Tag: Race/Ethnicity/Nationality

2021 RLLR 89

Citation: 2021 RLLR 89
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: May 13, 2021
Panel: Gregory Israelstam
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Adam Wawrzkiewicz
Country: Hungary
RPD Number: TC0-03571
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01778
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: These are my reasons. XXXX XXXX XXXX the claimant, seeks protection pursuant to s. 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Mr. XXXX came to Canada with his spouse, XXXX (ph) XXXX, on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019. XXXX XXXX was found ineligible to have the claim heard by the Refugee Protection Division because she had made a prior claim for protection in 2001.

[2] The allegations of the claim can be found in the claimant’s Basis of Claim form, and in his testimony. The claimant alleges a fear of persecution on the basis of race and membership in a particular social group at the hands of society in general, and from the former spouse of XXXX XXXX in particular.

[3] The claimant alleges that should be return to Hungary, he would be subject to persecution in the form of denial of occupational opportunities on the basis of his Roma ethnicity. He would also be subject to persecution by being at increased risk of violence at the hands of nationalist gangs, of being at increased risk of harassment by police, and finally of being at increased risk of violence at the hands of XXXX former spouse.

[4] At the outset of the hearing, I identified credibility of a major issue for the hearing to focus on. A second issue is whether there was clear and convincing evidence that the state was unable or unwilling to protect the claimant.

[5] With respect to identity, on file at Exhibit 1 is a certified copy of the claimant’s passport. Other identification documents from Hungary can be found at Exhibit 4. In addition, the claimant has submitted a statement form the Roma Community Centre in Toronto, identifying the claimant as a member of the Roma community. For these documents and his testimony, the claimant has established his personal identity, his citizenship of Hungary, and his Roma ethnicity.

[6] With respect to credibility. The claimant testified at the hearing, as did his spouse, XXXX XXXX. A claimant testifying under oath is presumed to be telling the truth unless there are valid reasons to disbelieve that testimony. In this case, I find no valid reason to reject the claimant’s testimony. My assessment of credibility takes into account the claimant’s level of education, as well as other social and cultural factors that may affect his testimony. I have also taken into account situational factors such as the stress of refugee proceedings and the difficulties of communication through an interpreter.

[7] The claimant was straightforward in his testimony. There were no material inconsistencies or contradictions in his testimony, and the testimony was consistent with both his Basis of Claim form, and the testimony of the witness, XXXX XXXX. The claimant submitted documentation at Exhibit 4 that corroborates elements of his allegations related to the violence that the claimant has suffered at the hands of XXXX ex-spouse. The claimant testified that he has been denied educate — excuse me, employment opportunities because of his Roma ethnicity. He testified that his membership in the Roma community has made it difficult for him to get work, and he recounted and incident where Roma workers where refused payment for the work they had completed. When they complained to the employer, the employer taunted them saying that if they were unhappy, they should go to the police, because the police would not believe them, as they were Roma.

[8] The claimant testified that he has suffered violence and harassment at the hands of police. He testified that in 2010, while trying to get medical help for his ill sister, the police stopped him, accused him of coming to town to steal, hit him, and made him leave town. The claimant testified that the police used anti-Roma racial epithets during that incident. The claimant testified that another incident of police harassment occurred in 2006. The police accosted the claimant and his spouse XXXX, accusing XXXX of being a prostitute and making anti-Roma comments. The claimant testified that in 2011, he was attacked by a nationalist gang on a streetcar. He was physically assaulted, and subject to anti Roma abuse and epithets before the gang forced him off the streetcar. The claimant testified that he did not feel that going to the police about this incident would be productive. His experience with the police had been negative to that day. The claimant testified that his fear of violence at the hands of right-wing extremists has become more acute after this incident, as such violence is now encouraged by politicians and police tend to turn a blind eye towards violence against the Roma community.

[9] The claimant testified that XXXX former spouse attacked the claimant and XXXX in their home in 2016, injuring both of them with a broken beer bottle. Both the claimant and XXXX XXXX testified that they went to the police, but the police had told them that because they had chosen the Roma lifestyle, the police would not do anything to assist them. The claimant and XXXX XXXX testified that XXXX former spouse approached them again in 2019, while the claimant and XXXX were living at a shelter. XXXX former spouse threatened to kill them. The claimant and XXXX testified that the police again were reluctant to take a report or intervene, and that they were asked to leave the shelter as a result of this incident. The claimant testified that this incident was the impetus for his decision to flee Hungary and make a claim for protection in Canada.

[10] The claimant submitted police record from XXXX XXXX time in Canada, showing that she had been the complainant in a member of incidents that resulted in charges against her former spouse. As noted, I find the claimant to be overall credible and his documentary evidence to support his allegations. I find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant has suffered assault and harassment, both at the hands of police, and at the hands of right wring, nationalist gangs. I find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant has been attacked and threated by XXXX former spouse. Finally, I find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant has approached the police for protection against these attacks and threats, but that the police did not offer assistance or protection. I find that the claimant does fear future persecution based on his race, his Roma ethnicity, as well as his membership in a particular social group being the family member of a person subject to domestic violence.

[11] Having found the claimant has a subjective fear of persecution, turn to the question of whether this fear has an objective basis. Items 13.5 and 13.6 of the national documentation package for Hungary, dated April 16th, 2021, support the claimant’s allegation that Roma in Hungary are subject to widespread discrimination in the field of employment, these Items also note that the Roma community is increasingly becoming victim to right wing nationalist violence in Hungary. Item 5.2 of the national documentation package for Hungary notes that Roma women are at increased risk of being subjected to gender-based domestic violence and have considerably fewer resources at their disposal to escape violence. This risk of violence is exacerbated by the poverty of many in the Roma community, as well as police reluctance to be responsive to complaints of domestic violence against Roma.

[12] I conclude that the claimants do have an objective basis for their fear of persecution, and that their fear is well-founded.

[13] With respect to state protection, the claimant testified that he does not believe that the police would be able to help him escape threats of violence from either gangs or from XXXX XXXX former husband. Again, Items 13.5 and 13.6 of the national documentation package for Hungary support the claimant’s testimony. Police will often take complaints against violence against Roma less seriously and not investigate violence against Roma complaints. These items in the national documentation package also note that anti Roma racism is pervasive throughout Hungarian society and is on the increase. This racism exists at the level of both the government and the police. While former protection against discrimination and violence are legislated, the reality is that the Roma community is substantially excluded from participating in many areas of Hungarian society and faces increasing levels of violence. I conclude that there is clear and convincing that the state is unable or unwilling to protect the claimant against persecution.

[14] With respect to whether the claimant has an internal flight alternative, given the pervasiveness of anti-Roma racism in Hungary, I find that there is no reasonable internal flight alternative within Hungary, particularly with respect to the claimant’s persecution on the basis of race.

[15] Here is my conclusion. Based on the evidence before me, the testimony of the claimant, and the testimony of XXXX XXXX, I conclude that the claimant has established a serious possibility of persecution on the Convention grounds of race and membership in a particular social group if he were to return to Hungary. And I am going to ask the interpreter to please interpret the next two sentences. The claimant is therefore a Convention refugee, pursuant to s. 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. His claim for protection is accepted.

[16] CLAIMANT: Thank you very much.

[17] MEMBER: Do you have any questions, sir?

[18] CLAIMANT: They will send my wife back home?

[19] MEMBER: That’s something you should probably talk about with your counsel.

[20] CLAIMANT: Thank you.

[21] UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you very much, thank you, thank you.

[22] MEMBER: I’d like to thank you for answering all of my questions today. I know that it isn’t pleasant to remember some of the incidents you’ve talked about.

[23] CLAIMANT: I thank you that you listened to me.

[24] MEMBER: I’d like to thank Erin for being a witness in your claim. And I would like to express my appreciation to your counsel for representing you today, and finally to Madam Interpreter who made sure we could all understand each other.

[25] INTERPRETER: Thank you, and hearing each other at some point, I’m really sorry about.

[26] MEMBER: All right, so if that’s — unless there’s anything else, we can conclude the hearing.

[27] INTERPRETER: Thank you very much, wishing you a good day, rest up a bit.

[28] MEMBER: Before we do that, I just want to confirm that I have your address correction, because we will be mailing out the decision to you. The address I have is XXXX XXXX XXXX.

[29] CLAIMANT: Yes.

[30] MEMBER: And the postal code is XXXX XXXX XXXX

[31] CLAIMANT: Yes.

[32] MEMBER: Excellent. All right, so that’s everything, thank you again, please have a good rest of your day and stay safe.

[33] INTERPRETER: Thank you very much.

[34] MEMBER: Goodbye everybody.

[35] INTERPRETER: Goodbye everyone.

——————–REASONS CONCLUDED ——————–

All Countries Romania

2021 RLLR 88

Citation: 2021 RLLR 88
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: August 17, 2021
Panel: Andrew M Rozdilsky
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Peter G Ivanyi
Country: Romania
RPD Number: TC0-02861
Associated RPD Number(s): TC0-02862
ATIP Number: A-2022-01778
ATIP Pages: N/A

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

[1] The claimant, XXXX XXXX, and the female claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX claim refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).^[i]

ALLEGATIONS

[2] The claimants detailed allegations are set out in their Basis of Claim forms. In summary, the claimants allege persecution by the Romania society and police because of their Roma ethnicity. The claimants have suffered numerous forms of discrimination throughout their lives up until they left Romania, including their very limited education, the claimant having Grade 3 and the female claimant Grade 2, and in employment. The claimants have three children who remain in Romania fearing that they would not to be allowed to travel and enter Canada. The claimants claim to be Corbeni Roma and that they faced not only discrimination but also abuse by racist Romanians and police, the claimant alleging that he lived in fear every day, Romanians could beat him or members of his family because of their ethnicity. The female claimant alleged that Roma women face a difficult life and do not have rights such as other Romanian citizens, that there is no protection, medical insurance, that they pay fees to be treated at clinics and bribe doctors and nurses for treatment. It is difficult to find jobs, Romanians are not hiring Roma and they are not educated. The claimants have no chance to be accepted in Romanian society and because of their ethnicity face verbal and physical abuse by racist people, and police curse and threaten them. They are thrown out of stores, restaurants and pools, face humiliation from security, and face racist slurs, beatings, abuse, harassment and are thrown from buses.

[3] In more detailed allegations the claimant alleged that he stopped schooling after three years as his parents, fearing the assaults and humiliation he faced by schoolmates and being forced to sit at the back. The female claimant stopped after Grade 2, having been beaten at school, abused, and humiliated by classmates.

[4] The claimant alleged that they are afforded no protection by Romanian authorities, they face verbal and physical abuse, sexual touching, security harassment and being accused of theft.

[5] Police provide no protection and abuse or instigate violence against Roma, and there are incidents where Roma houses are burnt. There is no protection for Roma students who are abused by teachers and ignore them in class.

[6] The claimant alleged that in 2012, the claimants were at a local bazar in Bragadiru, were stopped by police and accused of stealing chickens and cheese they bought but made no complaint out of fear.

[7] The claimant alleged that in 2017, he and the female claimant were travelling on a bus and were harassed and humiliated by Romanians, called dirty Gypsies and that they smell, his wife being reduced to tears. They were defended by some on the bus and got off at the first opportunity and ran away.

