning to Ukraine.

Objective Basis

[8] The country condition documents for Ukraine in the National Documentation Package, which is found at Exhibit 3, supports the claimants’ fears of returning to the country. For example, a report from May 2022 at Item 1.13 called an Independent Legal Analysis of the Russian Federation’s Breaches of the Genocide Convention in Ukraine and the Duty to Prevent states that “(1), reasonable grounds to believe Russia is responsible for direct and public incitement to commit genocide, and a pattern of atrocities from which an inference of intent to destroy the Ukrainian national group in part can be drawn and (2), the existence of a serious risk of genocide in Ukraine, triggering the legal obligation of all States to prevent genocide.” The report provides examples of what I described says “genocidal pattern of destruction targeting Ukrainians”. Those examples include mass killings, deliberate attacks on shelters and humanitarian routes, deliberate inflicting life-threatening conditions by targeting vital infrastructure, indiscriminate bombardment of residential areas, rape and sexual violence and the forcible transfer of Ukrainians.

[9] With respect to gender-based violence, I find that the country condition documents indicate that the principal claimant would face an increased risk due to her gender. This finding is supported by an April 2022 report on sexual violence and the Ukraine conflict at Item 5.3 that states that since the Russian invasion in February 2022, there have been numerous reports of Russian soldiers sexually assaulting women. The report indicates that Russian soldiers have been deliberately targeting women and children after Ukraine did not surrender. In addition, there are reports that women including senior citizens were gangraped and, in some instances, killed. These reports of gender-based violence are also found in other parts of the National Documentation Package such as a Human Rights Watch report from April 3rd, 2022, which is found at Item 1.24 and the May 2022 CARE International Report at Item 5.6.

[10] With respect to the claimants’ age and health issues, a recent report in the National Documentation Package at Item 1.30 also indicates that there have been deliberate Russian attacks on health facilities in Ukraine. This report indicates that medical supplies across many parts of Ukraine are running low, especially in conflict-affected areas as access to many locations remain blocked. A report of social security and the war at Item 1.19 indicates that recipients of social security such as the claimants are in a vulnerable position. The report also indicates that Russia has been specifically targeting social infrastructure, particularly social care institutions. Finally, a report from the organization for security and cooperation in Europe, which is found at Item 2.7, indicates that there is evidence that Russian soldiers have targeted older persons intentionally. The report also notes that the destruction of social security system or the impossibility to get access to payment points constitutes a serious threat to the life for those such as the claimants who rely on their pension for income.

[11] The claimant also provided country condition documents which are found at Exhibits 5 and 6. For example, Exhibit 6 contains nine (9) articles highlighting war crimes committed by Russia since the start of the invasion and reports an article as describing the Russian attacks as genocide against Ukrainians.

[12] Based on the totality of the evidence, I find that the claimants have established a well-founded fear of persecution. Further, given the ongoing Russian invasion and that the claimants area has been attacked by Russia in the past, I find that the claimants face a serious forward-facing possibility of persecution if they were to return.

State Protection

[13] I have considered whether adequate state protection is available for the claimants, and I find that there is none. The claimants fear violence from the invading Russian army. While the Ukrainian state is attempting to provide protection from the Russian attack, there is great uncertainty about the level of protection a state will be able to provide. As such, I find that there is no operationally effective state protection available to the claimants in their circumstances.

Internal Flight Alternative

[14] I have also considered whether the claimants would have a viable internal flight alternative available to them and I find that they do not. The principal claimant testified that there is nowhere in the country where they could go and be safe and how they have no family or anyone else in Ukraine to support them if they were to return. Given the ongoing crisis in Ukraine related to the Russian invasion that is affecting the entire country, I find it would be unreasonable for the claimants in these circumstances to try to seek refuge elsewhere in the country. This is reflected in the March 2022 UNHCR report on returns to Ukraine, which is found at Item 1.23, that states that “In view of the volatility of the situation in the entire territory of Ukraine, UNHCR does not consider it appropriate to deny international protection to Ukrainians and former habitual residents of Ukraine on the basis of an internal flight or relocation alternative.” Further, a June 2022 report at Item 1.10 indicates that there are more than eight (8) million internally displaced persons in Ukraine. The report highlights numerous challenges facing the internally displaced persons, including the lack of accommodation, shortages of food, water and energy supplies, and barriers to accessing financial social support and house services. As such, I find that the claimants do not have a viable internal flight alternative available to them.

CONCLUSION

[15] For the reasons above, I determine that the claimants are Convention refugees pursuant to section 96 of the Act and the Board, therefore, accepts their claims. Given I am granting protection under section 96 of the Act, I find it unnecessary to consider their claims under section 97.

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———

All Countries India

2022 RLLR 23

Citation: 2022 RLLR 23
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 24, 2022
Panel: Katarina Bogojevic
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Harneet Singh
Country: India
RPD Number: VC2-03987
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01960
ATIP Pages: N/A

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claim of XXXX, as citizen of India who is claiming refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.[1]

DETERMINATION

[2] I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the Act.

ALLEGATIONS

[3] The claimant’s allegations are contained in his Basis of Claim form.[2] The following is a brief summary:

[4] The claimant is from Kurukshetra, Haryana, where he lived with his mother. His family belongs to the Chamar caste, which is a scheduled caste in India. He met a girl named XXXX at school in 2015 and they began to date. The two kept their relationship a secret because the claimant and his family are from a lower caste than XXXX and her family. The claimant traveled to Canada in XXXX 2017 for school and maintained a long-distance relationship with XXXX. When he returned in XXXX 2017, he decided to surprise XXXX at her workplace, however her brother caught them hugging. XXXX brother and his friends beat the claimant. The next day, the claimant and his mother went to XXXX house to convince her parents to allow the two to marry. Her family verbally and physically abused the claimant and he agreed to stop seeing XXXX.

[5] On XXXX XXXX, 2017, XXXX came to the claimant’s house alleging that her brother had seen intimate photos of them on her phone and that her family had beaten her. Shortly afterwards, XXXX family and the police arrived. When they discovered the claimant and XXXX together, the claimant was taken into custody. While in custody the police beat the claimant and threatened him to stay away from XXXX and her family. The claimant was released from custody on XXXX XXXX, 2017 after his mother paid a bribe. The claimant returned to Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2017.

[6] In XXXX 2018, the claimant received a call from his mother stating that the police were looking for him; XXXX had disappeared, and they suspected that he was involved. At the start of the hearing, the claimant submitted a BOC amendment alleging that the police had started to accuse him of being anti-national and had visited his mother and relatives recently in search of him.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[7] I find that the claimant’s identity as a national of India is established on a balance of probabilities by his sworn testimony and the copy of his Indian passport in evidence.[3]

Nexus

[8] In order to satisfy the definition of a “Convention refugee” found in section 96 of the Act, a claimant must establish that he or she has a well-founded fear of persecution by reason of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.

[9] In this case, I find that the claimant’s allegations have a connection to the Convention on the basis of ethnicity, as the claimant is a member of a scheduled caste, as well as political opinion, with relation to the police’s current allegation that the claimant is anti-national. As such, I have assessed his claim pursuant to section 96 of the Act.

Credibility

[10] When a claimant affirms to tell the truth, this creates a presumption that his allegations are true unless there is reason to doubt their truthfulness. In this case I have found the claimant to be a credible witness. The claimant testified in a consistent and straightforward manner. While there were some concerns with material portions of his evidence at the outset of the hearing, I find that he was able to provide reasonable explanations for my concerns. I did however find the claimant to be speculative with regards to the reasons for the police’s current search for him and their connection to XXXX and her family. I outline my findings in more detail below:

Significant Change to BOC

[11] At the start of the hearing, the claimant submitted an addendum to his BOC stating that he was now wanted by the police because of allegations that he was anti-national. He also submitted affidavits from his mother, neighbour, cousin and uncle alleging that the police had been to their homes recently in search of the claimant and that they had alleged he was anti-national.[4] This is a significant change from the claimant’s original BOC which focused on the threats that he faced due to his relationship with XXXX.

[12] I questioned the claimant about the addendum. He told me that the police first made this accusation to his mother in XXXX 2022. Prior to this, they had approached his cousin in Rajasthan in XXXX 2021 and made the same allegation. The claimant does not know why the police are making this allegation. The police do not provide much detail other than saying that they believe he is an anti-national goon and that he has been instrumental in fights and riots. The claimant is not aware if the police have filed a First Instance Report against him or whether there is a warrant for his arrest.

[13] I asked the claimant why he didn’t update his BOC back in XXXX 2022 when he first found out about the situation. He indicated that he did not know that he had to mention this to his counsel, and thought it was something he would tell me about in the hearing. Given that the claimant testified that he did not mention this to his counsel earlier, I find it reasonable that he was not advised by his counsel that this was something that he should raise as soon as possible.

[14] The claimant provided affidavits from his mother, neighbour, cousin and uncle in support of this allegation.[5] Each affidavit is consistent with the claimant’s allegations, and I have no reason to doubt the credibility of these affidavits, so I give them significant weight in establishing the claimants’ allegations. I also give the claimant’s testimony in this regard significant weight as it was detailed and consistent. He did not exaggerate his claim, but rather confirmed that this was something that came out of the blue and that the police had never previously accused him of being anti-national when they were investigating XXXX disappearance. The claimant was also able to provide specific dates of when the police visited his mother including on Diwali and his birthday.

[15] While I acknowledge that it is unclear why the police are now searching for the claimant on an entirely new basis, it would be speculative of me to set out what a “reasonable agent of persecution” should do. The Federal Court has previously found that it is an error for the Board to “speculate as to the rational actions of reasonable agents of persecution.”[6] Therefore, given all the foregoing and weighing all the evidence before me, I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the police are actively searching for the claimant across India and alleging that he is anti-national.

Police Search not connected to XXXX disappearance

[16] The claimant testified that he believed the current search by the police was connected to his relationship with XXXX and instigated by her family. He testified that he has no proof of this but believes that it is a matter of honour for her family and that they manipulating the police with their connections. When asked about XXXX family’s police connections, he stated that his mother learned about them from an unknown person at the jail when she came to bail the claimant out. This individual told his mother that XXXX father was a goon and people were scared of him. With regards to their political connections, he said that his mother told him about them, and she probably learned of them in the news. He did not submit any newspapers on this point into evidence. However, when the claimant spoke to XXXX about her father, she told him that he dealt with properties and never mentioned any illegal activity or connections.

