Tag: Race/Ethnicity/Nationality

Categories
All Countries Sri Lanka

2020 RLLR 43

Citation: 2020 RLLR 43
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: October 30, 2020
Panel: C. Peterdy
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Ian Wong
Country: Sri Lanka
RPD Number: TB9-09362
ATIP Number: A-2021-00655
ATIP Pages: 000093-000099

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: This is the decision in the claim for refugee protection of [XXX]. The file number is TB0-09362. I have considered your oral testimony and the other evidence in this case and I’m ready to render my decision orally.

[2]       (Indiscernible) claiming to be a citizen of Sri Lanka and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[3]       I find that you are a convention refugee on the grounds of your ethnicity, religion, and an imputed political opinion for the following reasons:

[4]       Your allegations are made out in your Basis of Claim Form which is found at Exhibit 2. In summary, you allege that you are a citizen of Sri Lanka and that you fear harm at the hands of the Sri Lankan government, army, police, and security forces, as well as ballistic extremist as a Tamil-speaking Muslim.

[5]       You allege that you and your family historically faced discrimination and harassment as Muslims. You allege that after the Candy Riots of [XXX] 2018, you and your employee were attacked by Sinhalese men and called racial slurs. Sinhalese people also boycotted your business.

[6]       You further allege that land you had purchased in 2012 was supposedly taken by the military in 2013. You reached out to government officials and even held a demonstration in 2018 to have the land returned.

[7]       A lawsuit was filed against the army in 2017 by the man from whom you purchased the land. As a result of your efforts, you faced harassment and threats. In [XXX] 2019, you were detained by the Terrorist Investigation Department, or TID, for one day where you were questioned about your work, your trips abroad and who funded these trips. The TID alleged they had information about your anti-government and anti-Buddhist activities and accused you of turning innocent people against the government. You were beaten by the TID and released with a strict warning not to engage in anti-government activities.

[8]       The man who sold you the land and who had purchased — sorry — who had sold you the land and who had launched the court case against the Military received threatening phone calls and went missing in [XXX] 2019. You also received threatening phone calls in [XXX] 2019. It was then that you determined it was no longer safe for you to remain in Sri Lanka and you fled to Canada.

[9]       Since fleeing, the army has returned to your home and gone to your Mosque and your wife’s workplace to inquire about your whereabouts. Your wife was informed that on return to Sri Lanka you are to present yourself to the Ampara Police Station concerning an investigation into your anti-government activities and a discovery of explosives on your land.

[10]     Your identity as National of Sri Lanka has been established on a balance of probabilities by your testimony and the identification documents found in Exhibit 1 and 6, including your passport and National ID card.

[11]     In terms of your general credibility, I have found you to be a credible witness and I therefore believe what you have alleged in your oral testimony and in your Basis of Claim Form. Your testimony was straightforward and consistent with your Basis of Claim Form. You did not embellish your testimony and there were no significant omissions or inconsistencies. Your testimony was spontaneous and included the detail one would expect from someone telling their own story.

[12]     You also provided several documents to corroborate your claim and the risks alleged. These include documents corroborating your work and involvement in the business community. At Exhibit 6, you have your business registration, Ampara District Chamber of Commerce and Industry ID, as well as certificates of membership from 2016 and 2018, Certificate of Membership from the International Association of Lions Club. You’ve provided documents confirming the land you purchased in Exhibit 6 and 8. There’s the land permit showing the grant of four acres to [XXX] (ph) as well as his affidavit confirming transfer of this land to you after receipt of [XXX], and a copy of the selling agreement and a request to have the land permit transferred to your name.

[13]     You provided the court order from [XXX] 2017 corroborating your allegation that a case was filed by [XXX] and dismissed by the court in (indiscernible) because the land falls under the Ampara Court’s jurisdiction.

[14]     There’s a letter from the lawyer who represented you and confirms that you and [XXX] approached him for help. He states that the re-opening of the case in Ampara had to be suspended because [XXX] went missing and you were being harassed and ultimately fled to Canada.

[15]     There’s a letter from your Mosque, your wife, your father, a friend, and an employee who are aware of what has happened to you in Sri Lanka. [XXX] (ph) (indiscernible) states that the TID has visited the Mosque asking about you. Your wife states that since you fled, the TID has gone to your home in [XXX] 2019 and twice in [XXX] 2019 after the Easter bombings to ask about you and to search the home. [XXX] (ph) confirms that he was with you in [XXX] 2018 when you were attacked by Sinhalese men and called a racial slur.