[8] In 2018, the claimant was at City Hall in Cornetu and asked for a small lot to build a house for his family but was rejected because he is Roma and had no money to pay as a bribe as other Roma did. No complaint was made against the mayor, fearing revenge.

[9] In 2018, the claimant’s uncle was hit by a drunk driver and killed and was verbally abused after being struck. The driver was never arrested and bribed local police despite having threatened to kill other Roma.

[10] In 2019, the claimant alleged that a Roma woman with two children was beaten badly in Zalau by a Romanian driver. Police were called and were rude to her because she was a ‘gypsy’.

[11] The claimant alleged that doctors charge Roma patients, ask for extra money besides fees and demand bribes, refusing to provide care if they are not paid. They have no medical insurance as they have no permanent jobs and cannot afford fees for insurance. There is no protection against racism and discrimination and there are no jobs in Romanian companies because they are uneducated, and they can only get work street cleaning or cleaning rich people’s homes and are paid half what Romanians are paid. They do not have the same rights as Romanians. They live in squalid living conditions without water and heating, gas, garbage disposal, have no social assistance or medical insurance. They are not hired because Romanians say they stink. They left Romania out of fear for their lives, and the lives of their family and want a better life for their children who are not safe and do not have the same rights as Romanians, live in poor living conditions, no hot water, and an overcrowded small house with no heat so they use firewood. Many Romanian authorities are racist, they are not allowed to enter stores, restaurants, public places and are beaten. The claimant does not want his children to be discriminated against and face persecution as Roma. The claimants left Romania on XXXX XXXX, 2019.

[12] The female claimant alleged that Roma in Bolintin were expelled from the village they lived in for 45 years after a Romanian was killed in a conflict with a Roma and that 26 Roma houses were burnt, for which no one was arrested or punished, and no compensation was paid until after an international court judgement after 2009. The female claimant’s house was burnt down in 1991, they were thrown out of the village and never returned under threat of being killed.

[13] In 1994, the female claimant’s paternal aunt went to her father’s village after being on the street for three years after losing her home. Local villagers demanded that relatives of local residents leave, claiming that they were criminals from Bolintin, and threatened to burn down the female claimant’s aunt’s father’s family home. Police told the female claimant’s family to do as they were told.

[14] The female claimant alleged her aunt’s husband was shot in 2000 and died of his injuries three days later. In 2011, her father was called by police to the police station, beaten and questioned regarding a fictitious offence but never made a complaint as he was beaten by police.

[15] In 2002, the female claimant’s mother and father were assaulted by Romanian peasants and beaten, being accused of wanting to steal.

[16] In 2011, the female claimant’s father’s cousin was ran over intentionally by a Romanian who previously had threatened to kill all Roma. The family complained with the case ongoing, but the killer remains free.

[17] In 2013, the female claimant’s grandfather died of natural causes, but the priest refused bury him in the local cemetery.

[18] The female claimant’s brother was found to be a Convention refugee in Canada.

DETERMINATION

[19] The panel finds that there is a serious possibility that the claimants will face persecution because of their ethnicity as Roma if they were to return to Romania and are, therefore, Convention refugees pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[20] In making this determination, the panel has considered the counsel’s post hearing writing submissions, claimants’ testimony, and documentary evidence.

Identity

[21] The claimants’ personal identity as a citizen of Romania has been established, on a balance of probabilities, by their testimony, the claimants’ passports, and Romania ID cards.^[ii]

Nexus

[22] The panel finds that the claimants fear persecution for reasons of their Roma ethnicity and have established that their fear of persecution is for a Convention reason, namely their ethnicity as Roma and accordingly their claims were assessed under section 96.

Credibility

[23] The panel finds the claimants to be credible witnesses. They provided credible evidence establishing their Roma ethnicity. Further, they provided evidence from the Roma community in Canada corroborating their claims to be Roma. The claimants provided supporting letters from Roma Community Centre^[iii] in Canada, and photos of their family^[iv] in Romania. They gave evidence in relation to them being Corbeni Roma and in addition provided reliable and trustworthy documentation establishing their Roma ethnicity. The claimants gave their evidence regarding their Roma ethnicity in a straightforward and forthright manner. Further, they described the photographs showing their living situation in Romania and their children. The panel found overall that there were no inconsistencies in the claimants’ testimony. The panel found the claimants’ testimony to be credible and the documents in support of their allegations to be reliable and trustworthy.

[24] The claimant further gave consistent testimony with their BOC narratives regarding their personal experiences in Romania prior to their departure. The panel finds the claimants’ evidence regarding their experiences in Romanian to be credible.

Objective Basis

[25] In the Ward judgement, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that for treatment to amount to persecution, it must be a, “sustained or systemic violation of basic human rights, demonstrative of a failure of state protection.”^[v]

[26] The panel finds the claimant’s own evidence regarding their personal experiences as Roma in Romania and the objective documentary evidence^[vi] regarding the situation of Roma in Romania supports a finding that the claimants fear of persecution were they to return to Romania is well-founded and that they face a serious possibility of persecution because their ethnicity as Roma.

[27] The NDP item 2.1 reports:

[T]here were reports from nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and media that police and gendarmes mistreated and abused Roma, primarily with excessive force, including beatings. Amnesty International, the European Roma Rights Center, the Romani Center for Social Intervention and Studies (CRISS), and the Civic Union of Young Roma from Romania reported several instances of police abuse against Roma, in the context of enforcing movement restrictions imposed during the COVID-19 crisis.

E-Romnja, an NGO that works to advance the rights of Romani women, stated police often discouraged Romani women and girls from filing complaints.^[vii]

[28] An RIR at NDP item 13.4 reports:

The US Department of State’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2014 indicates that Roma face systemic discrimination by society, which affects them in the areas of education, housing, health, and employment.

“negative attitudes and stereotypes about Roma are deep-rooted, resilient and prevalent…” The same source indicates that “pervasive racism and racist violence continue to distance many Roma families and groups from the greater society.”

Country Reports 2014 indicates that although the law forbids discrimination based on ethnicity, the government did not effectively enforce these prohibitions and Roma “often experienced discrimination and violence.”^[viii]

[29] The NDP item 13.5 reports:

In Romania, in 2014 it was argued that “Anti-Roma rhetoric emerges from politicians across all three major political parties – the left, the right and the Liberals”,160 including through statements made during TV interviews and online.^[ix]

[30] The NDP item 13.5 reports:

Negative attitudes and behaviours towards the Roma population and its labour market participation are constantly encountered in the public sphere. According to the FRA report from 2018, Roma from Romania felt more discriminated against (in 2016 than in 2011) due to being Roma when looking for a job and at work in the past five years.^[x]

[31] A careful review of objective documentary evidence corroborates the claimants’ evidence of ongoing and systemic discrimination suffered in education, access to healthcare, and threats to their life, amounting to persecution. Therefore, the claimants fear to return to Romania as an ethnic Roma is objectively well-founded.

State Protection

[32] The police have been regularly charged for applying double standards in their investigation for crimes involving Roma individuals. Some cases of genuine contempt have been reported where police officers clearly suggested that attacks on Roma were their own fault. Roma are also discouraged by police officers from filing criminal reports.

[33] The claimants related their own experiences in relation to the experiences of them and their families in seeking state protection credibly at the hearing and in their BOC narratives.

[34] Taking all of these factors into account, including the objective evidence together, the panel finds that there is clear and convincing evidence on a balance of probabilities that adequate state protection is not reasonably forthcoming to the claimants in Romania.

Internal Flight Alternative (IFA)

[35] The panel have also considered whether there is a viable internal flight alternative exists for the claimants. The documentary evidence above shows that anti-Roma sentiments are prevalent throughout Romania. The panel finds that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Romania. The panel finds that there is no viable internal flight alternative is available to them because of their Roma ethnicity and in the particular circumstances of these claimants.

CONCLUSION

[36] For the foregoing reasons, in the particular circumstance of these claims, the panel finds that the claimants have established a serious possibility that they will face persecution because of their ethnicity as Roma if they were to return to Romania and are, therefore, Convention refugees pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

^[i] The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), S.C. 2001, c.27, as amended, sections 96 and 97(1).

^[ii] Exhibit 1, Claim Referral Information from CBSA/IRCC.

^[iii] Exhibit 7, Disclosure personal-counsel – January 21, 2021.

^[iv] Exhibit 9, Disclosure personal-counsel January 26, 2021.

^[v] Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, 103 D.L.R. (4th) 1, 20 Imm. L.R. (2d) 85.

^[vi] Exhibit 3, Index of National Documentation Package for Romania – April 16, 2021 Version.

^[vii] Ibid., item 2.1

^[viii] Ibid., item 13.4.

^[ix] Ibid., item 13.5.

^[x] Ibid.

All Countries Bulgaria

2021 RLLR 86

Citation: 2021 RLLR 86
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 18, 2021
Panel: Devin Macdonald
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Kirk J Cooper
Country: Bulgaria
RPD Number: TC0-00404
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01778
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: This is the decision for claim for XXXX XXXX XXXX a national of Bulgaria who is claiming Refugee Protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[2] The panel finds that claimant is a Convention refugee as she has a well-founded fear of persecution on a Convention ground in Bulgaria. The claimant’s allegations are detailed in her narrative attached to her Basis of Claim form.

[3] The claimant alleges that she fears attack, discrimination and gender-based violence from criminal organizations, Bulgarian society and racist groups as well as police in Bulgaria. The claimant alleges that she experienced widespread discrimination in Bulgaria throughout her life due to her Roma ethnicity. She alleges she experienced mistreatment in school, housing, employment and public spaces.

[4] She alleges that she was attacked in July 2018 by a group of skinheads. The police were called and the attackers fled. However, the police were rude and dismissive and did not investigate the attack. She alleges that she went to the hospital for treatment after the attack and the staff at the hospital were reluctant to touch her because of her Roma ethnicity.

[5] She alleges that in 2019 her husband started a business of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and that she helped with the business. She alleges that in May 2019, men from a criminal organization began to extort the business.

[6] In July 2019 the men returned accompanied by police and beat the claimant and other Roma workers while the police stood watch. She alleges that one of the men informed them that they would be returning in 2 weeks for more money and if the business could not pay then the claimant would be forced to work as a prostitute.

[7] The claimant alleges that she went to the hospital for her injuries where she was made to wait and the hospital staff was hesitant to touch her. She alleges that she approached the prosecutor’s office and was told that her complaint would not go far and that the office could not guarantee her safety.

[8] She alleges that she decided to flee Bulgaria with her family however due to a lack of funds their trip was delayed and the claimant and her husband temporarily located to Lom while their son went to stay with relatives in the city of Montana, Bulgaria. Fearing the risk of the claimant being forced into prostitution and due to insufficient funds, the claimant’s husband and her son travelled to Germany while the claimant left Bulgaria for Canada without them.

[9] The panel finds that the claimant has established her identity as a national of Bulgaria based on a certified copy of her passport contained in Exhibit 1. The panel finds that the claimant’s alleged fear stem from her Roma ethnicity and has a Nexus with the Convention ground race.

[10] The claimant testified she is Roma because her parents are Roma and she comes from a Roma family. She said she is identifiable as Roma from her accent, her appearance and from the fact that she spends her time in public with other recognisably Roma people.

[11] She testified that she belongs to the sub-group Kalderashi (ph) which she testified holds 3 days weddings and distinguish them from other Roma groups. She provided a letter from the Roma community centre attesting to her Roma identity. The officer states that he interviewed the claimant on December 1^st 2020 and states that she has a Roma appearance, she speaks Bulgarian with a Roma accent and that she is knowledgeable about customs and traditions and celebrations of the Roma people. He also states that he has met her Roma relatives in Canada.