[17] The claimant testified that since his detention, XXXX family had never been to his house looking for him. He explained that people of XXXX caste do not like to associate with people of his caste. He testified that the police were regularly contacting his mother regarding XXXX disappearance, however, he later stated that he assumed this, and his mother hadn’t told him anything to that effect. I find this to be speculative. Based on the evidence before me, there has been no involvement of the police or XXXX family in relation to XXXX disappearance since XXXX 2018. As such, there is insufficient credible evidence before me that the current searches by police are connected in any way to the claimant’s relationship with XXXX or her disappearance.

Documentary Evidence

[18] I have also considered the other documentary evidence the claimant submitted in support of his claim.[7] Of relevance is his Scheduled Caste Certificate, obtained by the claimant’s mother from the Court in Haryana, which confirms that he belongs to the Chamar caste which is a scheduled caste.

Subjective Fear

[19] The claimant testified that when he returned to Canada at the end of 2017, he was still on a study permit. His study permit expired on XXXX XXXX, 2019, and afterwards he applied for a study permit extension which was rejected after 5-6 months. He was not aware at the time that he could apply for refugee protection. He testified that he did not become aware until he started going to a temple in Brampton where he was advised to submit an application for refugee protection. The claimant applied for refugee protection on January 20, 2020.

[20] I find that the claimant’s actions demonstrate that he has subjective fear on a balance of probabilities as he was always actively taking steps to secure his status in Canada and applied for refugee protection shortly after he was advised to do so by individuals at his temple.

Well-Founded Fear of Persecution

[21] To be considered a Convention Refugee, the claimant must demonstrate that he has a well-founded fear of persecution which includes both subjective fear and an objective basis for that fear. Based on the claimant’s BOC, testimony, documentary evidence and the National Documentation Package for India[8], I find that the claimant does face a serious possibility of harm in India.

Dalit Status

[22] In reviewing the country condition documents in the NDP, it is clear that despite the fact that the Indian Constitution specifically prohibits discrimination on the grounds of caste, there are a number of troubling issues faced by members of the Dalit caste in India.[9] Dalits were historically associated with work seen as less desirable, including work involving cleaning or waste, and traditional taboos existed against members of the four castes touching them. Many Dalits continue to work in occupations that include scavenging, street cleaning and handling of human or animal waste, corpses or carcasses.[10] The evidence outlines that violence and discrimination against Dalits continues. Dalits have more limited educational and employment opportunities and face discrimination in health care and access to other essential services.[11]

[23] Untouchability practices in India remain widespread in both urban and rural settings. These include dominant castes not touching Dalits, not letting them use the same mugs, utensils etc., not entering Dalit houses, not allowing their children to play with Dalits or to be in a relationship with a Dalit. There are thousands of variations of untouchability practices and the severity and prevalence vary depending on location.[12]

[24] The claimant testified that he and his family have suffered serious and continued discrimination because of their Dalit status. His father used to work as a farmer but was never paid full price for his crops. This led him to seek other employment however he was frequently dismissed for minor mistakes. The claimants’ father has been living and working in Italy since 2010 due to his inability to maintain employment in India because of his Caste. The claimant testified that he was discriminated against in school. The teacher would force children from lower castes to sit in the back seat, they were not allowed to travel in the school bus, play school sports, or drink from the same water cooler as higher caste students. The family had to buy groceries from a different store and attend a different temple because of their caste.

Honour Crimes

[25] The objective evidence supports that honour-based crimes are a problem in India, particularly in the provinces of Haryana, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh. The term “honour killing” or “honour crime” is used to describe incidents of violence and harassment caused to a couple who are together against the wishes of the community or family members. Such crimes can be linked to unapproved relationships.[13] Caste based violence additionally continues to persist in India, and unions between Dalit and non-Dalit individuals are some of the least socially accepted, especially where the male comes from an inferior or less dominant social group. They can give rise to serious violence including lynching and killings by family members or vigilante groups.[14]

Police Corruption

[26] The objective evidence also supports that there is widespread corruption in India.[15] Officials frequently engage in corrupt practices with impunity.[16] Police officers routinely demonstrate brutal behaviour, including torture and extrajudicial killings with impunity.[17] Additionally, police effectiveness is undermined by inadequate training and equipment, and limited resources. Investigations are seriously hampered by some police officers refusing to register victims’ complaints, poor quality of investigations, insufficient training and legal knowledge, inadequate and outdated forensic and cyber infrastructure and a lack of public trust.[18] A report from the Swadhikar – the National Dalit Movement for Justice suggests that police are accomplices in violence against Dalits through custodial torture and deaths, encounter deaths, raids of Dalit homes, and false arrets of Dalits among others. It recounts the story of a Dalit man who was abducted by police, tortured, abused using derogatory caste names and had a false charge filed against him.[19]

[27] The objective evidence demonstrates that Dalits face serious violations of their fundamental rights that amount to persecution. These violations extend to all parts of their lives, including their relationships. The claimant has established on a balance of probabilities that he has experienced discrimination and harm due to his Dalit status throughout his childhood and most recently with regards to his relationship with a girl from a higher caste. Additionally, I find that the claimant has credibly established that he is being targeted by the police because of the belief that he is anti-national. While it is unclear why the police are suggesting this, the objective evidence corroborates the prevalence of police corruption as well as violence when it comes to Dalit individuals involved with the justice system. Given all of the foregoing, I find that the claimant would face a serious possibility of persecution in India.

State Protection

[28] There is a presumption that countries can protect their citizens. The claimant bears the burden of rebutting that presumption with clear and convincing evidence. I find that there is clear and convincing evidence that adequate state protection is not available to the claimant in this case given the state is one of the agents of persecution.

Internal Flight Alternative

[29] I have considered whether the claimant has an internal flight alternative (“IFA”) in India and have concluded that he does not. To find a viable IFA, I must be satisfied that (1) there is no serious possibility of the claimant being persecuted or, on the balance of probabilities, in danger of torture or subjected to a risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in the IFA and (2) that conditions in that part of the country are such that it would be reasonable, in all the circumstances, including those particular to the claimant, for him to seek refuge there.

First Prong: Risk in the IFA

[30] On the evidence before me, I find that there is a serious possibility of the claimant being persecuted or, on the balance of probabilities, in danger of torture or subjected to a risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment anywhere in India.

Means and Motivation of the Agents of Persecution

[31] There is insufficient credible evidence before me that either XXXX family or the police have continued to pursue the claimant in relation to XXXX disappearance since XXXX 2018. However, I do find that the police have demonstrated recent and continued means and motivation to pursue the claimant outside of their jurisdiction based on the belief that the claimant is anti-national. Starting at the end of 2021 and continuing to just a month prior to the hearing, the police have approached the claimant’s mother and neighbour in Kurukshetra, his cousin in Rajasthan state and his uncle in Maharashtra state. Further, the claimant explained that it was the local police who visited his cousin in Rajasthan and his uncle in Maharashtra, indicating that information about the claimant has been passed along to different police forces across the country. Given the foregoing, I find that there is a serious possibility that the claimant’s information is contained in national police databases and that the police across India are searching for the claimant.

Dalit Status

[32] On the evidence before me, I find that there is a serious possibility of the claimant being persecuted because of his Dalit status. DFAT notes that Dalits in India face a high risk of official and societal discrimination including social segregation, exclusion, and compromised access to education and healthcare.[20] Violence against Dalits also continues, including killings, mob violence, assaults, and intimidation.[21] Further the objective evidence suggests that Dalits would have significant difficulty relocating to urban areas and are often denied accommodation and employment. A social network would be essential in finding employment and housing.[22]

[33] While cities provide some limited level of anonymity, social networks would be essential in finding employment and housing in urban areas.[23] Those without social networks would face high discrimination in jobs and housing and often end up at the bottom of the social hierarchy. Although Dalits are reported to have increasing opportunities in cities, including a system of quotas to ensure employment of Dalits in certain sectors such as educational institutions and the federal public service, the quota system can generate hostility towards Dalits.[24] “Severe inequalities persist, however, with Dalits making up a large proportion of those engaged in the urban informal labour sector as domestic workers, rickshaw-pullers, street vendors and other poorly paid sectors.[25] While the claimant has family outside of his village, including an uncle in Mahrashtra state where one of the proposed IFAs is located, the claimant would be unable to access these social networks due to the fact that the police are monitoring his relatives in search of him.

[34] For the foregoing reasons I find that the claimant has demonstrated that the police have the means and motivation to pursue him to various parts of India. Further, I find that the claimant has demonstrated that he would face a serious possibility of persecution due to his Dalit status in other parts of India. As such, I do not need to consider the second prong of the test and find that there is no viable IFA for the claimant.

CONCLUSION

[35] For the forgoing reasons, I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee. The claim is therefore accepted.

(signed) Katarina Bogojevic

November 24, 2022

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

[2] Exhibit 2.

[3] Exhibit 1.

[4] Exhibit 5.

[5] Exhibit 5.

[6] Hernandez Cortez v Canada (Citizenship and Immgiration), 2021 FC 1392 (CanLII); Senadheerage v Canada (Citizenship and Immgiration), 2020 FC 968 (CanLII).

[7] Exhibit 5.

[8] Exhibit 3.

[9] National Documentation Package, India, 30 June 2022, tab 2.1: India. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2021. United States. Department of State. 12 April 2022.

[10] National Documentation Package, India, 30 June 2022, tab 13.4: Treatment of Dalits by society and authorities; availability of state protection (2016-January 2020). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 9 January 2020. IND106277.E.

[11] National Documentation Package, India, 30 June 2022, tab 1.5: DFAT Country Information Report: India. Australia. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 10 December 2020.

[12] National Documentation Package, India, 30 June 2022, tab 13.4: Treatment of Dalits by society and authorities; availability of state protection (2016-January 2020). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 9 January 2020. IND106277.E.

[13] National Documentation Package, India, 30 June 2022, tab 5.10: Honour-based violence, including prevalence in rural and urban areas; legislation; state protection and support services available (2016-May 2020). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 4 June 2020. IND200256.E.

[14] National Documentation Package, India, 30 June 2022, tab 12.5: Situation of inter-religious and inter-caste couples, including treatment by society and authorities; situation of children from such marriages (2017-May 2019). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 16 May 2019. IND106276.E.

[15] National Documentation Package, India, 30 June 2022, tab 2.1: India. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2021. United States. Department of State. 12 April 2022.