[16]     Based on your testimony as well as the documents provided to corroborate your claim, I find on a balance of probabilities that you have established that you were harassed and targeted because you were a Muslim. I further find that you have established on a balance of probabilities that you purchased land that was forcibly taken by the military and that after trying various avenues of recourse to have the land returned to you, you were arrested, detained, and questioned by the TID.

[17]     I accept that the TID believes that you are opposed to the Government and have engaged in in anti-Sinhalese and anti-Buddhist activities and as a result, you face a serious possibility of persecution in Sri Lanka. Furthermore, I find that you have established subjective fear of harm.

[18]     The objective evidence in both the National Documentation Package found in Exhibit 3 and counsel’s Country Conditions Package found at Exhibit 7, further corroborates what you allege and the risk you face as a Muslim in Sri Lanka.

[19]     With respect to the land issue, Item 10.4 of the National Documentation Package is particularly instructive. It’s a Human Rights Watch Report on Land Occupation from October 2018. That corroborates the issue you had with your land being taken by the military as well as the challenges in having the land returned.

[20]     Security forces have occupied new land even after the end of the war to expand their role and presence in civilian activities including infrastructure development, tourism and administration. It contains examples of military going into villages, forcibly taking land and erecting military camps in the East and in Ampara, which is the district where you lived.

[21]     The report raises concerns that “the Sinhalese-dominated state is seeking to diminish the rights of minorities through continued militarization and territorial aggrandizement.”

[22]     There are many challenges getting the land back. The government’s approach seems at best ad hoc, and decisions are too often left to the discretion of the security forces, without a serious effort to systematically map and review military use of land as well as the status of release and reparations initiatives.

[23]     The report also talks about specific incidents where people have filed complaints in the court for their land and have been harassed forcing them to withdraw these complaints. Most cases that have been filed are either still ongoing or did not result in the release of the lands.

[24]     There are also numerous documents in both the National Documentation Package and counsel’s Country Conditions Package that discuss the rise in anti-Muslim sentiment that has occurred in Sri Lanka over the past six or seven years. There’s been violent attacks, threats, and harassments that came to a head in 2018 after the Candy Riots and again, in 2019 after the Easter bombings.

[25]     The articles in Exhibit 7 as well as Items 1.9, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 12.1, 12.5, 12.6, 12.8, and 12.9 in Exhibit 3 all discuss the myriad of attacks against Muslims in retaliation for the Easter bombings.

[26]     Exhibit 7, there’s an article that talks about “angry mobs” going house to house to attack and threaten Muslims. On article — another article in Exhibit 7 states that the Human Rights Watch is urging the government to stop mob violence, threats, and discrimination against Muslims. Authorities are arbitrarily arresting and detaining hundreds under counterterrorism and emergency laws, and there had been a lot of arrests under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which allows long-term detention without charge or trial.

[27]     Human Rights Watch spoke to lawyers who had a list of 105 detainees that summarized the justification for arrest by authorities and included such reasons such as keeping money at home, talking in a playground, a post that’s shared on social media five years back, having English lecturer documents, Arabic songs on their laptop, or travelling to Jaffna for a job. Or simply no reason. Abuses by authorities had long been prevalent and unaddressed by the government.

[28]     And Government leaders themselves appeared to associate themselves with Buddhist Nationalist elements. On May 23rd, 2019, then President Sirisena pardoned the leader of (indiscernible) of the Buddhist-extremist group known for targeting Muslims.

[29]     In Item 12.8 which was also included in Exhibit 7, states that months after the Easter bombings, the situation is still dangerous, even though attacks were committed by a fringe group of Muslims. Muslims in general are facing significant backlash.

[30]     The government has sat idly by or even egged on violence and political divisions in Government have constructed efforts to reform the dysfunctional police and intelligence services.

[31]     Since the election of Gotabaya Rajapaksa as President in 2019, and Mahinder (ph) Rajapaksa as Prime Minister in 2020, the security situation and conditions in Sri Lanka have only deteriorated. Concerns of any gains made under the previous government towards improving the human rights situation, would be reversed are reflected both counsel’s Country Conditions Package and the National Documentation Package.