[12] The panel finds that the claimant has established her Roma identity on a balance of probabilities. The claimant testified to an experiencing widespread discrimination for her entire life in Bulgaria. She testified that she grew up in a Roma ghetto that lacked paved roads, garbage collection and running water, indoor plumbing and electricity.

[13] She testified she left school after grade 6 due to the treatment she faced from Bulgarian students and teachers and she states that Bulgarian students beat the Roma students and teachers assigned guilt to the Roma students including herself. She testified about trying to find farm work from Bulgarians as it is a field that she was capable but she was chased away by Bulgarians due to her ethnicity.

[14] The claimant testified she experienced 2 physical attacks due to her Roma identity. She testified in detail about both events and she testified the first attack was carried out by skinheads whom she identified as such due to the insignia on their clothes and she testified that she beat her and other Roma individuals who were present with batons and chains.

[15] She testified that the second attacks was carried out by a criminal organization extorting her husband’s business and she testified that the agents of persecution made derogatory remarks stating that Romas would not be able to operate businesses without paying them.

[16] She testified that the police were present for the attacks and merely supervised and that the attack was accompanied by threats to force her into prostitution. She testified that both events, after both events she required medical attention and the hospital she was made to wait until Bulgarians who arrived after her were treated before she was treated and she testimony that the staff of the hospital did not want to touch her.

[17] The claimant provided ambulatory records for her and her husband. The first 2 are dated XXXX XXXX 2018 and state that the claimant and her husband were beaten causing various injuries such XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.

[18] The second 2 reports are dated XXXX XXXX 2019 and they indicate that the claimant was beaten and her husband was beaten and it states that their injuries and symptoms include XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX The panel accepts the documents and gives them full weight in establishing that the claimant and her husband were attacked in July 2018 and July 2019.

[19] The claimant testified that she attempted to access state protection after each attack and after the 1^st attack the police suggested that Roma individuals including the claimant who were attacked did something to provoke the attack.

[20] After the attack she did not want to approach the police- oh after the second attack she did not want to approach the police because members of the police were present for the attack so she approached the prosecutor’s office on a relative advice and she was told that filing a complaint would make things worse for her.

[21] So, the claimant provided her parents and her siblings positive RPD decision and her mother’s Basis of Claim form and narrative. The narrative details similar but separate instances of discrimination, physical attacks, extortion, threats of sexual trafficking, perpetuated by ethnic Bulgarians.

[22] The panel finds that the claimant’s parents and siblings are similarly situated to the claimant and gives weight to the narrative for the purpose of corroborating the treatment that Roma individuals in similar circumstances of the claimant face in Bulgaria and I find that the discriminatory acts including acts of violence and threats of forced prostitution amount to persecution as they threaten the claimant’s life.

[23] The claimant alleges that she decided to flee Bulgaria in XXXX 2019 and she did not leave Bulgaria until XXXX 2019. The claimant provided or she explained that she wanted to leave immediately but lacked the funds and needed to apply for a passport. So, she and her husband relocated to the city of Lom and sent their son to the city of Montana with relatives. She describes staying in hiding in Lom and leaving only their home only when necessary in order to avoid detection from the criminal organization that attacked her in July 2019 for failing to pay the extortion fees.

[24] The panel accepts the explanation for the delay because the claimant could not have reasonably left the country without a passport or without the funds to do so. The panel finds that in the circumstances the claimant’s delay in leaving Bulgaria was not extended and does not indicate a lack of subjective fear.

[25] The claimant entered Canada and XXXX 2019. Her claim was not referred until January 2020. The claimant explained that she did not make a claim at the airport because she was not aware that she could make a claim at the airport. She testified that she later learned from her father that she could have made a claim at the airport.

[26] She testified that she started to take steps to make a claim for asylum soon after arriving and she testified that she wanted to use the same lawyer her parents had used but after 2 months of the lawyer stating that he was too busy she found a different lawyer.

[27] The panel accepts the explanation for the delay. It is reasonable that the claimant would want to use the same lawyer as her family members who had a successful claim. The panel finds that the claimant did delay her claim in an attempt to use the same lawyer as her family members however in these circumstances its not indicative of a lack of subjective fear.

[28] So, in summary the panel accepts the allegations as they are stated in the claimant’s Basis of Claim narrative. The claimant’s testimony was consistent, transparent and spontaneous. There were no major discrepancies between the claimant’s testimony and her Basis of Claim.

[29] As such the panel has no reason to doubt the veracity of her allegations. On a balance of probabilities, the claimant is a Roma individual who faced widespread discrimination including physical attack and threats of sex trafficking Bulgaria.

[30] Based on her testimony I find that the claimant experienced systemic and persistent discrimination in multiple areas of her life, most notable the racist attacks, threats of sexual exploitation and a lack of access to state protection and the panel finds that these acts during the claimant’s life does amount to persecution.

[31] The claimant was attacked by skinheads on one occasion and extorted and threatened and attacked by a criminal organization and extorted, threatened and attacked by a criminal organization. She – when she reported the incidents to authorities, she did not receive protection. She was prompted to flee the country when the criminal organization threatened her into sex work. As such the panel finds that the claimant has established her subjective fear of persecution upon returning to Bulgaria.

[32] The national documentation package of r Bulgaria contains the 2019 United States Department of State Report at 2.1 which reports crimes involving violence or threats or violence against Romani individuals is a significant Human Rights issue in Bulgaria.

[33] The same source states that government actions to prosecute and punish officials who committed Human Rights abuses were insufficient and that impunity remained a problem. The same report states that the Bulgarian House Committees finding that physical abuse of detainee by police was widespread and disproportionately affected Romani suspects.

[34] The report states that societal intolerance and violence against the Roma persisted in Bulgaria with political and government actors sometimes condoning and prompting the mistreatment of Romani individuals. The media described the Roma using discriminatory, denigrating and abusive language. Nationalist parties routinely resorted to strong anti- Roma slogans and rhetoric with many documented incidences of hate speech and that can be found at page 2 of item 2.1.

[35] Item 2.4 is a report from Freedom House and its states that Roma and other ethnicity minorities are particularly vulnerable to trafficking for sexual and labour exploitation. The report states that the government efforts to combat trafficking shelter victims and punish perpetrators have not matched the scale of the problem and item 7.1 states that despite significant efforts the government of Bulgaria does not meet the minimum standard for the elimination of trafficking.

[36] There are few prosecutions for hate crimes according to the report. This is from item 2.1 at page 28. One such example of widespread impunity occurred in the city of Gabrovo where Roma houses where vandalised and set ablaze during protests against the Roma population. The protests forced most of the Romani residents to flee the city and hide for days in the woods. Authorities including the Deputy Prime Minister publicly supported the protest.

[37] So, the panel finds that Roma individuals are targeted for mistreatment including discrimination, hate speech, physical attacks by non-Roma individuals in Bulgaria including the police and government actors. As such the panel finds that the claimant has a forward-facing risk of persecution and an objective basis for her claim. The panel finds that the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution in Bulgaria.

[38] States are presumed to be capable of protecting their own citizens. The panel notes Bulgaria is a member of the EU and is a functioning democracy with a judiciary and a police force. As such the presumption of adequate state protection is stronger and requires a higher burden on the claimant to present clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption.

[39] In this case the panel finds that the claimant rebutted this presumption of state protection on a balance of probabilities with both the objective evidence of state protection for Roma people and her credible evidence that she reported the incidents to police and to the prosecutor’s office and they both responded by failing to investigate.

[40] The panel does not require that the claimant approach any higher authorities or oversight authorities and doing so is guided by Csoka 2016 FC1220 at paragraph 25 where the court states that it is the police that have the mandate to provide protection.

[41] Item 13.6 of the National Documentation Package states that when individuals from marginalised groups file a report with the police it is not unusual for authorities to treat them with disregard and to refuse to register the crime. There is evidence that some positive actions have been taken by the Bulgarian at to address violence targeting the Roma population.

[42] However, the evidence does not establish that these steps have led to operational, effective state protection for the Roma population at this time or that they would have a positive impact for the claimant in her circumstances. Because the public climate in Bulgaria is incompatible with government commitments to combat discrimination against Roma.

[43] NDP 13.1 discusses the different strategies that the government has undertaken and explains that they have not resulted in positive impacts for the Roma population. Thus, the panel finds that on a balance of probabilities there is clear and convincing evidence that Bulgarian state would be unable to provide the claimant with adequate state protection. I therefore find the state is unwilling or unable to protect the claimant.

[44] I find there is no Internal Flight Alternative available to the claimant because of the country condition evidence which reveals that discrimination amounting to persecution of Roma by society, police and government actors is spread throughout the country.

[45] There is no evidence before me that there is a safe haven anywhere in Bulgaria for Roma people and that societal discrimination and the evidence indicates that societal discrimination appears throughout the country. As such I find there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Bulgaria and therefore a viable IFA does not exist.

[46] Having considered the totality of the evidence the panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and accept the claim.

[47] That concludes the reasons.

[48] CLAIMANT: I want to express my thanks to all of you.

[49] MEMBER: Thank you for your testimony today. Thank you, Mr. Interpreter, for your work.

[50] CLAIMANT: I do have a question.

[51] MEMBER: Sure yeah?

[52] CLAIMANT: I would like to know how would I be able to bring my husband and child because I haven’t seen them for 2 years so would it be any possible, any document that would facilitate their arrival.

[53] MEMBER: So, I – that’s very. I’m very sorry that you’ve been away from your family for so long. I suspect that you and your lawyer will be having a conversation on that topic soon after this hearing. Okay I’ sorry I’m not really able to give you any answer because I’m not legal Counsel and I don’t want to do that but yeah you will be taking to your lawyer about that.

[54] CLAIMANT: The decision is it going to be mailed because I’m planning to move to another place soon.

[55] MEMBER: It will be mailed so please tell your Counsel your new address and he’ll be able to update the Refugee Board when you move so it will go to the correct address.

[56] CLAIMANT: I could provide this right now if it’s possible.

[57] MEMBER: Well, if you provided it right now then the it would be sent – the decision would be sent there and it might get sent there next week when you are still at your old address.

[58] CLAIMANT: Okay by the end of month of March I’m moving.

[59] MEMBER: Okay then so I think your lawyer will update for April 1^st the new address because the decision might come to you before then and he’ll be receiving a copy as well just in case.

[60] CLAIMANT: Okay.

[61] MEMBER: Is there anything else?

[62] CLAIMANT: No but I’m thanking you so much.

[63] MEMBER: Okay so take care. Thank you Counsel for the well-prepared file. Thank you again Mr. Interpreter.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

All Countries Hungary

2021 RLLR 81

Citation: 2021 RLLR 81
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 11, 2021
Panel: Gregory Israelstam
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Peter G Ivanyi
Country: Hungary
RPD Number: TC0-06678
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01778
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: Welcome back, everybody. It is 4:30 p.m., and we are back on the record. I am now prepared to deliver my decision and reasons for that decision in the matter of XXXX XXXX.

[2] XXXX XXXX the claimant, is a citizen of Hungary. He seeks protection pursuant to s. 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The claimant travelled to Canada with his wife. However, she is not part of this claim. As she made a previous claim for protection in Canada in 2012, she is not eligible to make a claim for protection now.