[16] National Documentation Package, India, 30 June 2022, tab 2.1: India. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2021. United States. Department of State. 12 April 2022.

[17] National Documentation Package, India, 30 June 2022, tab 10.10: Country Policy and Information Note. India: Actors of Protection. Version 1.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. January 2019.

[18] National Documentation Package, India, 30 June 2022, tab 10.10: Country Policy and Information Note. India: Actors of Protection. Version 1.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. January 2019.

[19] National Documentation Package, India, 30 June 2022, tab 13.6: Chapter 2: Nature and extent of caste based atrocities. Chapter 3: Response of enforcement authorities: Police. Chapter 4: Response of the Judiciary. Equity Watch 2015: Access to Justice for Dalits in India. Swadhikar – National Dalit Movement for Justice. Nalori Dhammei Chakma. 2015.

[20] National Documentation Package, India, 30 June 2022, tab 1.5: DFAT Country Information Report: India. Australia. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 10 December 2020.

[21] National Documentation Package, India, 30 June 2022, tab 13.4: Treatment of Dalits by society and authorities; availability of state protection (2016-January 2020). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 9 January 2020. IND106277.E.

[22] National Documentation Package, India, 30 June 2022, tab 13.8: Application of the caste system outside of Hinduism; treatment of lower castes by society and the authorities; availability of state protection for lower castes; ability of lower castes to relocate and access housing, employment, education … Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 16 June 2020. IND200260.E.

[23] National Documentation Package, India, 30 June 2022, tab 13.4: Treatment of Dalits by society and authorities; availability of state protection (2016-January 2020). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 9 January 2020. IND106277.E.

[24] National Documentation Package, India, 30 June 2022, tab 13.4: Treatment of Dalits by society and authorities; availability of state protection (2016-January 2020). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 9 January 2020. IND106277.E.

[25] National Documentation Package, India, 30 June 2022, tab 13.10: India. World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples. Minority Rights Group International. June 2020.

All Countries Ethiopia

2022 RLLR 6

Citation: 2022 RLLR 6
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 6, 2022
Panel: Kay Scorer
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Paul Vandervennen
Country: Ethiopia
RPD Number: VC1-07071
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01960
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: I’ve considered your testimony and all of the other evidence before me, and I’m ready provide you with my decision orally. This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX, a citizen of Ethiopia who is claiming protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, also known as the Act. In coming to my decision, I’ve reviewed and applied the Chairperson’s Guideline on woman refugee claimants fearing gender-related persecution.

Allegations

[2] The claimant is an Amhara woman who fears political, ethnic, and gender-based persecution in Ethiopia. The claimant’s full allegations are contained in her Basis of Claim form and narrative in Exhibit 2 and are reproduced briefly below. In about XXXX 2017, the claimant and her daughter were traveling back to Ethiopia after visiting a relative in Germany. The claimant’s daughter was interrogated at the airport and the authorities demanded that she appear at the police station the following morning. The claimant’s daughter was arrested on about XXXX XXXX, 2017 and held for three days. While she was arrested, she was tortured, beaten, and raped. She was accused of supporting political dissidents abroad, meeting the opposition in the diaspora, and bringing funds into the country to help the opposition in Ethiopia. The claimant herself paid her daughter’s bail of about 10,000 birrs to facilitate her release, with the conditions that her daughter did not leave Addis Ababa, and that she report to the police on the first Monday of every month. Fearing for her life and safety, the claimant’s daughter fled Ethiopia on about XXXX XXXX, 2017 and came to Canada, where she has since been found to be a Convention refugee. The claimant herself assisted her daughter in getting out of Ethiopia. She did this even while she was afraid that doing so would cause repercussions.

[3] After the claimant’s daughter fled Ethiopia, security agents went to the claimant’s house in about XXXX 2018 with a summons for her daughter. The police warned the claimant that if her daughter did not appear, they would detain the claimant in her place. At this time, the claimant’s daughter had already left the country. After this, the claimant herself continued to fear for her life and safety. She started to look for ways out of Ethiopia. She applied for a visitor’s visa to Canada but was denied. Her son, who was in the USA, invited her to that country on a visitor’s visa. That visa was approved in about XXXX 2019. From XXXX 2018 (sic) until about XXXX 2019, the claimant lived in hiding. She went from place to place, from relative to relative, trying to evade security forces. She did not live at her home. The claimant then paid a bribe to exit the airport safely. She had to do this because she was afraid that if she went through airport security, she would be arrested. She arrived in the USA in about XXXX 2019. The claimant remained in the USA from about XXXX XXXX, 2019 to XXXX XXXX, 2019. She did not claim protection because her son advised her to wait and see what would happen in Ethiopia. The claimant applied again for a Canadian visa while she was in the USA, and it was granted. The claimant traveled to Canada in XXXX 2019.

[4] Since arriving in Canada, the claimant says the situation in Ethiopia has deteriorated. She fears returning to Ethiopia because she’s already been threatened by the authorities with arrest. This is exacerbated by her gender and by the fact that she is now in Canada with the daughter, and both have sought protection, despite the claimant and her daughter breaching the conditions of her daughter’s release. The claimant also fears persecution as an Amhara, and religious persecution as an orthodox Christian.

DETERMINATION

[5] I find the claimant is a Convention refugee. I find claimant’s allegations have a nexus to the Convention grounds of political opinion, ethnicity, and gender. I’ve therefore assessed this claim under s. 96 of the Act.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[6] I find the claimant has established her identity on a balance of probabilities by a copy of her Ethiopian passport, which can be found in Exhibit 1, and by her testimony.

Credibility

[7] The claimant benefits from the presumption that her allegations are true. In this case, I find no reason to doubt the truthfulness of the claimant. She testified in a spontaneous, forthcoming and compelling manner. She was detailed in her answers, and her answers were consistent with the narrative and the narrative of her daughter. The claimant also provided supporting documentation to corroborate her allegations, including a copy of her daughter’s Basis of Claim form and her refugee decision, a supporting letter from her church, a supporting letter from her cousin who she stayed with Ethiopia after she was threatened by the state, and her birth certificate, which identifies her as Amhara. I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of these documents and I assign them weight, as they corroborate central elements of the claimant’s allegations. I have considered whether the claimant’s failure to claim in the USA and her delay in claiming once in Canada negatively impact the credibility of her subjective fear, and I find they do not. The claimant was in the USA from about XXXX 2019 to about XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019. She was residing with her son, she did not claim protection. She’s then obtained a visa to come to Canada and arrived in Canada XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019. She did not initiate her claim for protection in Canada until about XXXX 2020.

[8] I note that the claimant is uneducated, and she’s lived much of her life as a homemaker. In the USA, she resided with her son. Her son speaks English and had been in the USA for six years. He told her not to claim protection until they knew what was going to happen in Ethiopia. The claimant accepted that her son was more knowledgeable than she on asylum claims in the USA, and she accepted his advice. Indeed, she relied on him for her livelihood in the USA. I find it reasonable on a balance of probabilities that she would take the advice of her son, even if that advice was perhaps not the best advice. Further, I find it reasonable that the claimant would continue with this advice even while in Canada. I note that the claimant was on valid status that did not expire until about April 2021. At the time that she made her claim, she was not under imminent, immediate threat of removal. Instead, as her son suggested, when she came to Canada, she continued to see what would happen in Ethiopia. Unfortunately, the situation continued to deteriorate and eventually the claimant realized she needed to claim protection. She did this well before her status expired. I find the claimant’s explanations reasonable, and in light of her personal profile and circumstances, I make no negative inference against the claimant for her failure to claim in the USA or her delay in claiming in Canada. Ultimately, I find the claimant has established that her daughter is wanted by the authorities in Ethiopia, that the claimant herself was involved in bailing her daughter out and agreeing to the conditions of her release, and that the claimant herself assisted her daughter in fleeing the country despite the state demanding that she not do that.

[9] I find that the claimant has also established that she fears returning to Ethiopia because of her ethnicity as an Amhara person, and because of her religion. I find that she was also directly threatened by the state, and that the state advised her that if her daughter did not appear, they would detain her in her daughter’s place.

Well-Founded Fear of Persecution and Risk of Harm

[10] The objective evidence supports the claimant’s fears of returning to Ethiopia and indicates that, “Security forces used excessive and sometimes lethal force and carried out extra judicial executions. Hundreds of people were killed, and property destroyed in ethnically motivated violence by armed groups and milia. Opposition members and journalists were subjected to arbitrary arrests and detention.” That can be found at NDP 2.2. This confirms there is recurrent unrest and violence along ethnic lines in Ethiopia. Ultimately, I find on a balance of probabilities that the NDP establishes that ethnic groups like the Amhara, which is the claimant’s ethnicity, face risk of persecution from state and non-state agents in Ethiopia. Specific reports of targeted violence against Amhara people can be found throughout the NDP, for example, at 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, to name a few. At NDP Item 2.2, it states that, “Inter-communal violence intensified in Ethiopia. In November, at least 54 people from the Amhara ethnic group in Gawa Qanqa village were killed in an attack by suspected members of the Oromo Liberation army (sic). In the same month, an armed conflict erupted in the Tigray region, and scores of ethnic Amhara residents, likely hundreds, were massacred in Mai Kadra.” There were numerous reports in Item 2.2 of the NDP of Amhara people being targeted and attacked, including in September 2020 by the Benishangul People’s Liberation Front (sic), where 45 people were killed and thousands displaced, in October 2020, where 31 Amhara residents from Guraferda were killed by armed assailants, and in November 2020, when local militias and youth stabbed and hacked to death scores and likely hundreds of ethnic Amhara residents in the western part of the Tigray region.” According to NDP 2.3, the security and human rights situation in Ethiopia has deteriorated. The landscape “Was defined by ongoing abuses by government security forces, attacks on civilians by armed groups, deadly violence along communal and ethnic lines, and a political crisis.” According to NDP Item 1.8, the government is struggling to contain the disconnect from Ethiopia’s myriad ethnic groups, fighting the federal government and each other for greater influence and resources. Outbreaks of ethnic violence have displaced around 2.4 million people according to the UN in Ethiopia.