[32]     Item 2.13 noted that the concern that the government will roll back any progress made under the previous government towards improving the human rights situation and that this government will renege on promises made under the former government. Item 4.13 of the National Document Package states that since Rajapaksa seeking power there is a trend towards authoritarianism and militarization. There has been a crack down on human rights with no regard for minorities. Rajapaksa is dismissive of what he calls divisive political demands and frames them as a result of manipulation by Tamil politicians and western aligned interests.

[33]     Item 13.1 states that human rights have deteriorated significantly since Rajapaksa was elected president. Both Gotabaya and Mahinder Rajapaksa have espoused anti-Muslim news publicly.  An article in Exhibit 7 sates that Gotabaya campaigned on the province to protect Sri Lanka from the Muslim threat, and after the election, he appointed an all male cabinet with no Tamil or Muslim representatives.

[34]     Another article from 2020 states that Gotabaya and Mahinder Rajapaksa campaigned on a nationalist platform projecting your family as protectors of the Sinhalese Buddhist population. There has always been anti-Tamilism (ph) in the country, but recently there has been arise in hatred against the Muslim minority too. Mahinder Rajapaksa’s message has been that Sri Lanka belongs toto the Sinhalese and that Tamils are Muslims are their permanent threats.

[35]     In 2020, a year after the Easter bombings, the situation from has not improved, and in fact, has worsened due to the global pandemic of COVID 19. Item 12.5, which was also included in exhibit 7, states that concerns were raised in April 2020 about recent arrests of well-known Muslims, biased government actions and rising ant-Muslim hate speech. COVID has worsened the situation, where there has been calls to boycott Muslim business and accusations that Muslims are deliberately spreading COVID 19. Senior government figures have made public remarks associating the Muslim community with COVID 19 infections.

[36]     Another article states that the government’s frequent incidents of demonization, vilification and state guarding of Sri Lanka’s Muslim population are a cause of great concern. The government has mandated cremation for those who have died due to COVID 19 and the body of the first Muslim death due to COVID 19 was forceable cremated against the wishes of his family and against urging of the Muslim community and religious leaders, a policy that was seen as discriminatory. This was also reflected in Item 12.9, which again noted the discriminatory law mandating cremation for those who die from COVID and for accusing the Muslim community being at high risk for spreading the disease. In the past year [XXX] have been arbitrarily arrested and accused critiquing Buddhism and the government.

[37]     Furthermore, the objective documents confirm the risk he would face on return to Sri Lanka as a Muslim who is under investigation by the TID and has been accused of engaging in anti-government and anti­ Buddhist activities. Item 1.9 of the National Documentation Package states that there is a watch list which includes names of those individuals of the Sri Lankan Security Services considered to be of interest, including for suspected separatists or criminal activities.

[38]     Item 4.11 states that returning failed asylum seekers would likely be questioned at the airport by immigration officials and may be passed to the criminal investigation department. But they do security checks at the airport where they look into a police database from where the returnee is from, and it is not unusual to have further checks at home and to be monitored.

[39]     Item 14.6 states that returnees are checked against the watch list maintained by police as well as one maintained by State Intelligent Services. Returnees are questioned on arrivai by the Department of Immigration and Emigration, State Intelligence Services and Criminal Investigation Department for a few hours to several days. They may also be visited by police at their residence at a later time after the interrogation. Returnees from western countries in particular are placed under surveillance to determine whether they have ties to the LTTE.

[40]     Therefore, based on this documentary evidence, I find that the claimant has an objectively well-founded fear of persecution.

[41]     I find that state protection would not be available to you were you to seek it in Sri Lanka. Where agents of the state themselves are sources of persecution, the presumption of state protection may be rebutted without exhausting ail avenues of recourse in the country. In this case, the agents of persecution are the state; the police, army and intelligence community. Your evidence is that since fleeing, the TID has informed your wife that you are under investigation for engaging in anti-government activities. For that reason, it would not be reasonable to expect you to approach the state for protection.

[42]     The National Documentation Package also contains information about the Human Rights Commission in Sri Lanka. Item 1.9 states that the commission can only make recommendations to the Attorney General, but there is evidence that the state is not investigating a major of complaints filed. This report further states that Sri Lanka Jacks independent and efficient mechanisms to address complains to torture.

[43]     Item 2.2 also states that limited steps are taken to hold perpetrators of serious human right violations accountable. In Item 2.3, it is noted that police and security forces are known to engage in abusive practices, including extra judicial executions, forced disappearances, custodial rape, and torture.