[3] The allegations of this claim can be found in the claimant’s basis of claim form and in his testimony. The claimant fears persecution on the basis of race at the hands of society in general in Hungary, and right wing nationalist groups in Hungary in particular. The claimant alleges that if he were to return to Hungary, he would be subject to persecution in the form of denial of occupational opportunities on the basis of his Roma ethnicity, as well as persecution in the form of increased risk of violence, also on the basis of his Roma ethnicity.

[4] At the outset of the hearing, I identified credibility as the primary issue for the hearing to focus on.

[5] With respect to identity, on file at Exhibit 1 is a certified copy of the claimant’s passport from Hungary. At Exhibit 4 are other identification documents, as well as a letter from the Roma Community Centre of Toronto, dated February 25th, 2021, attesting to the claimant’s Roma ethnicity. Through these documents and the claimant’s testimony, the claimant has established his personal identity, his citizenship of Hungary, and his Roma ethnicity.

[6] With respect to credibility, a claimant testified under oath is presumed to be telling the truth unless there exist valid reasons to disbelieve the testimony. In this case, I have no valid reason to reject the claimant’s testimony. The claimant left school in Grade 8, and my credibility assessment takes into account his level of education, as well as other social and cultural factors. I have also taken into account situation factors inherent in the stress of refugee proceedings, as well as any potential difficulties involved through communication with an interpreter.

[7] The claimant was straightforward in his testimony. There were no material inconsistencies or contradictions in his testimony, and his testimony was generally consistent with his Basis of Claim form. The claimant submitted written documentation in Exhibit 4 in the form of medical reports as well as police reports that confirmed that the claimant, consistent with his testimony, had been the subject of assault and that he had reported these assaults to the police. In his testimony, the claimant was able to provide considerable detail in a spontaneous fashion regarding specific instances of harassment, discrimination, and violence mentioned in his basis of claim form. I find that overall, the claimant was a credible witness. The claimant testified he was denied educational opportunities while living in Hungary. He testified that he was segregated at school with other Roma students, and that he and the other Roma students at school were not allowed to participate in school trips or sports events. He testified that Roma students were often subject to abuse and violence at the hands of other students, and that complaints by Roma students and their parents would be dismissed by school officials

[8] INTERPRETER: Sorry.

[9] MEMBER: As noted above, I find the claimant to be a credible — I am sorry. I find the claimant’s testimony to be credible. I find on a balance of probability that the claimant did experience discrimination in education as a result of his Roma ethnicity. With respect to employment opportunities, the claimant testified that he had applied for a number of jobs while living in Hungary, only to find himself rejected once the employer found out about his Roma ethnicity. In his Basis of Claim form, the claimant described going to an employment centre in his home city of Miskolc to seek employment in January 2019. The claimant was told that there were no jobs available for Roma. I find on a balance of probability that the claimant has faced discrimination in employment as a result of his Roma ethnicity.

[10] The claimant’s allegations are supported by country condition reports that outline discrimination in education and employment against members of the Roma community. While individual instances of discrimination do not necessarily constitute persecution, the effect of a cumulative pattern of discrimination in different contexts have been found by the Federal Court of Canada in a case called Ola (ph) v. Canada to constitute persecution, taking into account the individual effect on a claimant.

[11] In the case of the claimant, the discrimination the claimant faces must be viewed in light of the violence that the claimant alleges he has suffered as a result of his Roma ethnicity. The claimant described a number of instances where he or his spouse personally suffered violence. These include an incident in March 2016, where the claimant and his wife were on the way to a movie when he was attacked by a group of men dressed in black clothes. The claimant testified that his assailants yelled anti-Roma slurs and told the claimant and his wife they did not belong in Hungary. The claimant described another incident in May 2019, when his pregnant wife was attacked by a group of men who knocked her to the ground, called her a “stinking gypsy”, and repeatedly kicked her. The claimant described a third incident that was the impetus for the claimant’s decision to leave Hungary. In December 2019, the claimant and his wife were attacked while shopping by a group of men armed with bats, chains, and knives. The claimant was stabbed in the hand defending himself. The claimant testified that his assailants yelled anti Roma slurs at himself. At Exhibit 4, the claimant submitted documentary evidence of the medical attention needed and the specific injuries suffered during these attacks. I find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant has suffered multiple instances of violence on the basis of his Roma ethnicity. I find that the cumulative effect of the discrimination suffered, and the violence experienced by the claimant does constitute persecution. I find the claimant does have a fear of persecution if the claimant were to return to Hungary.

[12] With respect to whether there is an objective basis for this fear, Item 13.5 of the National Documentation Package for Hungary, dated September 1st, 2020, supports the claimant’s allegation that Roma in Hungary are subject to widespread discrimination in the field of education and employment. Item 13.14 of the National Documentation Package notes that attacks against Roma and other minorities by far-right and neo-Nazi militias are on the increase in Hungary. I conclude that the claimant has an objective basis for his fear of persecution.

[13] With respect to state protection, the claimant testified that he does not believe the police would be able to help him escape the threat of violence. The claimant testified he has reported each of the incidents he has described to the police, and none have resulted in any arrests. Item 13.6 of the National Documentation Package for Hungary supports the claimant’s allegation that the state cannot protect victims of assault directed against the Roma community. Although Hungary may have formal legal protection against hate motivated violence, Item 13.6 cites Amnesty International to conclude that Roma continue to be inadequately protected against hate crimes and that the police response to such crimes is generally not adequate. I conclude that the evidence in the National Documentation Package indicates that the claimant could not reasonably expect to receive state protection against persecution.

[14] With respect to whether the claimant had an internal flight alternative within Hungary, the country condition reports mentioned above highlight the pervasiveness of anti-Roma racism throughout the country. I find that the claimant has no reasonable internal flight alternative within Hungary.

[15] My conclusion is this: based on the evidence before me and the testimony of the claimant, I conclude that the claimant has established a serious possibility of persecution on the Convention ground of race 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.

[16] That concludes my reasons. Sir, do you have any questions?

[17] CLAIMANT: No, I don’t have – I don’t have questions

[18] MEMBER: All right. I would like to thank you for answering all of my questions today. I know that answering some of them may have brought back difficult memories. I would like to thank your counsel for his representation of you today, and I would like to thank the interpreter for making sure we could all understand each other.

[19] If there is nothing else, we can conclude the hearing.

[20] COUNSEL: There’s nothing from us. Congratulations, Mr. XXXX.

[21] Thank you, Laslo.

[22] INTERPRETER: Thank you very much. Congratulations as well.

[23] MEMBER: Thank you, everybody. Please stay safe and have a good rest of your evening.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

All Countries Slovakia

2021 RLLR 77

Citation: 2021 RLLR 77
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 1, 2021
Panel: L. Bonhomme
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Howard C. Gilbert
Country: Slovakia
RPD Number: TB9-27381
Associated RPD Number(s): TB9-27444
ATIP Number: A-2022-01778
ATIP Pages: N/A

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] The claimants, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, are seeking refugee protection from Slovakia pursuant to ss. 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“IRPA”).^[1]

[2] The principal claimant, XXXX XXXX, is the mother of XXXX XXXX, the minor claimant. The principal claimant was appointed to be the designated representative of the minor claimant.

DETERMINATION

[3] The panel finds the claimants to be Convention refugees on the grounds of their ethnicity, being members of the Roma community.

ALLEGATIONS

[4] The details of the claimants’ allegations are more fully set out in the principal claimant’s Basis of Claim form (“BOC”).^[2] In short, the claimants are of Roma ethnicity and have faced discrimination in relation to their education, employment, housing and health care. The claimants were assaulted on one occasion by skinheads and were unable to obtain police assistance.

[5] The claimants fear returning to Slovakia because they believe they will continue to be persecuted and discriminated against due to their Roma ethnicity.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[6] The claimants’ personal identities as citizens of Slovakia have been established by the claimants’ testimony and the certified true copies of their Slovakian passports on file.^[3]

[7] The claimants’ ethnicity as members of the Roma community has been established by the claimants’ testimony, a letter from the Roma Community Centre in Toronto dated October 15, 2020,^[4] and the claimants’ use of an interpreter of the Romani dialect, Romungro, for their BOCs.

[8] The panel finds on a balance of probabilities that the claimants are who they say they are, that they are of Roma ethnicity and that the country of reference is Slovakia.

Credibility

[9] The determinative issue in this claim is credibility. In making this assessment, the panel has considered all the evidence, including the oral testimony, documentary evidence entered as exhibits, and counsel’s written submissions.

[10] Both claimants testified and the panel found them to mostly be credible witnesses. The claimants’ testimony was consistent with one another, for the most part consistent with the BOCs and with the documentary evidence. The claimants responded to all questions put to them by the panel, were able to provide details when asked and were forthcoming with information.

[11] Unlike in other claims from members of the Roma community, these claimants did not raise any issues about the quality of their housing. The claimants resided in a mixed ethnic neighbourhood in the city of Poprad. However, the claimants did express a sense of insecurity in their housing situation. They were harassed by a racist neighbour and their home was vandalized with racist graffiti. The principal claimant reported to her XXXX how she feared letting her sons go outside owing to the danger to them from non-Roma members of the community and to feeling stressed if they did not return from school right away.

[12] The principal claimant testified about the racist names she would be called and the way she would be mistreated in public spaces. The principal claimant described an incident that had occurred to her, her husband, and the associate claimant when they were disembarking from a bus in Poprad in May 2019. The family were physically attacked by a group of skinheads and verbally assaulted. The principal claimant’s description of this incident was consistent with her BOC and in response to questioning from the panel, she was able to spontaneously provide additional details.

[13] The principal claimant provided detailed testimony of her unsuccessful job search efforts and discriminatory experiences with potential employers and provided specific examples, as requested by the panel. The principal claimant was unable to secure any employment while she resided in Slovakia and depended upon welfare benefits and her husband’s income from seasonal work.

[14] The principal claimant did not attempt to embellish her evidence in relation to her treatment in the health care system. Although she described a discriminatory birthing experience and delays in being able to see doctors, the principal claimant was forthright in admitting that she received good care from the neurologist who was treating her for chronic back problems.

[15] The associate claimant testified about his school experiences in Slovakia, including the substandard education he received and limited opportunities to advance due to his Roma ethnicity. The associate claimant is now seventeen years old and continues to attend school in Toronto. The associate claimant convincingly explained how he had seen his older brother attacked and was scared for his own life, especially now that he was older and a more likely target for skinheads in Slovakia.

[16] The principal claimant’s eldest son fled to Canada in XXXX 2017 and made a successful refugee claim on the basis of his ethnicity as a member of the Roma community. He had been attacked at school and in the community on three occasions and although he attempted to obtain assistance from the police, he was unable to. This is corroborated by a copy of the decision submitted by the claimants.^[5] The principal claimant’s eldest son was in a motor vehicle accident in Toronto on XXXX 2018 and was seriously injured, resulting in his anticipated hospitalization in a near vegetative state for the remainder of his life. This is also corroborated by a letter from the Toronto Rehabilitation Institute submitted by the claimants.^[6]

[17] The panel was concerned that the claimants had both returned to Slovakia from Canada and had not made a claim for refugee protection during one of their previous stays in Canada. The claimants first travelled to Canada together in XXXX 2018 in order to tend to their son and brother in the immediate aftermath of his accident. The principal claimant returned to Slovakia in XXXX 2019 and the associate claimant made two subsequent trips between Canada and Slovakia before he returned for the last time in XXXX 2019 with the principal claimant.