[11] I find the claimant, on a balance (sic), faces a serious possibility of forward-facing risk in Ethiopia on the basis of her ethnicity as Amhara. I’ve also considered the claimant’s risk as the known mother of a fugitive of the state in Ethiopia. The claimant’s daughter was arrested on XXXX 2017 after being accused of meeting with political opposition outside of Ethiopia. The claimant assisted in facilitating her daughter’s release from detention, including paying her bail. Both the claimant and her daughter have fled Ethiopia against the demands of the authorities. The authorities directly threatened the claimant that they would detain her if her daughter was not brought for the summons. I find, on a balance, that the claimant, like her daughter, is perceived as a political opponent or political dissident in Ethiopia. According to NDP 4.16, “Individuals who are known dissidents are at a high risk of detention,” on return to Ethiopia. According to Item 4.21, the state continues to direct violence at actual and imputed government opponents, including through continued detention at government re-education camps, where detainees endure brainwashing. Ultimately, I find that the claimant is viewed on a balance of probabilities as a political opponent and dissident in Ethiopia, and that these conditions where these people face risk of persecution apply to the claimant. I find the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution based on her imputed political opinion.

[12] Lastly, I note that the claimant alleges she faces persecution as a result of her religion, being orthodox Christian. According to NDP 1.5, attacks on places of worship have increased since 2018. “According to the Amhara Professionals Union, a US-based advocacy group, 30 churches belonging primarily to Ethiopian orthodox church were attacked between July 2018 and September 2019. These attacks reportedly left hundred people dead, including priests and parishers (sic).” This is echoed in NDP 2.2. However, while I recognize that there are reports of orthodox Christians facing risk in Ethiopia, I find the claimant has established her claim based on her ethnicity and political opinion, and therefore, I am making no finding on whether orthodox Christians face risk of persecution in Ethiopia. Therefore, on a balance of probabilities, I find the claimant has establishes that she faces a serious risk of possibility of persecution in Ethiopia based on her ethnicity as Amhara and based on her imputed political opinion given she’s perceived, on a balance, by the state as a political dissident.

State Protection and Internal Flight Alternative

[13] Given that the state agents are the agents of persecution in this case, I find that there is no operationally effective state protection available to the claimant in her circumstances. Further, given that the state has the capacity to find the claimant throughout Ethiopia, and namely that the claimant would have to go through the state to even enter Ethiopia, I find that it is neither safe nor objectively reasonable in all of the circumstances, including those particular to the claimant, for her to relocate anywhere throughout Ethiopia. Accordingly, I find there is no viable IFA available to the claimant.

[14] In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, I find the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to s. 96 of the Act, and I therefore accept her claim. Mister Interpreter, just a very brief overview, please. Ma’am, I wish you all the best, and I will take us off the record. Everyone have a wonderful day.

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———

All Countries Ethiopia

2021 RLLR 105

Citation: 2021 RLLR 105
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 16, 2021
Panel: Kay Scorer
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Paul Vandervennen
Country: Ethiopia
RPD Number: VC1-07067
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01778
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: I have considered your testimony and the other evidence before me and I’m prepared to give you with my decision now.

INTRODUCTION

[2] These are the reasons for the decision in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX last name is spelled XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, a citizen of Ethiopia who is claiming protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[3] In coming to this decision, I’ve considered and applied the Chairperson’s Guidelines on Women Fearing Gender-Based Persecution.

DETERMINATION

[4] For the reasons that follow, I find that the claimant has established that she is a Convention refugee.

ALLEGATIONS

[5] The claimant’s allegations are contained in full in her Basis of Claim form and narrative, which can be found in Exhibit 2.

[6] Briefly, the claimant is a Tigray woman who fears ethnic and political persecution in Ethiopia.

[7] The claimant’s parents have opposed the EPRDF government since they took power in Ethiopia and for the past five (5) years, the claimant’s father has been an active member of the Arena Tigray Party, ATP. The ATP advocates for a quality and freedom of the Tigray people. The claimant’s father has been involved with writing petitions to the prime minister and other high-ranking officials of the Ethiopian government and asking them to intervene in the ethnic clashes and genocide taking place in Ethiopia.

[8] In about October 2020, the claimant’s father was arrested.

[9] The claimant was in New York at the time, as she worked as a flight attendant for Ethiopian airways.

[10] When she returned to Ethiopia, she attempted to see her father but was denied access. Her father was not able to speak to anybody, including to his own lawyer.

[11] The claimant approached the Superior Court of Justice in an area called Lideta, L-I-D-E-T-A. She spoke to a man who assisted others in filing legal documents. She told him about her father’s situation and he helped her (inaudible) a very strong petition, citing the constitution, the penal code and universal conventions. The letter demanded that the police release the claimant’s father.

[12] She then served this letter on the police station, that was holding her father and thought that it would initiate his release. Unfortunately, the day after serving this document, two (2) police officers went to the claimant’s home and told her that she was wanted for questioning. She was taken to the station, accused of helping the ATP and accused of communicating with the opposition in a diaspora, including monetary support from abroad, that she was facilitating through her work. She claim — the claimant was physically assaulted and kept detained for a few days, until she was released on bail. Immediately after that, she was scheduled to fly to Canada for work and she left just a few days later.

[13] When she arrived in Canada, she defected from her crew, went to a shelter and immediately initiated her claim for protection.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[14] I find the claimant’s identity as a national of Ethiopia is established, on a balance of probabilities, by her testimony and the other evidence before me, namely a copy of her Ethiopian passport, which can be found in Exhibit 1.

Nexus

[15] I find the claimant has established a nexus to the Convention grounds of race, ethnicity, gender and political opinion.

[16] Therefore, I have decided this claim under section 96 of the Act.

Credibility

[17] The claimant benefits from the presumption that her allegations are true.

[18] In this case, I find no reason to doubt this presumption. The claimant testified in a spontaneous and forthcoming manner and there were no material inconsistencies between her testimony and the other evidence before me.

[19] Ultimately, I found the claimant’s testimony compelling and I believe what she has alleged.

[20] The claimant also provided ample supporting documents to corroborate her allegations; including her work badges from XXXX XXXX; a copy of the legal petition that she served on the police station, to try and facilitate her father’s release; a copy of a letter from the XXXX XXXX, indicating that she was being fired for defecting; supporting letters corroborating the events, as outlined in the claimant’s forms; pictures of her protesting in Canada and holding anti-government signs; her bail document, confirming the requirements of release and political membership documents, corroborating her father’s political affiliations.

[21] All of this can be found in Exhibit 4 and 5.

[22] I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of any of these documents. I assign them significant weight, as they help establish the central elements of the claimant’s allegations.

[23] I find the claimant has established, on a balance of probabilities, that she is a Tigrayan woman who was wanted by the Ethiopian authorities.

[24] I find she has established that her father was an active member of an opposition party; that he was detained for a significant period of time; that the claimant was also detained when she attempted to help her father; that the claimant was accused by the authorities of using her XXXX XXXX XXXX to facilitate money transfers from the diaspora to political opponents and that the authorities have continued to date to visit the family in Ethiopia, to ask for information about her whereabouts.

Well–Founded Fear of Persecution

[25] For a claimant to be a Convention refugee, the claimant must have a well-founded fear of persecution, due to a Convention ground. The Convention grounds are race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group and political opinion.

[26] As noted before, I find the harm the claimant fears is by reason of her ethnicity as a Tigrayan, her actual and imputed political opinion and I find that these risks are exacerbated by her gender as a woman.

[27] I find the objective evidence before me establishes that the claimant’s fears of persecution are objectively well-founded.

[28] The country condition evidence, which is in the NDP for Ethiopia found in Exhibit 3, supports the claimant’s allegations as follows.

[29] At Item 4.21 of the NDP, it details the deteriorating security and human rights situation in Ethiopia. It confirms the arrest of over 9,000 people, including anti-government critics. Other reports note that since the assassinations and alleged attempting coup of June 2019, the government has openly crackdown on dissent and opposition, using the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation to arrest, detain and charge people, including journalists and other political dissidents.

[30] At Items 2.1 and 1.4, the evidence indicates that the current prime minister has introduced positive changes to the human rights climate by welcoming back political dissidents overseas and improving some press freedom and decriminalizing political opposition groups.

[31] However, at Item 4.21, it confirms that the State continues to direct violence at actual and imputed government opponents, including through continued detention at government re-education camps, where detainees are actively enduring brainwashing.

[32] At NDP 2.1, it confirms on the night of November 3^rd, 2020, a war erupted between federal troops, including the Ethiopian defense forces and Amhara militia and the regional state of Tigray. Following the outbreak of this deadly conflict, Tigrayans living in the embattled area in Tigray and those living in other parts of Ethiopia, have become the target of severe violence, including air bombardment, drone strikes and artillery fire. Approximately 50,000 civilians have fled to neighbouring Sudan and more than 1.3 million civilians have been internally displaced. The active expelling and massacring Tigrayan civilian communities, including children, could be classified as war crimes and by some accounts, amounts to genocide. Tigrayans in other parts of the country also face ethnic profiling, mass detention, travel bans, arbitrary arrests, like the claimant herself has experienced, dismissals and forced disappearances.

[33] In the claimant’s own evidence, in Exhibit 5, a recent U.S. news report states that “witnesses say thousands of Tigrayans are being detained and their businesses closed, in a new wave of ethnic targeting by Ethiopian authorities over the eight (8) month conflict in the Tigray region.”

[34] Based on the totality of the evidence, including the claimant’s specific profile as a Tigray woman, who’s already come to the attention and interest of the authorities in Ethiopia, for her father’s involvement with the ATP, I find the claimant would face a serious possibility of persecution, if she were to return to Ethiopia.

State Protection and Internal Flight Alternative

[35] There is a presumption that, unless in complete breakdown, states are capable of protecting their citizens.

[36] However, I find the presumption in this case has been rebutted.

[37] The agent of harm in this case is the State.

[38] I find it would be unreasonable to request the claimant to approach the State for protection, when it’s the State who has detained her and continues to threaten her.

[39] Accordingly, I find there is no state protection available.

[40] I find that the presumption has been rebutted.

[41] In addition, the authorities in Ethiopia are in control of all of their territory.

[42] As a result, I find the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution throughout the country.

[43] Therefore, I find there’s no viable internal flight alternative for this claimant in all of Ethiopia.

CONCLUSION

[44] In conclusion, I find the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the Act and I therefore accept her claim.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

All Countries Hungary

2021 RLLR 104

Citation: 2021 RLLR 104
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 30, 2021
Panel: David Jones
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Kristina Cooke
Country: Hungary
RPD Number: VC1-05525
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01778
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: So, this is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada for the claim of XXXX XXXX who is a citizen of Hungary seeking refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[2] I also reviewed and applied the Chairperson’s guideline on women refugee claimants fearing gender related persecution.

Allegations:

[3] The claimant fears persecution if she were to return Hungary based on her Roma background. The claimant also left Hungary due to her fears from her ex-partner XXXX(ph) XXXX(ph).

[4] Details of the claimant’s allegations can be found in her Basis of Claim Form and Narrative, including the amendments found at Exhibit 6. The following is a summary of the claimant’s allegations and testimony.

[5] The claimant’s parents were Roma. The claimant described her mother as light skinned Roma who is possibly half Roma.

[6] In the 2013, the claimant met her ex-partner. The allegations describe numerous incidents where the claimant was a victim of physical abuse from her ex-partner throughout the entirety of their relationship.

[7] The claimant also described numerous problems she experienced due to her Roma ethnicity. These include harassment and discrimination when she was at school, during employment, with public transportation, and in receiving healthcare,

[8] Further, the claimant provided examples of violence she suffered due to her ethnicity. For example, in 2015, the claimant was attacked along with other Roma by skinned heads in Budapest when she was selling XXXX. Also, in 2015, the claimant began to save money in order to leave Hungary. The claimant only told her son her plans for leaving the country.

[9] On XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018 the claimant left Hungary for Canada and claimed refugee protection.

Determination:

[10] I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee.

ANALYSIS:

Identity:

[11] The claimant’s identity as a citizen of Hungary has been established, on a balance of probabilities, by the claimant’s testimony and Hungarian passport which is located at Exhibit 1.

Nexus:

[12] The allegations establish a nexus to a Convention ground for the claimant based on her ethnicity as Roma. The allegations may also support another nexus, but given my determination I find it unnecessary to assess an alternative nexus.

Credibility:

[13] I find that, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant has established her Roma ethnicity. In making that finding I’m relying on the principle that a claimant who affirms to tell the truth creates a presumption of truthfulness unless there are reasons to doubt their truthfulness.

[14] In this regard, the claimant was able to describe incidents of discrimination throughout her life. The claimant testified that in her primary school she and other Roma students had to sit at the back of the classroom, and how there was a lot of hatred directed towards the Roma students.

[15] The claimant also described incidents of discrimination when trying to find employment at her workplace, and while she was on the bus, as well as trying to obtain healthcare. The claimant described why she believed that the country conditions for Roma are the same throughout the country.

[16] The claimant also testified that she would be identified as Roma due to her appearance, and she gave detailed testimony about Roma burial practices.

[17] Finally, the claimant was able to answer specific questions when asked without apparent embellishment. There were no relevant inconsistencies between the claimant’s testimony and the other evidence. And as such, I find that the claimant was a credible witness.

[18] The claimant also provided personal documents to support her claim found at Exhibit 4. These include medical records for the claimant. When asked why the claimant provided the documents she testified that she misunderstood what type of documents she needed to provide.

[19] While I’ve no reason to doubt genuineness of these documents, I find that they have no relevance in the hearing today and I give them no weight.

[20] Nonetheless, the credibility of the claimant does allow me to find that the claimant has established, on a balance of probabilities, the facts alleged in her claim, including her Roma background and her subjective fear of returning to Hungary.

Objective Basis:

[21] The objective evidence supports the claimant’s fears of returning to Hungary due to her Roma ethnicity. For example, a 2021 response to information request at Item 13.5 in the National Documentation Package for Hungary, which is found at Exhibit 3, indicates that Roma in Hungary face widespread discrimination regardless of residence, education, and social status.

[22] The report notes that discrimination exists in areas … sorry. The discrimination exists in access to justice, housing, employment, education, and healthcare. The report also indicates that Roma are subject to violence, and that Roma women face multiple intersectional forms of discrimination based on ethnicity and gender.

[23] Another example can be found at … in a 2021 US Department of State report found at Item 2.1. That report states that and I quote,

Human rights NGOs continue to report that Roma suffered social and economic exclusion and discrimination in almost all fields of life. According to an October 12th report prepared for the Council of Europe by the advisory committee on the framework Convention for the protection of national minorities, Roma face discrimination in education, employment, and access to housing and healthcare.

[24] The report also indicates that significant human rights issues in Hungary include threats of violence by extremists targeting Roma.

[25] Further, with respect to violence, a 2019 response to information report on extremist violence against Roma described how racist violence against Roma remain one of the most pressing issues in the country. The RIR also quotes reports that an increasing number of Hungary … Hungarian youths are joining far right wing and neo-Nazi movements.

[26] The claimant also provided numerous country condition documents found at Exhibit 7. These include articles that highlight specific incidents of discrimination the Roma face in Hungary with respect to housing, education, employment, and family unity.

[27] Further, other recent articles describe the anti-Roma hatred and violence from far right groups in the country.

[28] I find that the claimant has established, in addition to the incidents of violence, that she has faced cumulative ethnic discrimination in all aspects of her life that amount to persecution.

[29] Given there is no indication that the conditions have improved in the country for the Roma people, I find that the claimant would face more than a mere possibly of persecution if she were to return to Hungary.

State Protection and Internal Flight Alternative:

[30] I’ve considered whether State protection is available to the claimant.

[31] The objective evidence, including reports noted above, indicates that anti-Roma prejudice is present among police officers, and Roma are subject to ethnic profiling.

[32] For example, a 2018 response to information request found at Item 10.1 states a number of sources who indicate that the police often fail to investigate and prosecute credible claims of hate crimes, and that Roma face continued hostility from police forces. This is similar to the claimant’s belief.

[33] The claimant testified that the police have an attitude that they don’t care about what happens to the Roma people. The claimant said that the police knew skinheads were around and assaulting the Roma people selling produce and took no action. The claimant testified that she believed that the police were racist and did not help the Roma people.

[34] Given the totality of the evidence, I find that there’s no operationally effective State protection available to the claimant in her particular circumstances,

[35] Further, given that there is insufficient evidence to show that there’s a location in Hungary where the Roma do not face discrimination and violence and with the lack of State protection noted above, I find that there is no viable internal flight alternative available to the claimant as she would face more than a mere possibility of persecution anywhere in the country.

CONCLUSION:

[36] For the foregoing reasons I determine that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to Section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and the Board therefore accepts the claim.

[37] Thank you. And, Madam Interpreter, whenever you’re ready just, please go ahead.———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

All Countries Hungary

2021 RLLR 100

Citation: 2021 RLLR 100
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 4, 2021
Panel: Gregory Israelstam
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Amedeo Clivio
Country: Hungary
RPD Number: TC1-05181
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01778
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: It is 3:29 p.m. And I am about to deliver my decision and reasons for the decision in the claim for protection made by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX is not present. He has been informed of the decision.

[2] XXXX XXXX XXXX, the claimant, seeks protection pursuant to s. 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The claimant is a citizen of Hungary.

[3] In coming to my decision, I’ve taken into account specific cultural and social circumstances of the claimant as well as the chairperson’s sexual orientation and gender identity and expression guidelines. The allegations of this claim are found in the claimant’s Basis of Claim form and his testimony.

[4] The claimant alleges the following. The claimant fears persecution on the basis of race as well as on the basis of membership in a particular social group, in this case sexual orientation, at the hands of society in general in Hungary. The claimant alleges that if he returns to Hungary, he would be subject to discrimination, harassment, and violence as a result of his Roma ethnicity. He also alleges that he would be subject to discrimination, harassment, violence, and the ostracization of his community because he’s a gay man.

[5] At the outset of the hearing, I identified credibility as a primary issue for the hearing to focus on. I also identified the availability of state protection as an issue to be addressed.

[6] With respect to identity, on the file is a certified copy of the claimant’s passport from Hungary. Through this document and his testimony, the claimant has established his personal identity and his citizenship of Hungary. The claimant has also submitted into evidence a certification of Roma ethnicity from the Toronto Roma Community Centre, and therefore I find the claimant has established his ethnic identity as a person of Roma origin.

[7] With respect to credibility, a claimant testifying under oath or affirmation is presumed to be telling the truth unless there are valid reasons to reject the testimony. In this case, I find no such valid reason to disbelieve the claimant’s testimony. The claimant’s answers to the questions put to him at the hearing were forthright and spontaneous despite some nervous on the part of the claimant. The claimant’s testimony was consistent with his Basis of Claim form. And the harassment and discrimination described by the claimant are consistent with reports found in the National Documentation Package for Hungary. There were no material inconsistencies in the claimant’s testimony. And overall, I find the claimant’s testimony to be credible and trustworthy. The claimant testified that as a Roma he has discriminate — experienced discrimination in education, in the provision of housing, in the provision of other public services, and in employment. The claimant further testified that he’s been a victim of threats and violence in public at the hands of anti-Roma gangs. I find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant has experienced discrimination and harassment as a result of his Roma ethnicity in Hungary. I further find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant has faced violence or the threat of violence in Hungary at the hands of anti-Roma groups. Although discrimination by itself need not constitute persecution, pervasive discrimination when coupled with the threat of violence does equate to persecution in the case of the claimant.

[8] The claimant testified that he became aware of his sexual orientation when he was about 17 years old. He did not discuss this with his family as the attitudes towards homosexuality in the traditional Roma community may be negative. The claimant testified that he told his family about his sexual orientation shortly before he left for Canada. His father’s negative reaction to this discovery led to the breakup of the claimant’s parents’ marriage and was also the impetus for the claimant to decide he could no longer live in Hungary. As noted, I found the claimant overall to be credible and trustworthy.

[9] As part of the evidence submitted by the claimant, his mother and a friend have both provided statements that confirmed the claimant’s sexual orientation. In light of my findings on credibility and taking into consideration the supporting evidence, I find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant is a gay man. I further find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant has faced exclusion from his ethnic community and family as a result of his sexual orientation.

[10] The claimant testified that that if he — he fears that if he were to return to Hungary, he will continue to face the same persecution as he has in the past. I’m satisfied that the claimant has a genuine fear of persecution in the form of harassment, discrimination, and violence on the ground of his Roma ethnicity and his status as a gay man should he return to Hungary.

[11] Having found the claimant to have a fear of persecution, I turn to the question of whether this fear has an objective basis. Reports from the National Documentation Package for Hungary confirm that persecution and harassment continue for the Roma population of Hungary. I find the claimant’s fear of persecution on the basis of his ethnicity has an objective basis. Reports from the National Documentation Package for Hungary also note that while Hungary has relatively liberal laws concerning sexual minorities, Hungary is moving to an increasingly hostile atmosphere towards the LGBTQ population. Hate speech against this community is increasing as is violence. Both the media and the government are becoming increasingly hostile towards sexual minorities. On May 15th, 2019, the speaker of parliament in Hungary noted publicly that morally there is no difference between the behaviour of the pedophile and the behaviour and proponents of same sex marriage. I find that the claimant’s fear of persecution on the basis of sexual orientation has an objective basis.