[18] The principal claimant was questioned about her return to Slovakia. She explained that she needed psychiatric assistance that she was unable to obtain while she was in Canada and she knew that she would be legally allowed to return to Canada to visit her son as she had an Electronic Travel Authorization that enabled her to do so. The principal claimant testified that she did not make a claim for protection while she was in Canada the first time as she was focused on her son’s care. Further, the principal claimant had received advice from the community that her claim might not be successful as she herself had not experienced any violence in Slovakia and she did not want to run the risk of being unable to return to Canada in the future.

[19] The claimants submitted a XXXX XXXX of the principal claimant dated August 19, 2020, completed by a doctor at XXXX in Toronto.^[7] The report indicates that the principal claimant was seen by the psychiatrist three times, starting on May 28th. The report indicates that the principal claimant’s mental health deteriorated following her son’s accident and in the immediate months following, she was experiencing suicidal ideation, and in an acute anxiety state when not with her son. The principal claimant has been diagnosed with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for which she has been prescribed medication. The claimants also submitted medical documentation from Slovakia indicating that the principal claimant saw a psychiatrist there in April and May 2019.^[8]

[20] The claimants submitted an affidavit from the associate claimant’s father (and the principal claimant’s husband) who described his decision-making authority and rationale in relation to his son’s travels to and from Canada and his concerns about his education.^[9] Basically, he did not want his son to miss school and attract the attention of child protection authorities. The claimants also submitted travel documents indicating that the associate claimant’s travels, aside from his initial short visit to see his brother immediately following the accident, coincided with school holidays.^[10]

[21] The panel finds that in consideration of the claimants’ circumstances, the minor claimant’s young age and dependence on his parents, and the principal claimant’s XXXX state, the claimants’ returns to Slovakia and failure to claim in Canada are reasonably explained.

[22] The principal claimant’s eldest brother fled to Canada in XXXX 2012 and made a successful refugee claim on the basis of his ethnicity as a member of the Roma community and sexual orientation. This is corroborated by a copy of the decision and BOC submitted to the board.^[11] These documents indicate that while in Slovakia, he was mostly resident in Poprad and was the victim of several physical attacks at school and in the community due to his ethnicity and that although he sought police assistance, he was in turn victimized by the police. The principal claimant testified that her family members’ experiences in Slovakia have contributed to her fears and belief that protection is not available to her in Slovakia.

[23] The panel finds that the claimants have established on a balance of probabilities that they suffered from discrimination in their education, housing, employment and health care, that they were subject to a general atmosphere of insecurity and that they were violently assaulted due to their ethnicity in Slovakia on one occasion. The panel finds further that these cumulative experiences amounted to persecution and that there is a serious possibility that the claimants would suffer from discrimination amounting to persecution if they were to return to Slovakia.

[24] Given the credible testimony by the claimants and the corroborating documentary evidence, the panel believes what the claimants have alleged in support of their claims and finds that their subjective fear of persecution on the basis of their Roma ethnicity is established, on a balance of probabilities.

Objective Basis: Slovakia

[25] A review of the National Documentation Package for Slovakia indicates that members of the Roma community in Slovakia suffer social and economic exclusion and discrimination in almost all fields of life, including employment, education, health care, housing, loan practices, restaurants, hair salons, religious services and public transportation. The segregation of Romani children in schools, frequent misdiagnosis of Romani children as disabled, and inferior quality of education provided to Romani children continues despite policies and laws aimed to eradicate the inequality in the education system.^[12]

[26] Multiple sources indicate that the Roma population faces significant poverty and poor health outcomes. Recent government reports reveal that the life expectancy for Roma individuals is seven years below the general population. Roma settlements are described as suffering from a lack of basic facilities and infrastructure. Almost half of Roma households live in dwellings without a toilet, shower and bathroom and half live in neighbourhoods without a public sewage system. Many houses are built illegally, and Roma families face forced evictions.^[13]

[27] It is estimated that 70% of Roma job seekers from marginalized communities are unemployed. Additionally, the average wage for Roma individuals is 40% lower than non-Roma individuals and the employment situation is characterized by high job uncertainty and instability. The at-risk-of-poverty rate of Roma people in Slovakia is 87% compared to 13% in the general population.^[14]

[28] Based on the country condition evidence, the panel finds the claimants’ fear of return to Slovakia to have an objective basis. The claimants have established a well-founded fear of persecution in Slovakia.

State protection and internal flight alternative

[29] States are presumed to be capable of protecting their own citizens, except in situations where the state is in a state of complete breakdown. To rebut the presumption of state protection, a claimant has to provide clear and convincing evidence of the state’s inability or unwillingness to protect its citizens. The more democratic the state’s institutions, the more the claimant must have done to exhaust all the courses of action open to him or her.

[30] In Slovakia, there are numerous instances of high-level politicians and public officials making derogatory comments and hate speech about the Roma community creating an environment of state sanctioned mistreatment of the Roma population.^[15]

[31] The United States Department of State Report on Human Rights Practises for 2020 in Slovakia indicates that violence and threats of violence against Roma and other ethnic and racial minorities, including by security forces, is a significant human rights issue.^[16] Another source documents numerous instances of the police attacking Roma settlements in the past ten years in Slovakia with apparent impunity.^[17]

[32] The claimants attempted to obtain state protection through the police following the attack on them in May 2019. Despite having the ability to investigate the attack further as there were bystanders and cameras in the vicinity, the police did not pursue the matter further and when the claimants followed up, the police denied ever having received a report from the claimants.

[33] The panel finds that in this case, there is no state protection or viable internal flight alternative available to the claimants. The country information and the claimants’ own experiences are clear and convincing evidence that rebuts the presumption that adequate state protection is available to the claimants in Slovakia. Additionally, there is a serious possibility of the persecution throughout the country as the climate of racism and targeting of members of the Roma community exists throughout Slovakia.

CONCLUSION

[34] Based on the totality of the evidence, the panel finds the claimants to be Convention Refugees and therefore their claims are accepted.

(signed) L. Bonhomme

November 1, 2021

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

^[2] Exhibit 2.1: Basis of Claim Form -TB9-27381.

^[3] Exhibit 1: Package of information from the referring CBSA/IRCC.

^[4] Exhibit 4: Claimants’ disclosure package (personal documents – 2 parts & country conditions – 2 parts).

^[5] Exhibit 6: Claimants’ disclosure (personal document) and POE amendments received December 11, 2020.

^[6] Exhibit 4: Claimants’ disclosure package (personal documents – 2 parts & country conditions – 2 parts).

^[7] Ibid.

^[8] Exhibit 12: Claimants’ disclosure (personal documents) received September 17, 2021.

^[9] Exhibit 11: Claimants’ disclosure (commissioned affidavit of Eduard Conka) received September 21, 2021.

^[10] Exhibit 12: Claimants’ disclosure (personal documents) received September 17, 2021.

^[11] Exhibit 4: Claimants’ disclosure package (personal documents – 2 parts & country conditions – 2 parts).

^[12] Exhibit 13: Index of National Documentation Package for Slovakia — August 31, 2021 version.

^[13] Ibid, Item 1.7 and Item 13.13.

^[14] Ibid, Item 13.4.

^[15] Ibid, Item 13.1.

^[16] Ibid, Item 2.1.

^[17] Ibid, Item 10.1.

All Countries Angola

2019 RLLR 217

Citation: 2019 RLLR 217
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: May 8, 2019
Panel: R. Jackson
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Sandra M. Gonzalez Ponce, Christian Julien
Country: Angola
RPD Number: TB8-07871
Associated RPD Number(s): TB8-07913, TB7-12855
ATIP Number: A-2020-00859
ATIP Pages: 002821-002831

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] This is the decision in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX (“the principal claimant”), XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (“the associated claimant”) and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (“the minor claimant”), citizens of Angola, who are claiming refugee protection pursuant to ss. 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.¹

[2] The associated claimant was appointed the designated representative for the minor claimant, her daughter.

[3] These claims were heard jointly pursuant to Rule 55 of the Refugee Protection Division Rules.²

ALLEGATIONS

[4] The allegations of the claimants are those contained in their Basis of Claim (BOC) forms, amendments, and further explained in their oral testimony. In summary, they fear that the government will harm them due to the principal claimant’s political activism.

[5] The principal claimant alleges that he attended political protests in Angola and was part of a small group of people who would get together to express themselves through music or other means.

[6] One day after work, he went to his father’s store, and after a while some unidentified men came into the business and asked for the principal claimant. They attacked him and his father. He was left for dead, and his father did not survive. The principal claimant fears returning to Angola because these people may harm him. The associated and minor claimants base their claims on that of the principal claimant.

INTERLOCUTORY ISSUES

[7] The adult claimants were represented separately because their marriage has broken down and they are not living together.

[8] There were three sittings of the hearing of this claim. Different interpreters were used. The claimants expressed some dissatisfaction with the interpretation at the second sitting. The panel was able to address the points of interpretation which the claimants were not happy with; however, the testimony was not proceeding efficiently, and it was decided by the panel that it would be more efficient to proceed with a different interpreter. Both counsels were given the opportunity to express their concerns about the interpretation and to review the audio between the second and third sittings, if they wished to do so. No application was ultimately made with regards to disregarding the testimony that was given with the help of any of the interpreters.

DETERMINATION

[9] The panel finds that the principal claimant has a political opinion which opposes the Angolan government and, as he cannot safely express that opinion through public protest and wishes to do so, he is a Convention refugee.

[10] The panel finds that the associated and minor claimants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

ANALYSIS

[11] The claimants’ identities as nationals of Angola are adequately established by their testimony and the supporting documentation filed, including a certified copy of the principal claimant’s passport in Exhibit 1, as well as certified copies of the other claimants’ birth certificates. A copy of XXXX national identity card can also be found in Exhibit 1.

[12] The claimants testified that false Portuguese passports were used to travel to Canada, but that they are not citizens of Portugal.

[13] The determinative issues in this case are credibility and the principal claimant’s political opinion.

Credibility

Claimants have not established attack was based on political opinion

[14] The principal claimant established through his testimony and other documents on file that he was attacked in Angola. He also established that his father passed away.³ He was unable to establish with sufficient credible evidence that the attack was politically motivated.

[15] The principal claimant had some difficulty testifying and providing details about his activities with a group he called “Reading Books.” He testified that this is not the same group as is mentioned in some of the country conditions documents presented.⁴ Some members of the group noted in the country conditions documents have been arrested. For clarity, the panel will refer to the principal claimant’s group as his “political discussion group,” as he testified that this was an informal group for discussions on political matters. Some people would make music to express themselves and sometimes they would attend political protests.

[16] The principal claimant alleged that he had recruited some people to join the group, and he had met them at parties. When he was asked for an example of this, he said he had met someone (“FP”) at a party, but he could not remember the year. The panel asked what made the principal claimant think he could invite FP to the group, and the principal claimant gave a general reply, stating that when he’s talking to people they might discuss soccer and the conversation turns to politics and they will say their opinion. The panel asked if he could remember what it was that convinced him FP was trustworthy, and the principal claimant said no. The principal claimant had trouble explaining what he personally did as part of the political group, apart from attending some mass protests. When the panel attempted to get more information about his specific role, the answers were vague. A negative inference is taken as to the principal claimant’s credibility, and the panel finds that doubt has been cast upon how involved he really was in this political discussion group, and whether he in fact recruited new members.