[12] With respect to whether the claimant has an internal flight alternative, country condition reports confirm that persecution against the Roma population of the sort described by the claimant is widespread throughout Hungary and is in many instances tacitly approved of by authorities. In addition, as noted above, the increase in hostility towards sexual minorities in Hungary is also pervasive throughout Hungarian society. I find that the claimant would not be able to escape persecution on the grounds of race or sexual orientation in any place within Hungary.

[13] With respect to state protection, there is a presumption that the state is able to protect its nationals. Such a presumption can only be displaced on clear and convincing evidence of the state’s inability to protect its citizens. Such protection need not be perfect. Country condition reports for Hungary do indicate that the government has expressed a willingness to provide protection to all citizens. However, reports also suggest that this willingness has not necessarily translated into adequate protection. Reports say the hardening of anti-Roma attitudes in both the general population and state authorities in Hungary, corresponding to an increase in nationalist sentiment.

[14] In many instances, authorities are unable or unwilling to protect Roma from extremist violence. The claimant’s own testimony is that he did contact the police about attacks and threats. The claimant testified that at times the police were dismissive, but that even when they were not, no arrests or further investigations were made. The claimant’s experience confirms — conforms to descriptions found in the National Documentation Package. Crimes against Roma may be reported, but ignored or dismissed without investigation. I find that given the claimant’s Roma ethnicity and sexual orientation, the claimant has established that in his case there is clear and convincing evidence that the state is unable or unwilling to protect him against persecution.

[15] Based on the evidence before me and the testimony of the claimant, I conclude the claimant has established a serious possibility of persecution on the Convention ground of race as well as the Convention ground of membership in a particular social group, in this case sexual orientation, if he were to return to Hungary. The claimant is therefore a Convention refugee pursuant to s. 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. His claim for protection is accepted. That concludes my reasons.

——————–REASONS CONCLUDED ——————–

All Countries Ethiopia

2021 RLLR 99

Citation: 2021 RLLR 99
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 10, 2021
Panel: Zorana Dimitrijevic
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Paul Vandervennen
Country: Ethiopia
RPD Number: TC1-04234
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01778
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: And this is an oral decision in the claim for refugee protection put forth pursuant to Sections 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in relation to the claim for XXXX XXXX XXXX file number TC1-04234.

[2] The panel notes that the claimant indicates that he’s a citizen of Ethiopia.

[3] The details of the claimant’s allegations are found in the Basis of Claim Form Narrative at Exhibit 2, and amendment to the Basis of Claim Form that can be found at Exhibit 6.

[4] In summary, the claimant alleges a fear of persecution in Ethiopia at the hands of the government due to his Tigray ethnicity and imputed anti-government political opinion, due to his father’s political activism and work.

[5] The claimant alleges that there is no State protection for him or an internal flight alternative anywhere in Ethiopia.

[6] The panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to Section 96 of the Act for the following reasons. The panel finds that there is a link between what the claimant fears and two of the five enumerated Convention grounds because of the claimant’s ethnicity as a Tigrayan and his imputed political opinion. Consequently, his claim is assessed under Section 96 of the Act.

[7] The panel finds that, on a balance of probability, the claimant’s national and personal identity as a citizen of Ethiopia has been established by his testimony, and a copy of his Ethiopian passport and (inaudible), as well as Global Case Management System notes which can be found … all which can be found in Exhibit 1.

[8] The panel also finds that, on a balance of probability, the claimant’s ethnicity as a Tigrayan has been established by his testimony, and a copy of his kebele card which can be found at Exhibit 5.

[9] With respect to credibility, the panel finds that the claimant was a credible witness in relation to the central issues with his claim.

[10] The claimant testified in a direct and sincere manner, and did not try to embellish his claim. There were no omissions, inconsistencies, or contradictions between his statements provided in the Basis of Claim Form, amendment to the Basis of Claim Form, and accompanying forms, and his testimony at the hearing in relation to the central allegations of his claim.

[11] The claimant testified that he and his family has been exposed to political violence in Ethiopia from his early youth due to his father’s (inaudible) engagement in the Coalition for Unity and Democracy and subsequently in the Arena for Sovereignty Democracy or the Arena Tigray Party.

[12] The claimant’s parents are Tigrayan and Amharic. His father’s ethnicity’s Tigrayan and his mother’s ethnicity’s Amharic.

[13] The claimant’s ethnicity has been determined according to his father’s ethnicity because in Ethiopia a child is supposedly the (inaudible) background of his or her father.

[14] The claimant’s father was arrested on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2020, (inaudible) of (inaudible) to the new Prime Minister as the coordinator of the Arena Tigray Party. Following his arrest, the claimant and his mother were threatened by the Oromo youth group Qeerroo, and subsequently by the police following the claimant’s attempts to complain to the police about the threats he and his father received.

[15] The claimant was physically attacked by the members of Qeerroo group in December 2020. His attempts to complain to police … to complain to the police the claimant was verbally threatened to live in harmony with the Oromo, and told that Tigrayans are the enemy of the State.

[16] Out of fear from Qeerroo and the police, the claimant relocated to his uncle in another part of Addis Ababa, and applied for Canadian student visa.

[17] The claimant left Ethiopia with the help of his uncle who organized the claimant’s departure with the help of his friend Immigration officer at the airport. The claimant arrived to Canada XXXX XXXX XXXX2021.

[18] The panel finds the claimant to be credible, on a balance of probabilities, on providing details about the series of events he and his family suffered in Ethiopia, and the reasons why he left Ethiopia and applied for refugee protection in Canada. The panel assigns significant weight to this part of the claimant’s testimony.

[19] The panel also notes that the claimant provided letters of support from his mother and from his uncle, as well as from Tigrayan Association in Toronto. The letters can be found at Exhibit 5.

[20] The claimant also provided his education credentials, and photographs of his participation in demonstrations in Canada, both of which can be also found at Exhibit 5.

[21] The claimant testified that he discovered the Tigrayan Association in Toronto soon after his arrival in Canada in XXXX 2021, from his friend.

[22] The claimant provided explanation for the photographs he provided to the panel regarding his attendance at the protest in July this year in Toronto in Canada that were organized against the Ethiopian … Ethiopian Government on account of the ongoing armed conflict in Ethiopia between the State Government of Tigray and the Federal Government.

[23] After reviewing the letters and all the other documents submitted into evidence, the panel finds them to be genuine and reliable, on a balance of probabilities.

[24] The panel further finds, after reviewing the letters from the claimant’s mother and his uncle, that they provide … provide further information on the events that unfolded following the claimant’s departure from Ethiopia. Stating that the claimant’s father is still in prison, and that his two siblings were forced to go into hiding. The panel assigns the documents full weight in assessing the claimant’s credibility as it relates to his allegations of persecution in … in Ethiopia, and of … his activities in Canada.

[25] The panel also questioned the claimant on his reluctance to claim refugee protection when arriving to Canada in XXXX 2021, as provided in the port of entry notes from XXXX XXXX XXXX 2021, when he did not seek asylum in the border and did so only following the decision of the border officers not to allow him entry to Canada.

[26] The claimant explained that his uncle advised him not to seek asylum before finding a lawyer, and that he was following his uncle’s advice.

[27] The panel accepts the claimant’s explanation as reasonable and finds it to be credible, on a balance of probabilities. The panel further finds that the claimant’s reluctance to claim refugee protection before getting (inaudible) from the Canadian border officials does not impugn his credibility.

[28] The panel finds that the claimant faces a forward-looking risk if he returns to Ethiopia based on his ethnicity and imputed political opinion. The panel is therefore satisfied that the claimant has established his subjective fear.

[29] The panel further finds that the claimant’s fear of being deported to Ethiopia in the present circumstances is a fear that is well-founded in the objective documents.

[30] According to sources from the National Documentation Package for Ethiopia, hereinafter the NDP or the package, which can be found at Exhibit 3, there’s, has been an escalating ethnic violence since the new Prime Minister and his appointment in 2018.

[31] According to Item 1.5 of the NDP the security situation has deteriorated in parts of the country, and interethnic clashes have increased significantly, particularly in among other Amhara Tigray State borders. The same item provides information that anti-Tigrayan sentiment has become more overt since 2018, and hate speech against ordinary Tigrayans has increased in this time.

[32] Counsel for the claimant provided objective evidence on the current situation in Ethiopia, and other articles that provide information on ethic profiling, arbitrary arrest, indefinite detention, and enforced disappearances of individuals of Tigrayan ethnicity, as well as mass detention of the ethnic Tigrayans during the ongoing armed conflict.

[33] All of the new wave of mass detention in Ethiopia has not been acknowledged by State officials. The source also provides information that this practice is ongoing, and that … that hate campaign against Tigrayans has worsened. Providing further information on tens of thousand detained individuals of Tigrayan ethnicity, following the recapture of (inaudible) by forces from the Tigray People’s Liberation Front.

[34] The source on page 10 of Exhibit 7 provides information that arbitrary arrest also occurred in Addis Ababa, where the panel notes the claimant is from, and those arrested are held in detention without due process.

[35] According to the Amnesty International those detained suffered torture and the general ill-treatment in detention, while forced disappearances, according to the source that can be found on page 13 in Exhibit 7, have become a common practice in the last six months.

[36] The source reports Tigrayans have been stopped on the streets of Addis Ababa and arrested on the spot after the security forces inspect their identification documents. Those arrested and detained are taken to unidentified locations.

[37] According to Human Rights Watch transferred of detainees has been organized by the Intelligence Services, the police, and the military. Family members of those detained are threatened and intimidated by the security forces.

[38] The NDP also corroborates claimant’s allegations about … by providing information on organized movement of young ethnic Oromo known as Qeerroo.

[39] According to Item 1.8 Qeerroo’s presence in Addis Ababa is reflected in its intimidation of ethnic Amhara’s and other ethnicities, and the security forces were deemed as inefficient in curbing the violence caused by this organization.

[40] Item 1.23 of the package describes Qeerroo as partly responsible for the Prime Minister and his appointment in 2018. (Inaudible) decree organization is not agreed on, and the Qeerroo are not in a legal opposition movement. The sources report of numerous (inaudible) activities of this group and orchestrated attacks on other non-Oromo ethnic groups in Ethiopia.

[41] Item 4.5 of the NDP provides information that the (inaudible) side of the Qeerroo describes it as an Oromo group that struggle for freedom through democracy and self-determination rights. The central aim of the Oromo people and the Qeerroo struggle is described as the one of (inaudible) the nation and/or country that guarantees freedom, democracy, equality, and fraternity among its people.

[42] The source further provides that Qeerroo is symbolizing both the Oromo movement and its struggle for more political freedom and for greater ethnic representation in federal structures, as well as entire generation of (inaudible) assertive Ethiopian youth.

[43] The source further states … states that as the Oromo movement has grown in confidence in recent years, so the role of Qeerroo in orchestrating unrest has increasingly drawn the attention of officials. As well the source further provides that many dispute characterization of the group as being a terrorist organization, few doubt the underground strength of the Qeerroo that has today.

[44] The most recent response to information request from October 4th, 2021, which is called the Situation of Different Ethnic Groups in Addis Ababa, including access to housing, employment, education, and healthcare, particularly the Amhara, Oromo, Tigrayan, among other ethnicities, and their treatment by Oromo nationalist like Qeerroo that can be found at Item 13.12 of the NDP, provides information that Addis Ababa is a multi ethnic city with population of over five million inhabitants.

[45] While the source states that Addis Ababa is a predominantly safe city for all ethnic groups and a dynamic place for opportunity for … of the … for an increase in (inaudible) or rural migrants, it also provides information that Addis Ababa is not safe for Tigrayans who have been targeted in Addis Ababa, due to their ethnicity and the war in the Tigrayan region.

[46] The source further provides information that Tigrayans are ethnically profiled by the city and federal authorities in the … in Addis Ababa, as well as the Tigrayans are current the most targeted people or the only group that is persecution and harassed in Addis Ababa.

[47] The source further states that general impression is that Tigrayans are losing their citizenship rights across Ethiopia.

[48] The panel finds that the claimant’s fear of persecution because of his imputed anti-government political opinion and his ethnicity has an objective basis and is well-founded.

[49] Despite initial positive changes and the climate of reform after Prime Minister Abiy (inaudible) power, more recently there has been regression in the human right abuses and ethnic violence.

[50] The claimant’s imputed political profile and Tigrayan ethnicity make it more probable that he will face persecution if he returns to Ethiopia, especially in light of the recent escalating ethnic tension and the ongoing armed conflict.

[51] Going to the issue of State protection. The panel finds adequate State protection would not be reasonably forthcoming in this particular case. That is because the claimant fears persecution at the … at the hands of State agents.

[52] State agents are described as regularly detaining persons arbitrarily based on their ethnicity, and being responsible for grave human rights violations currently taking place in Ethiopia.

[53] The panel also finds that the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution throughout … throughout Ethiopia because the consensus opinion in the documentary evidence is that the Ethiopian security forces operate with impunity throughout the country.

[54] The panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that a viable internal flight alternative doe not exist for the claimant in Ethiopia.

[55] In light of the foregoing, the panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee and accepts his claim.

[56] And this matter is now concluded.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

All Countries China

2021 RLLR 97

Citation: 2021 RLLR 97
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: August 3, 2021
Panel: Roman Kotovych
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Mohammed Tohti
Country: China
RPD Number: TC1-03298
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01778
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: These are my reasons for decision. The claimant in this case requests refugee protection under Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[2] The claimant’s allegations are set out in his Basis of Claim form. In summary he’s alleged to be a Chinese Uyghur male who seeks protection on the basis of ethnic persecution in China for his Uyghur ethnicity.

[3] I find, sir, you to be a Convention refugee and my reasons are as follows.

[4] First, on the issue of identity I’m satisfied on a balance of probabilities that you’ve established your personal identity and your citizenship. I base that on the copy of the passport that you presented. I’m also satisfied on a balance of probabilities that you’ve established your Uyghur heritage. I find this on a combination of factors including the name present in your passport which I know from experience gained in doing this job, points to being a Uyghur; the birthplace as noted in your passport, which similarly is the Autonomous zone in China; the fact that you testified today in the Uyghur language; you did present a identity card to the camera which I could not read and therefore can make minimal use of but the Arabic script on that card I, I do also have some experience with that that points in that direction; as well as your overall testimony today to point to your Uyghur ethnicity.

[5] So on a balance of probabilities from the evidence before me largely gained from the passport and from your testimony and the language spoken I find in the circumstances that to be sufficient to establish on a balance of probabilities your Uyghur ethnicity.

[6] I find that the persecution you’ve alleged has a nexus through Section 96 of ethnicity and nationality along with elements of religion. I find that you would face on a balance of probabilities a serious possibility of persecution returning to China on the basis of your ethnicity. This was not a well documented case and I would expect more on a refugee claim with no disclosure from a claimant; however, in the circumstances in the particular circumstances of the country conditions in China, your testimony in appearing before the hearing and the particular circumstances of Uyghurs in China in the particular circumstances of this claim, it is sufficient. You testified about your past experience in China; your treatment in the past as a Uyghur; what you fear returning; the decisions you made in Malaysia; how you decided to make a refugee claim; and, the reasons why you have had limited contact with your parents in China which would explain some of the limited ability to get disclosure from that country.

[7] This is supported by the objective country conditions in the NDP which point strongly to the mistreatment of Uyghurs by Chinese authorities as alleged by you, sir, and I do find sufficient objective evidence in the circumstances of this case to point to a serious possibility of persecution going forward in returning to that country.

[8] On the issue of state protection given that it is the state authorities in China you fear, I find that it would be unreasonable for you to seek protection from them.

[9] Finally, on the issue of Internal Flight Alternative, I find a lack of Internal Fight Alternative as there is evidence in the country conditions of mistreatment of Uyghurs throughout China and I find in the circumstances that there would not be a location in China where you would not face this serious possibility of harm.

[10] So for all the above reasons I find you to have a well-founded fear of persecution under Section 96. For these reasons I find you to be a Convention refugee under the IRPA and I therefore accept your claim.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

All Countries Czech Republic

2021 RLLR 94

Citation: 2021 RLLR 94
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: July 14, 2021
Panel: A. Green
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Howard C. Gilbert
Country: Czech Republic
RPD Number: TC0-12598
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01778
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: The claimant, XXXX XXXX, seeks refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The details of the allegations, specifically of the problems that the claimant faced while living in the Czech Republic, are set out in his Basis of Claim form and amendment to that form.

[2] In summary, the claimant is a twenty-nine-year-old man who was born in Germany on the XXXX XXXX XXXX, 1992. The claimant is a Czech citizen of Roma ethnicity. The claimant alleges that he suffered racism and discrimination while living in the Czech Republic due to his Roma ethnicity. On the XXXX XXXX XXXX, 2020, the claimant entered Canada and filed a refugee claim following his arrival.

Determination

[3] After considering all of the evidence before me, I find the claimant is a Convention refugee because he faces a serious possibility of persecution in the Czech Republic. I make this finding based on the problems that the claimant faced, as a person of Roma ethnicity while living in that country, and the problems he’s likely to face upon return.

[4] The panel looked into whether the claimant can acquire German citizenship, given that he was born in that country. However, after examining the objective evidence and herein the claimant’s testimony, I determine this is not a possibility. The claimant has been assessed only in regards to the Czech Republic. In terms of identity, I find the claimant is a citizen of the Czech Republic.

[5] I rely on his passport and his sworn testimony. In terms of his ethnic identity, relying on the documentary evidence provided, as well as the claimant’s oral testimony, I find that he is of Romani ethnicity. In terms of credibility, the claimant testified in a direct and straightforward manner. There were no inconsistencies between his oral testimony, his Basis of Claim form, or in any of the other evidence before me, and his oral evidence and the Basis of Claim form has consistency with the objective documentary evidence on country conditions.

[6] When looking at subjective fear, I consider the previous trips to Canada, however, the claimant gave a reasonable explanation for why he did not file the claim on the previous trips, and I draw no negative inference. In terms of the objective basis for the claimant’s fear, I rely on the documentary evidence provided by counsel on country conditions, as well as the information in the National Documentation Package.

[7] Item 2.1 of the National Documentation Package for the Czech Republic indicates that hate crimes against Roma and minorities continue to be a problem in that country, and consistent with the claimant’s evidence, it confirms that the Roma population in the Czech Republic faced discrimination in employment, education, housing, and healthcare.

[8] I believe the claimant faced the problems which he described in his narrative and oral testimony, and I find that he faced these problems because of his Roma ethnicity. I find the cumulative acts of discrimination that he experienced rises to the level of persecution. The claimant also testified that he was physically attacked and described these attacks in his oral testimony and also in detail in his Basis of Claim form.

[9] I find that the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution in the Czech Republic should he return based on his Roma ethnicity. The claimant wrote in his narrative and also testified that he made attempts to seek protection from the police to no avail and the claimant believes this is because he is of Roma ethnicity, that’s why the police did not investigate.

[10] Having reviewed the evidence on country conditions, I am mindful of the strides and measures being taken by the Czech Republic to improve the situation of the Roma people. However, I find that the effective of these policies have not yet been adequately measured and reported on. Therefore, given the current conditions in that country, I find that the claimant would not face adequate state protection and that he has rebutted the presumption of state protection.

[11] I also find he would not have a viable Internal Flight Alternative. I base this on the fact that the conditions that individuals of Roma ethnicity face exists throughout the Czech Republic. Based on the foregoing, I find that, as I stated, the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution in the Czech Republic because of his Roma ethnicity. I therefore declare him to be a Convention refugee and accept his claim pursuant to Section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

All Countries Ukraine

2021 RLLR 90

Citation: 2021 RLLR 90
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: July 14, 2021
Panel: Selena Eng
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Lorne Lichtenstein
Country: Ukraine
RPD Number: TC0-04469
Associated RPD Number(s): TC0-04481 / TC0-04501
ATIP Number: A-2022-01778
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: This is the decision in the claims for refugee protection made by the principal claimant, XXXX XXXX and the associate claimant, her husband, XXXX XXXX and their son, the minor claimant, XXXX (ph) XXXX in RPG file numbers TC0-04469, TC0-04481 and TC0-04501.