[17] The principal claimant testified that no other members of the group were attacked as he was, or had problems that he knew of based on the group. When there were protests, police would use force to contain the crowd, but this was not limited to members of his group.

[18] The principal claimant presented a brief letter⁵ from a member of the political discussion group. The letter states that the principal claimant was in the group and was attacked as a consequence. No details are provided. The writer of the letter does not explain how he knows about the attack or how he knows that the principal claimant’s attack was related to the group. The panel did not have the opportunity to question the writer. The fact that the letter was accompanied by a copy of the identity card of the writer is positive, but it does not serve to establish that the attack was politically motivated. On its own, this letter is insufficient to establish a link between the political group and the principal claimant’s attack.

[19] Similarly, there is a letter from XXXX mother⁶on file. It is brief and states that the associated and minor claimants went to live with her in another part of Luanda because they were afraid after the attack on the principal claimant. The letter does not provide insight into who was behind the attack, and the panel was not given the opportunity to question the writer.

[20] A Canadian medical assessment⁷ was performed on the principal claimant, which confirms that he has an injured eye.

[21] The principal claimant testified about the attack, and he could not associate the men with any group, nor did he recognize them. He speculated they were government agents.

[22] The principal claimant’s testimony about being followed subsequent to the attack was inconsistent. He said that he went into hiding in an area called Bengo. He thought he was being followed, so he took a flash photograph of the people following him so he could show to people and see if they recognized them. When asked where the image is now, the principal claimant said he just meant he used his memory. The panel noted that this is a different answer and that one cannot “show” memories to people. The principal claimant said he could describe them. The panel asked him if he could still remember any of these people, and he said one was tall, very thin, with a mustache. The principal claimant alleges that no one recognized these people and thus he knew he was being followed. The panel finds the claimant’s testimony on this issue to be vague, evolving, and unconvincing. The panel does not find the principal claimant’s testimony credible regarding the people following him in Bengo.

[23] The principal claimant has not established with sufficient credible evidence that people were actually following him, and even if they were, that this had anything to do with the attack which took place in Luanda or his political activism.

[24] Considering all of the above, the panel finds that the claimants have established that the principal claimant was attacked. Who was behind the attack, has not been established with sufficient credible evidence.

Summary – Attack on principal claimant

[25] This claim is based on the principal claimant’s having been attacked by unknown individuals in his father’s store in Luanda. He alleges that he subsequently went into hiding in Bengo and there he believes there were other unknown men following him. At the hearing, he was unable to directly connect his political activities (attending protests and meeting with friends to discuss politics) to his attack. He said that the attackers must have been sent by the authorities because they asked for him by name and nothing was taken from the store. The panel finds that he is speculating, and it is insufficient to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that he was attacked for his political opinion.

[26] This conclusion is further supported by the fact that none of the other members of his political discussion group have had any similar problems or any other problems that could be attributed to being targeted by anyone because of their political views. The panel is aware of the evidence⁸ presented by the claimants which indicate that Angolan authorities do break up protests and have arrested some peaceful activists. The panel also considered the objective evidence cited in the following section of these reasons. The preponderance of the evidence does not support the allegation that Angolan state actors targeted persons with similar profiles to the principal claimant, as someone who attended protests as a member of the crowd and who occasionally discussed politics with others. Meetings and protests were broken up, but the panel finds there is insufficient evidence to establish that state actors generally went to people’s homes or places of work to attack them.

[27] Taking all of the above into consideration, the panel finds that the claimants have not established that the attack upon the principal claimant and his father was perpetrated by people with political motives. Their motives are unknown. Their identities and affiliations are unknown. As such, the panel cannot find that the claimants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection based on this attack by unknown persons with unknown motivations.

Political Opinion – Principal Claimant

[28] The principal claimant testified about some protests he attended, and his political views regarding Angola. While the panel did take some negative inferences as to his credibility as noted above, he was able to express his political views at the hearing. He was also able to testify about attending protests in Luanda and the reactions of police during those protests. In that regard, the panel found him to be forthright and he testified with a sufficient level of detail. The panel accepts that he attended anti-government protests in Angola, and that he has a political opinion that opposes the ruling regime.

[29] The objective country documentation⁹ states that 2017 saw nearly five times the level of protest that was seen during the last election year, 2012. Dissidence was suppressed: protesters and journalists were often imprisoned. On August 12, 2017, demonstrations by groups not running for election were banned. Nevertheless, protests continued to grow, with thousands of people protesting throughout the country in June 2017 for free and fair elections, without notable incidents.¹⁰

[30] The constitution and law provide for the right of peaceful assembly, and the government increasingly respected this right.¹¹ Nonpartisan groups intending to criticize the government or government leaders, however, often encountered the presence of police who prevented them from holding the event. Usually authorities claimed the timing or venue requested was problematic or that the proper authorities had not received notification. Police were at times reported to have fired into the crowd during protests or used force to disperse them. The government at times arbitrarily restricted the activities of associations it considered subversive by refusing to grant permits for organized activities.¹² It was also reported to have dispersed grassroots anti-government gatherings with violence, subjecting participants and organizers to arrest.¹³

[31] On the other hand, authorities generally permitted opposition parties to organize and hold meetings. Individuals reported practicing self-censorship but generally were able to criticize government policies without fear of direct reprisal. Social media was widely used in the larger cities and provided an open forum for discussion.¹⁴

[32] The objective documentation, as well as the country documents presented by the claimants, indicate that sometimes the government of Angola openly represses its people’s ability to express their political opinions. It does not do so in a systematic way; individuals can have open discussions about their political views in person and on social media. Self-censorship occurs, however, and the preponderance of the objective documentation indicates that protesters are often arrested in Angola and peaceful, non-partisan gatherings intended to be critical of government are regularly disrupted by police. It is telling that the Freedom House report¹⁵ considers the fact that Angolans are increasingly willing to express their political opinions in private as a significant step forward.

[33] Having considered all of the above, the panel finds the principal claimant’s testimony about the protests he attended and the police reaction to protesters to be reflected in the documentary evidence and thus, objectively supported. The situation is improving, but the ability to protest without fear of arrest or violence from police is restricted.

[34] As such, the panel accepts that the principal claimant has a subjective fear of returning to Angola, based on his political opinion. He would be unable to protest peacefully in that country without fear of arrest or violence by police.

[35] With regards to state protection, the panel notes that the state is the agent of persecution. The government is in control of its territory. Security forces in Angola enjoy impunity for violent acts committed against detainees, activists, and others.¹⁶ There is no effective protection against unjustified imprisonment, lengthy pretrial detention, extortion, or torture. Angolan prisons are reported to be overcrowded, unhygienic, lacking in basic necessities, and plagued by sexual abuse. There is clear and convincing evidence before the panel that state protection would not be forthcoming to the principal claimant in his particular circumstances.

[36] As it relates to internal flight alternatives, there is no area of Angola where the principal claimant could protest peacefully without fear of reprisal. Therefore there is no internal flight alternative available to him in his particular circumstances.

Associated and Minor Claimants

[37] The panel sympathies with the difficult situation that the associated and minor claimants are in. The associated claimant has XXXX XXXX¹⁷ and is undergoing XXXX XXXX treatment.¹⁸ The minor claimant is in the care of her mother, though the principal claimant is currently still in her life.

[38] This is a split decision. The principal claimant has a political opinion that puts him at risk of persecution. However, the claimants have not established that it was his political opinion that has lead to the attack on him and his father. They have not established a forward-looking risk, relating to the persons responsible for the attack on the principal claimant, to himself or the associated claimants, nor has any nexus or personalized risk been established for the associated claimants. Therefore, the panel finds that the principal claimant has established his claim but the associated claimants have not.

[39] In short, the adult claimants are separated and they have not established that the principal claimant’s political opinion will cause the remaining claimants problems in Angola.

[40] The panel considered whether the associated claimant’s medical conditions might warrant the granting of her claim for protection. The medical information¹⁹ provided indicates that she was diagnosed with XXXX XXXX in Angola and eventually received treatment for the condition. Similarly, though she was XXXX with XXXX in Canada, the documentation and submissions of counsel regarding XXXX treatment²⁰ in Angola indicate that she can obtain treatment in Luanda, where she formerly worked and resided.

[41] The claimants have not advanced allegations that she would be denied treatment in Angola based on a Convention ground. Similarly they have not alleged that she faces a risk based on her medical conditions, which is not caused by the inability of that country to provide adequate health or medical care. Having reviewed the information on file, the panel finds that the claimants have not established a risk to the associated claimant in Angola based on her medical conditions under sections 96 or 97(1) of the IRPA.

[42] Under these circumstances, the panel finds the associated claimant has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that she or the minor claimant face a risk of harm, that is, a reasonable chance of persecution in regard to s. 96 of the IRPA, or, a likelihood of the harm that is set out in s. 97(1) of the IRPA, should they return to Angola.

CONCLUSION

[43] The panel concludes that the principal claimant XXXX XXXX XXXX is a Convention refugee, on the basis of his political opinion.

[44] Having considered all of the evidence, the panel finds that there is not a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground should the associated and minor claimants return to Angola, or that, on a balance of probabilities, they would be personally subjected to a danger of torture or face a risk to life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

[45] The panel concludes that the associated claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and minor claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection. Therefore, their claims are rejected.

(signed) R. JACKSON

May 8, 2019

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

2 Refugee Protection Division Rules (SOR/2012-256).

3 Exhibit 11.

4 Exhibit 6.

5 Exhibit 10, letter with translation pp 104-110.

6 Exhibit 14.

7 Exhibit 10.

8 Exhibit 6.

9 Exhibit 15, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Angola (December 21, 2018), item 4.2.

10 Ibid., items 2.1 and 2.4.

11 Ibid., item 2.1.

12 Ibid.

13 Ibid., item 2.4.

14 Ibid., items 2.1 and 2.4.

15 Ibid., item 2.4.

16 Ibid.

17 Exhibit 18, XXXX report for associated claimant.

18 Exhibits 20-21, Post-hearing submissions and documents.

19 Exhibit 18, XXXX report for associated claimant.

20 Exhibits 20-21, Post-hearing submissions and documents.

All Countries China

2019 RLLR 216

Citation: 2019 RLLR 216
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: October 2, 2019
Panel: S. Morgan
Counsel for the Claimant(s): N/A
Country: China
RPD Number: TB9-14438
Associated RPD Number(s): TB9-14486, TB9-14494, TB9-14495, TB9-14496
ATIP Number: A-2020-00859
ATIP Pages: 002195-002198

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: This is the decision in the refugee claims of XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX and their claims for refugee protection. This decision is being rendered from the bench, and written reasons may be edited.

Determination:

[2] I find Mr. XXXX and the youngest child XXXX are not Convention refugees, as I find they’re excluded pursuant to Article 1(e) of the Convention relating to the status of refugees because they have permanent residence in Japan.

[3] Ms XXXX and the older two children I find to be Convention refugees, as I find their country of reference is China and I find they have a nexus to the Convention for the race and religion.

Allegations:

[4] You set out a comprehensive history in your Basis of Claim Narrative.

[5] To summarize your risks, you fear Chinese authorities that’s owing to ill-treatment of Uyghurs in China. You do not articulate a risk in returning to Japan.