[2] The claimants are citizens of Ukraine and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to Section 96 and Subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[3] The events – the facts and events alleged in support of their claims are set out in their respective Basis of Claim forms. In summary the claimants allege persecution in Ukraine on the basis the principal claimant and minor claimant’s ethnic Roma identities.

[4] I find that the claimants are Convention refugees within the meaning of Section 96 of the IRPA.

[5] The claimants identities were established on a balance of probabilities by the certified true copies of the Ukraine issued passports in their names contained at Exhibit 1.

[6] Based on – based on the consideration of the totality of the evidence including the claimant’s testimonies I find on a balance of probabilities that XXXX XXXX and her sonXXXX XXXX XXXX are ethnic ROMA. The associate claimant, XXXX XXXX is Ukrainian but has testified to facing discrimination through his family relationship with the claimants.

[7] I note that the principal claimant and her husband, the associate claimant, both testified at the hearing. The minor claimant who is currently 17 years old also provided testimony.

[8] With regard to credibility I find that the claimants testified in a straightforward fashion with regards to the central elements of their claim. I find that the claimants overall testimonies were credible and I accept on a balance of probabilities that they have faced discrimination that would rise to the level of persecution and would continue to face a serious possibility of persecution on a forward looking basis should they return to Ukraine.

[9] In their Basis of Claim forms and in their testimonies the claimants provided details regarding instances of discrimination Ukraine which I will summarize.

[10] The principal claimant is of mixed Roma descent as her mother is Roma but her father is Ukrainian. The principal claimant testified about identifying as Roma and also being identified by other Ukrainians as Roma due to her darker complexion and physical characteristics.

[11] The principal claimant testified about problems starting around the fall of 2018 after her aunt who was Roma stayed at their home for a week in September of 2018.

[12] The claimant testified that this brought further attention to other Ukrainians that her family were Roma and they began receiving threatening phone calls from unidentified Ukrainians over the course of three months who subjected them to racist language and told them to leave their city and XXXX because they were Roma.

[13] The principal claimant testified about blocking the numbers but continued to receive phone calls from other identified numbers until the call stopped. The claimant’s home was also spray painted with graffiti on their door several times in October 2018 identifying their family as Roma and calling death to Roma.

[14] The principal and associate claimants also testified about one of their neighbours who was an ultra nationalist Ukrainian that made derogatory remarks against the principal claimant and the associate claimant for marrying a Roma woman.

[15] I find that the principal claimant’s testimony to be detailed, spontaneous and credible and I except that she was identified as being Roma which led her family to face discrimination and threatening and racist calls in addition to discrimination by an ultra nationalist neighbour.

[16] The principal and associate claimants were also subjected to physical attack. On December 16^th, 2018 by nationalist Ukrainians in the parking lot of the grocery store. The principal claimant described being identified as Roma and the nationalist accusing her and her husband of eating food meant for Ukrainians and poisoning their city with their presence.

[17] The claimants were taken by ambulance to the hospital where they were treated for multiple injuries. The principal claimant was hospitalized for five days and the associate claimant for three days. I heard evidence of the police ignoring the claimants complaints and closing the file without doing any investigation because they did not take their complaints seriously due to her being – due to the principal claimant being Roma.

[18] The claimants provided medical reports dated December 16^th 2018 found that Exhibit 5, page 2 to 8 confirming their admission to the hospital for the principal claimant and associate claimant noting their injuries including a brain concussion of median degree, numerous bruises to the body and blows and abrasions of soft tissues to the face, head and neck.

[19] A police report was also provided at Exhibit 5, pages 10 to 11 stating that further investigation into the claimants statements was considered inadvisable due to the absence of evidence of witnesses. I am satisfied to the principal claimant’s credible testimony and supporting documentation that she and her husband were both physically attacked and suffered injuries due to being identified as a Roma couple and that police did not investigate into their complaints.

[20] The principal claimant also testified that she was attacked by two nationalists on April 4^th, 2019 as she was making her way from a friend’s house in their neighbourhood. The claimant was transported to hospital by ambulance where she was diagnosed with several injuries. A medical report provided at Exhibit 5, page 16 to 18 indicates the claimant sustained a brain concussion in addition to dislocation of her wrist joint and hematoma of her left eye which was stated as a result of a beating by attackers.

[21] The principal claimant reported the incident to police who she indicated ignored her complaint and not – did not take down notes after hearing that she was beaten because she was Roma. A police report found at Exhibit 5, pages 20 to 21 indicates that the initiation of criminal proceedings was found inadvisable due to the impossibility to identity the attackers.

[22] I’m satisfied through the claimant’s credible testimony and corroborating documentary evidence that the principal claimant was attacked by Ukrainian nationalists on more than one occasion and that the police did not investigate into the matter or take her complaint seriously due to the – due to the nature of the attack being against a Roma person.

[23] The principal minor claimant also testified about the discrimination the minor – sorry, the principal and minor claimant also testified about the discrimination the minor claimant faced in February 2019 when he was accused of stealing at the school because he was Roma. The minor claimant testified about being identified as Roma from being picked up at the school by his Roma grandmother.

[24] I heard testimony about the principal claimant speaking to the principal of the school when her son was later found to be innocent to complain about the incident only to be told by school authorities that where there are Roma students there will be problems.

[25] I heard testimony regarding the minor claimant developing XXXX due to the problems he was having at school and how he was seen by a doctor. A medical letter dated February 28, 2019 found at Exhibit 5, pages 13 to 14 indicates that the minor claimant was seen by the XXXX XXXX XXXX for XXXX help in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX with his classmates and teachers on the grounds of his ethnicity. Medications and XXXX sessions were prescribed.

[26] The minor claimant testified about continuing to have problems in school and the students making derogatory remarks behind his back due to his Roma ethnicity. I find the principal and minor claimants testimonies were credible and supported by the documentary evidence.

[27] I find that the minor claimant was identified as being Roma and continue to face discrimination in his school.

[28] The principal claimant testified about fearing for her life after the second attack against her and deciding to leave Ukraine permanently for Canada where the associate claimant’s brothers are citizens. The claimants for Canada as soon as the principal claimant was able to obtain her visitors visa and left on XXXX XXXX, 2019.

[29] I found the claimants testimony to be credible and lacking in embellishment. I find that the claimants provided documentary evidence to support their claims including medical letters and police reports corroborating the incidents that happened.

[30] The claimants also provided letters from the Roma community group and photographs of the principal claimant with her extended Roma family supporting the principal’s claimants identity which can be found at Exhibit 5. I find that these documents to be authentic and credible and corroborate the claimants testimonies.

[31] I find that although the associate claimant is not Roma, he was identified as being part of a Roma family and also subjected to racist language and threats in addition to being physically assaulted.

[32] Based on the testimony evidence before me I find that the claimants have experienced discrimination and attacks that would cumulatively amount to persecution. I find that the claimants have established a subjective fear of persecution.

[33] Regarding the delay in claim, I heard evidence of the claimants arriving in Canada in XXXX 2019 but not filing refugee claim until around February of 2020. The principal claimant testified that they were not aware they could file a refugee claim upon arriving in Canada.

[34] The claimants sought the assistance of an immigration consultant shortly after they arrived who advised that – who advised the associate claimant to make an application for a work permit to obtain status. The claimants testified about the consultant not asking them questions and not being aware about them being eligible for refugee claim until they spoke to their current legal counsel who was able to provide them proper legal advice.

[35] I find that the claimants were honest and forthright with their explanations as to why they did not immediately seek refugee protection after first arriving in Canada. I accept that the principal claimant’s testimony that they were not aware they could file a refugee claim or that they would have done so sooner and that they followed the advice of their immigration consultant who was unsuccessful with helping them obtain status which made the claimant seek further legal counsel and at which time they were able to learn that they could make a refugee claim.

[36] I do not find the claimants delay in making a refugee claim in Canada negatively affects the claimants credibility as it relates to their fear of persecution in Ukraine.

[37] Regarding the country documentation and objective basis evidence, the National Documentation Package for Ukraine indicates that Roma experience widespread discrimination in the country. The United States Department of State report at Item 2.1 of the NDP indicates that Roma and Ukraine continue to face governmental and societal and significant barriers against accessing education, health care, social services and employment.

[38] It was noted that human rights activists remain concerned about the lack of accountability in cases of attacks on Roma and the government’s failure to address societal violence and harassment against Roma.

[39] Amnesty International report for 2020 and 2021 at Item 2.2 indicates that discrimination against Roma persisted and the past attacks were effective – were not effectively investigated. The minority rights group Europe 2019 report on Roma at Item 13.7 of the NDP contains multiple examples of police inaction our outright violence against the Roma people in Ukraine including the increasing prevalence of hate speech and violence by far right groups in the country.

[40] Based on the claimants testimonies today I find that there has been systemic discrimination against the principal and minor claimants being Roma in Ukraine which also affected the minor claimant’s education.

[41] In addition, I find that the claimants were targeted and assaulted by nationalist Ukrainians on the basis of the principal claimant’s Roma ethnicity. Likewise I find the associate claimant also faced discrimination and abuse due to his relationship with his wife because she is Roma and also his son, also because he is Roma.

[42] Based on the testimony and evidence I find that the claimants have faced discrimination that cumulatively rise to the level of persecution.

[43] Regarding state protection, the documentary evidence tells me that although there are attempts to make changes to improve the situation for Roma in Ukraine, problems still remain today.

[44] In addition to the evidence mentioned above, Item 13.7 of the NDP indicates a number of incidences of violence and attacks against Roma, particularly in Roma settlements where police or local authorities fail to either prevent attacks or meaningfully investigate, contributing to further dehumanization of Roma in they public discourse and fostering a climate of impunity among far right groups. Item 13.7 also indicates that police themselves have been major perpetrators of violence against Roma.

[45] Based on these country conditions and based on the claimants testimonies which I have found to be credible I’m satisfied that state protection would neither be adequate nor forthcoming. There are multiple instances reported of Roma individuals seeking protection and being subjected to racist or discriminatory actions by police including the claimants own experiences dealing with police after they were attacked in Ukraine and no follow up or investigation conducted. As such I find the claimants have met their onus and rebutted the presumption of state protection.

[46] I also find that there is no Internal Flight Alternative available to the claimants as the problems with discrimination and the response by the police and authorities appear to be nationwide based on the evidence cited above.

[47] In conclusion, having considered all of the evidence I find that XXXX XXXX, her husband XXXX XXXX and their son, XXXX XXXX are Convention refugees and have established a serious possibility of persecution. I accept their claims. Thank you.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-