Identity:

[6] Your personal identity as nationals of China is established by your passports and your identity as Uyghurs is established by your testimony and by the language of your testimony and by the other identity documents.

[7] Concerning the status in Japan, the issue is exclusion pursuant to Article 1(e) of the Convention. An Article 1(e) states that the Convention shall not apply to a person who’s recognized by the authorities of the country in which he or she has taken residence as having the rights and obligations which are attached to the possession of nationality of that country.

[8] I note the Federal Court of Appeal in Zeng set out the test to be taken into account when deciding whether Article 1(e) applies and that is considering all relevant factors to the date of the hearing. Does the claimant have status substantially similar to that of its nationals in a third country.

[9] And I find for you, sir, and for your youngest son the answer to that question is yes. Okay.

[10] I note your credible testimony that you all applied for permanent residence and only you and the youngest son were approved. You’re unsure of the reasoning. Think it might have something to do with your work in Japan.

[11] But concerning Ms XXXX and the older children in Japan, I find their status there is not permanent.

[12] The documents you provided today which are your Japanese permits indicate that those three permits had to be renewed and could be denied as they’re at the discretion of Japanese authorities. So, I find that 1(e) exclusion not applicable as you do not have status there akin to citizenship.

[13] So, for you, ma’am, and … and the two older children I’m assessing your risk in returning to China which I find is your only country of nationality.

[14] I found you a credible witness also. You testified about the last time you were in China in 2016, how you were questioned repeatedly by authorities and how you fear what is ongoing there now for Uyghurs and that includes Uyghurs being sent to detention camps for no reason other than being Uyghur, and that’s corroborated by much documentary evidence that you provide and that I find in the National Documentation Package.

[15] I find that treatment of Uyghurs is worsening in China. I note the Department of State report at Item 2.1 of Exhibit 3 indicates that the government significantly intensified its campaign of mass detention of members of Muslim minority groups in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. That authorities have possibly arbitrarily detained 2 million Uyghurs.

[16] I find further you would not have the opportunity to openly practice your faith in China, and that Uyghur activities in religious, commercial, and cultural spheres are severely curtailed in China.

[17] I find the agent of persecution is the State. That it is objectively unreasonable for you to seek State protection, and I find those conditions for Uyghurs exists throughout China, so there’s no internal flight alternative.

[18] So, for you, Madam, and the two older children I do find what you fear amount … amounts to persecution starting from the Chinese Government’s appropriation of your Uyghur names and continuing with an ongoing interference with your ability to freely worship.

[19] I do conclude that you are Convention refugees and I accept your claims.

[20] I thank you all for appearing today.

[21] CLAIMANT: Thank you.

[22] MEMBER: Thank you, Mr. Interpreter. Excellent work. Thank you.

[23] CLAIMANT: Thank you.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 213

Citation: 2019 RLLR 213
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 22, 2019
Panel: Kerry Cundal
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Bassam Azzi
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: VB8-06489
Associated RPD Number(s): VB8-06490, VB8-06491, VB8-06492, VB8-06493
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 003711-003714

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claim ofXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and the joined claimantsXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXand XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, citizens of Egypt who are claiming refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “Act“).¹ The claimants’ identities have been established by copies of their passports.²

ALLEGATIONS

[2] The claimants fear return to Egypt because they fear persecution because of their Nubian ethnicity and they have been targets of a feud in which the principal claimant’s brother was killed. The claimants left Egypt and had temporary status in Kuwait because of their work. The principal claimant has been detained and questioned by police due to his ethnicity and dark skin colour. Further details are highlighted in their Basis of Claim (BOC) forms.³The claimants arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018. The claimants signed the BOCs on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018.⁴

Well-Founded Fear of Persecution and Risk of Harm

[3] The claimants provided a detailed narrative and documents supporting the persecution of their family including employment records, police report, death certificates of family members and articles regarding the persecution and marginalization of Nubians in Egypt.⁵ The objective evidence supports the claimants’ fear of ethnic persecution in Egypt and indicates that the Nubian people in Egypt are an ancient people who live along the border between Sudan and Egypt and they have their own distinct language, customs and culture.⁶ The Nubian people have been marginalized politically, socially and economically in Egypt.⁷ There have been deadly clashes between Arab and Nubian tribes and the state has not taken adequate measures to protect Nubians or settle these conflicts.⁸ Nubians have protested to address the harassment, discrimination and displacement they face in Egypt and have been arrested by Egyptian authorities as a result of the protests.⁹ The state classified some of the Nubian lands as military zones in 2014 further displacing the Nubians in Egypt.¹⁰

[4] The objective evidence indicates that Egypt’s authoritarian regime is instituting wide- scale repression and punitive litigation “under the auspices of its many new laws to surveil and stifle individual voices of dissent in civil society;” the authoritarian regime has acted methodically targeting those voicing dissent against the government including detentions and extrajudicial killings.¹¹

[5] The panel finds that the claimants have established a nexus to race/ethnicity. Based on the totality of the evidence, the panel finds that the claimants would face more than a mere possibility of persecution if they return to Egypt.

State Protection and Internal Flight Alternative

[6] The objective evidence indicates the following regarding state protection in Egypt:

The government inconsistently punished or prosecuted officials who committed abuses, whether in the security services or elsewhere in government. In most cases the government did not comprehensively investigate human rights abuses, including most incidents of violence by security forces, contributing to an environment of impunity.¹²

[7] The general security context in Egypt is uncertain at this time:

President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who first took power in a July 2013 coup, continues to govern Egypt in an authoritarian manner, though the election of a new parliament in late 2015 ended a period of rule by executive decree. Serious political opposition is virtually nonexistent, as both liberal and Islamist activists face criminal prosecution and imprisonment. Terrorism persists unabated in the Sinai Peninsula and has also struck the Egyptian mainland, despite the government’s use of aggressive and often abusive tactics to combat it.¹³

[8] Further evidence provides a general overview of the fragility of the current regime and lack of operationally effective state protection in Egypt:

In the first several months of 2017, Egypt has witnessed a number of events that have challenged the country’s stability and security, economic development, and the rights and freedoms of its citizens. The Egyptian government has continued its repression of public space, even going so far as to physically close the offices of the El Nadeem Center for Rehabilitation of Victims of Violence and Torture in early February. The country is no more stable, with terror groups and the Egyptian state engaged in a war of propaganda narratives.¹⁴

[9] Based on the totality of the evidence, the panel finds that there is no operationally effective state protection available to Nubians who face death threats due to feuds in Egypt from a state that has been complicit in their displacement and marginalization. Further, given the harassment and discrimination of Nubians due to their dark skin colour throughout Egypt, the panel finds that it is not objectively reasonable in their particular circumstances to relocate in Egypt as they would face the same difficulties and harassment throughout Egypt.

CONCLUSION

[10] For the foregoing reasons, the panel determines that the claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 of the Act. The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada therefore accepts their claims.

(signed) Kerry Cundal

February 22, 2019

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

2 Exhibit 1.

3 Exhibits 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5.

4 Exhibits 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5.

5 Exhibits 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5 and 4.

6 Exhibit 4, pp. 76-97.

7 Exhibit 4, pp. 76-97.

8 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP), June 29, 2018, Item 13.1.

9 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.1.

10 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.2.

11 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 4.8.

12 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.1.

13 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.4.

14 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.5.

All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 211

Citation: 2019 RLLR 211
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: April 18, 2019
Panel: J. Schmalzbauer
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Jessica Lipes
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: VB8-06403
Associated RPD Number(s): VB8-06404, VB8-06405, VB8-6406
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 003624-003629

[1] This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claims of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the “principal claimant”) and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the “associate claimant”), as citizens of Egypt, and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX (the “minor children”) who are claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “Act” or IRPA).¹

ALLEGATIONS

[2] The following is a brief synopsis of the allegations that the adult claimants put forth in the Basis of Claim (BOC) forms.² The principal claimant had submitted that for his entire life he and his family have been victims of racial discrimination due to their identities as Nubians. The principal claimant detailed in his narrative having been repeated harassed by authorities and arrested, detained and threatened to stop what he was doing in asking for the rights of his people, including land rights. The principal claimant and the associate claimant were married in 2014 but he was unable to acquire residency rights for his wife in Qatar where he had been working for over a decade. The adult claimants had their first child in the United States (U.S.), they had made attempts to remain in the U.S. through immigration channels but returned to Egypt and Qatar in 2015.

[3] Their second child, was conceived in XXXX. The associate claimant became scared about being forced to circumcise her daughter as is custom. The principal claimant was laid off from his position in Qatar and the family again travelled to the U.S., where their daughter was born.

DETERMINATION

[4] The panel finds that the adult claimants are Convention refugees, as they do have a well- founded fear of persecution related to a Convention ground in Egypt.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[5] The panel is satisfied on a balance of probabilities, that the adult claimants are nationals of Egypt, considering the certified copies of their Egyptian passports.³

Credibility

[6] The duty of this panel is to find if there is sufficient credible or trustworthy evidence to determine that there is more than a mere possibility that the claimants would be persecuted if they returned to Egypt.

[7] The principal claimant was questioned as to his political opinions and beliefs and he was genuine and credible as to his political knowledge, and I find that more likely than not that these are deeply held beliefs and concerns and that he has a right to share those opinions and belief. The claimant submitted Facebook posts from 2011 onwards regarding the political situation in Egypt.⁴ Overall, I accept that the claimants are of Nubian descent and that the principal claimant has been repeatedly targeted for discrimination, including political repression for his identity and political opinion as an Egyptian of Nubian descent.

[8] According to the World Dictionary of Indigenous and Minority Peoples for Egypt 2017:

Frustration has mounted for Egypt’s ethnic minority Nubian community, culminating on 2 January 2017 in the first ever arrest of Nubian activists in direct relation to their struggle against the state. Six were charged with gathering illegally, protesting without a permit, and attacking security forces, after being detained by police on their way to protest a new presidential decree concerning land ownership. They sought to voice opposition to Presidential Decrees 355 and 498, issued in August and November, which stipulate the confiscation of 1,100 acres of land and could yield a new wave of forced evictions of Nubians already forcibly uprooted from their historical homeland with the construction of the Aswan High Dam in the 1960s. A sit-in demonstration in late November 2016 succeeded in pressuring the government into negotiations and Nubian activists and civil society organizations threatened to pursue international arbitration, but suspended their campaign to allow the state to resolve the issue.⁵

[9] In the U.S. DOS report, that Nubians face discrimination, harassment. It speaks of the political arrests and the resulting protests.⁶

[10] Further country condition evidence before the panel further supports his allegations of political repression:

A February 2017 Reuters article states that “[h]uman rights groups estimate [that] about 40,000 people have been detained for political reasons” since Morsi was deposed Freedom House’s Freedom in the World report for 2017 similarly indicates that civil society organizations “estimate that as many as [40,000] people were being detained for political reasons as of 2016, most of them for real or suspected links to the Muslim Brotherhood”[…]In its 2016 report entitled Egypt: ‘Officially, You Do Not Exist’: Disappeared and Tortured in the Name of Counter-terrorism, Amnesty International states that a “pattern of abuse” that includes arbitrary arrests, arbitrary detention and enforced disappearances by state agents became “particularly evident since March 2015[…]According to lawyers involved in their cases, around 90% of those who are subjected to enforced disappearance are subsequently processed through the criminal justice system on charges such as planning or participating in unauthorized protests or attacking members of the security forces.”⁷

[11] Currently the situation is devolving for those individuals wanted by authorities for questioning on their political or imputed political opinion given the new Emergency Law.

While the exact details of the Emergency Law and how it will be applied were unclear at the publication date, it is likely that the military will be granted extended powers. DFAT assesses that detentions and arrests are likely to increase as a result of the declaration of a nation-wide state of emergency. Sisi also proposed the establishment of a Supreme Council to combat Terrorism and extremism, which would consider new powers for police and intelligence investigators and allow for the fast-tracking of terrorism cases through the court system.⁸

[12] Further evidence submitted by the claimants further supports the increasing repression from the state against Nubian activists.⁹

[13] The principal claimant has been active on social media, and according to the International Journal of Not for-Profit Law:

Egypt’s parliament preliminarily approved the cybercrime draft law on May 14, 2018. The draft “Anti- Cyber and Information Technology Crimes Law” primarily targets the illegal use of private data and other crimes that can take place online, but some of its provisions use broad terminology that could be used to penalize lawful online expression and shutter independent media outlets.¹⁰

Concerns have been raised of the authorities’ capacity and legal ability to target and silence online dissent from the new law.

[14] The principal claimant, which I accept, was arrested and interrogated due to his political opinions. The principal claimant submitted evidence of his online posts against the political situation which the panel has found to be credible. I do find that the risk of loss of liberty is a serious infringement on the human right to liberty and personal integrity. Given the objective evidence of the situation of similarly situated persons, and the claimants’ evidence of having been previously sought, I find that there is more than a serious possibility of political persecution for the claimant throughout Egypt.

State Protection

[15] State protection would not be reasonably forthcoming in this particular case, as the particular agent of harm is the state authorities. The country condition evidence supports that many citizens are deprived of their rights of due process, are arrested without warrants, face harassment and physical and psychological abuse from officials throughout Egypt.¹¹

Internal Flight Alternative

[16] The panel finds that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Egypt. There is no obligation for the claimants to be in hiding. The state has control of its territories and has used state authorities in order to intimidate the claimant. The principal claimant’s profile is to such a level that it would more likely than not continue to cause the claimant to be persecuted throughout Egypt.

CONCLUSION

[17] For the foregoing reasons the panel finds that, principal and associate claimants are Convention refugees as set out in section 96. Therefore, their claims are accepted.

U.S. Born Minor Children

[18] The principal claimant acted as the designated representative for the minor children. No evidence was adduced and no submissions were made against the U.S. as a country of persecution or risk.

[19] I find that no evidence was adduced that the minor claimants would face a serious possibility of harm amounting to persecution, or that they would on a balance of probabilities, face a risk to life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or a danger of torture whether under section 96 or section 97(1) of IRPA. Since the minor claimants have adduced no evidence of a risk of return to the U.S., their claims for refugee protection are rejected.

(signed) J. Schmalzbauer

April 18, 2019

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

2 Exhibit 2.

3 Exhibit 1.

4 Exhibit 4, Item 5.

5 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP), Egypt, March 29, 2019, Item 12.2.

6 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.1.

7 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 4.5 Response to Information Request (RIR) EGY105804.E.

8 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 1 .8.

9 Exhibit 4.

10 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 4.2.

11 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.1.

All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 170

Citation: 2019 RLLR 170
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 15, 2019
Panel: M. Vega
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Latoya Graham
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB7-13974
Associated RPD Number(s): TB7-14095
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000437-000441

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: This is the decision in the claims with respect to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX. The principal File Number is TB7-13974.

[2] The adult claimant claims to be a citizen of Egypt and her son XXXX XXXX XXXX claims to be a citizen of United States of America. Both claimants are claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[3] This decision is being rendered orally today; a written form of these reasons may be edited for spelling, syntax, grammar; and references to the applicable case law, legislation and Exhibits may also be included.

[4] Furthermore, the adult claimant Ms. XXXX is the designated representative of her minor child XXXX. In this claim, I have also taken into consideration the Chairperson’s Guidelines with respect to women refugee or gender refugee claims and this is Guideline 4.

[5] I find that the principal claimant is a national of Egypt as is established by her testimony as well as by the supporting documentation filed, namely, her passport which is found in Exhibit 1, and from this evidence I conclude on a balance of probabilities that she has Egyptian citizenship.

[6] With respect to XXXX, I find that he is also a citizen of the United States of America and I conclude this from his American passport as well as his American birth certificate, both the documents have been filed as Exhibits.

[7] I find, Ms. XXXX, that you are a Convention refugee for the following reasons, and I also find that your son, XXXX XXXX, is not a Convention refugee and I will explain it a little later.

[8] In this case, the issue of the claimant’s identity is partly that she is not only an Egyptian citizen but she is also, and perhaps foremost, she is identified as a Palestinian, and that is because both her parents were and all her family members are Palestinians, and one could say that then the nexus could be either under the issue of national or rather, because it is not a State, the lack of nationality, but it is in her case as in other persons who are Palestinians of Palestinian heritage, it is part of their identity.

[9] In the case of the claimant, she is not a stateless Palestinian because she has the nationality of an Egyptian citizen, but this claim is based on the fact that the treatment that she has received repeatedly over the years has been that of imputed or that she is imputed as though she were a stateless Palestinian even though she is not.

[10] So, the Basis of Claim Form contains the allegations of this case, I have briefly touched on it. The claimant was married once before. It was in that marriage that she acquired her Egyptian citizenship. She is currently divorced from that husband, she had a child with that first spouse and she later, after the divorce, married her current husband.

[11] Her current husband is also of Palestinian origin and lived also in Saudi Arabia, and that marriage was arranged by her mother, but nonetheless that husband or current husband has no legal status in Egypt. He is not a part of this claim. His circumstances have been testified to by the claimant as through his circumstances she has been able to speak about how persons that have no other citizenship or that are stateless such as her husband, how they are treated, and also I mean her mother is also in a similar situation but they are not part of this claim.

[12] So, the claimants left Egypt, and in 2017, went to the United States of America where she stayed for 1 day and then crossed into Canada or tried to, at the border she made her claim for refugee protection. She had a sister in Canada who has been living here for 21 years, and it was on the basis of having a sister here that she was allowed into Canada with her son to make the claim.

[13] Her testimony as well as her Basis of Claim Form speaks about many times being harassed and humiliated at checkpoints because her identification indicates that she is of Palestinian origin and not of Egyptian origin.

[14] She indicates that on her visits when she would leave Egypt and return either to Saudi Arabia mostly, then she would face about twice a year for about 4 years she said she would face hours of being made to wait by the security officials at the airport and she felt humiliated at this all the time.

[15] She also puts in her Basis of Claim Form and later spoke in testimony about how she suffered discrimination repeatedly because she is a Palestinian, and that whenever she went for a job application or an interview, jobs for which she was very qualified, as she had worked in Saudi Arabia on a work permit and worked in these jobs, and yet in Egypt as soon as they notice the identifiers in her ID card or in her passport, the first two digits would indicate that she is a Palestinian, she never received the job in all the years that she kept trying to find employment in Egypt.

[16] She testified that she was often told by some of the employers or prospective employers that the reason she was being denied the job was because of her Palestinian origin.

[17] She also spoke within her Basis of Claim Form how she was also subjected to car searches and personal searches at checkpoints by police and the questioning that was asked was because of her Palestinian status despite being an Egyptian citizen.

[18] So, Ms. XXXX, I have found you to be a credible witness. You did provide your answers at this hearing without embellishment. You answered all the questions without discrepancies in your evidence and your responses were consistent with your Basis of Claim Form and the amendments as well as with your other evidence. I did ask you many questions and I find that these have assisted in establishing your credibility in a favourable manner.

[19] Now, I have considered the documentary material, much of which speaks mostly about stateless Palestinians and your situation is not the same as theirs, but counsel in her submissions made some interesting points, which are especially about how, while you have the protection so to speak of having an Egyptian passport, that’s the official position and in theory, that it is a de facto situation you do not benefit it seems from that Egyptian citizenship, and that you are humiliated and questioned longer than anybody else who has an Egyptian passport and that is because of your ties to Palestinian origins, and this no matter what citizenship you seem to have keeps following you.

[20] The counsel made reference to the Federal Court decision of Xie about the systematic denial of a right to work.

[21] Now, the right to work of your husband is also existent, but I am not looking at his situation am looking at the fact that even though you have the benefit of an Egyptian passport in Egypt, you have still been denied systematically, I would say, the ability or to secure employment to support yourself, and when this happens on a systematic basis, I consider the right to support yourself to be a core human right, and therefore I find that you have faced cumulative discrimination that amounts to persecution.

[22] There has been, I believe in your case, a pattern of repression and the effects of which are that the institutions such as the authority of the Egyptian government which should be protecting you, it would seem from the evidence that you have been denied and that you are not provided with that protection, partly because it is the government itself that made the decrees and certain laws making it harder or practically for stateless Palestinians they have no rights, but for persons such as yourself, there doesn’t seem to, even though you are not a stateless Palestinian, the distinction and the protection you should have been afforded, I don’t believe has been afforded to you.

[23] The document referred by counsel, which is in the National Documentation Package found in Item 3.4, it speaks more generally there about Palestinians in Egypt. It speaks about how the policy changes, or what I refer to as a decree, were made by Mubarak, but these have continued and they have not improved. These have restricted work and the ability of families to reunite.

[24] While that was perhaps more so to address the situation of those that were not granted the benefit of an Egyptian citizenship, in your case, as I have already mentioned, you are perceived to be Palestinian and that you have then experienced similar discriminatory practices that they have had imposed on them in Egypt, and so therefore, if you were being denied your rights as an Egyptian citizen over and over again because of your origins as a Palestinian, then that in my opinion amounts to persecution.

[25] Given this current situation that is described in the National Documentation Package with how the government since the revolution in 2011 and then again afterwards which brought in the current government, the situation does not appear to have become better with respect to human rights.

[26] On the contrary, it appears that human rights have deteriorated according to many sources, and the preponderance of documents including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Freedom House and the United States Department of State, they speak about the rights, the authorities arbitrarily restricting rights to the population, and in your case if you are imputed to be a Palestinian national or a person who is of Palestinian origin, then I don’t believe you would be protected.

[27] So, I don’t believe that there is State protection that is adequate in your situation given that you are overall perceived to be of the Palestinian origin and often treated as though you were stateless.

[28] Also with respect to internal flight alternative, the situation for you will be the same throughout the country in my opinion. I don’t believe that you would have an internal flight alternative. So, you cannot go elsewhere in the country apart from out of Cairo and stay safe because you would face the same serious grounds of persecution.

[29] So, for these reasons, I find that you, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX are a Convention refugee, and I therefore accept your claim.

[30] With respect to XXXX, however, there has been no evidence submitted regarding the United States of America that would refute the presumption of State protection for your son in that country of which I find that he is a citizen by virtue of his having a United States of America passport.

[31] Therefore, I find that XXXX XXXX XXXX is not a Convention refugee and I reject his claim for protection. Do you understand that?

[32] Thank you. This hearing is now ended and the hearing is concluded.

[33] Thanks Mr. Interpreter for all your assistance. Good day counsel. Good day everyone.

[34] INTERPRETER: Thank you.

[35] COUNSEL: Thank you.

[36] MEMBER: All the best to you ma’am.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-