[44]     So in light of the objective country documentation, as well as your persona) experience, I find that the claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection. And based on this information again, I find that there would not be adequate state protection available to you in Sri Lanka.

[45]     I have also considered whether a viable internal fight alternative exists for you, however, given that the agent of persecution is the state and you have been targeted both the army and TID, I find that you face a serious possibility of persecution throughout Sri Lanka. Item 1.9 states that Sri Lankan forces maintain effective control throughout the country and individuals are unlikely to relocate internally with anonymity. You are known to security officials who believe you have engaged in anti-government activities. Security officials have repeatedly gone to your home looking for you and have instructed your wife to have you present yourself to the Ampara police station (indiscernible). Therefore, I find there is no viable IFA, or internal flight alternative, for you in Sri Lanka.

[46]     Based on the totality of the evidence, I find that you have established on a balance of probabilities that there is a serious possibility of persecution if you were to return to Sri Lanka. Therefore, I find that you are a convention refugee and your claim is therefore accepted.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Categories
All Countries Romania

2020 RLLR 41

Citation: 2020 RLLR 41
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: July 7, 2020
Panel: G. Griffith
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Peter G Ivanyi
Country: Romania
RPD Number: TB9-02978
Associated RPD Number: TB9-03059, TB9-03070
ATIP Number: A-2021-00655
ATIP Pages: 000076-000084

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]       [XXX], the principal claimant, his common-law spouse, [XXX], the female claimant, and their son, [XXX], the minor, claim refugee protection in Canada, pursuant to s. 96 and s.97 (1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)i.

[2]       The minor son was born in the USA and is a citizen of the USA.

[3]       [XXX] was appointed Designated Representative for the minor son.

INTRODUCTION

[4]       The claimants claim to be ethnic “Roma”, and the adult claimants, who were born in Romania, testify that, in Romania, they have been victims of extreme discrimination, because of their ethnicity. They allege that, in a number of cases of discrimination and confrontation by Romanians, the police in Romania have not assisted, or have been complicit.

[5]       The adult claimants left Romania in [XXX] and, after a stay in the USA, where an asylum claim was made, they travelled to Canada on [XXX] 2018.

[6]       The principal claimant lived for brief periods in Sweden and Belgium in the years 2003 and 2006, respectively.

[7]       The Minister’s Representative provided submissions (written only) on the issue of the credibility of the overall testimony, as well as with specific concerns and request for clarification on the nature of criminal charges issued to the principal claimant in the USA, and clarification on the claimants’ method of entering Canada.

[8]       No evidence was adduced in the claim of the US-born minor claimant.

[9]       The principal claimant is also the father of three children who, at the time of the hearing, were listed as being resident in Romania.

ALLEGATIONS:

[10]     A summary of the key elements of the testimony is, as follows.

[11]     The principal claimant gave oral testimony in which he states the following, as in the written narrative of the claimants’ Basis of Claim (BOC)ii Form.

[12]     He states that in Romania, starting at an early age, as an ethnic Roma, he, personally, experienced extreme discrimination and persecution.

[13]     He testifies that he and his spouse are identified as “Roma” in Romania, as that, generally, a Roma is identified by a combination of skin color, facial hair, manner of dress, customs, language, and places of residence, and that they endure certain impositions such as that a “Roma” must register with the police if there is any attempt at residential relocation.

[14]     The principal claimant testifies that he experienced those conditions, starting as a young child, and that, at school, he experienced hard times, being called names such as “dirty gypsy” or “crow”. He testifies that the teachers at school had no sympathy for him, or for other Roma students from his community.

[15]     The principal claimant testifies that, as a result of the regular harassment at school, he sought employment at an early age, but that in searching for employment, also, he experienced difficulties and discrimination. He testifies that he was regularly refused employment, with only the explanation that he was Roma.

[16]     The principal claimant testifies further, that, as an adult, also, he experienced direct physical and verbal abuse by Romanian persons, and even by the police in Romania. He testifies that on three occasions when he sought help of the police in Romania, he was rebuffed and insulted.

[17]     The principal claimant testifies to the following specific incidents that he faced as an adult., such as happened in Romania at a market, in the year 2008. On that occasion, he states, he became involved in a physical and verbal altercation at a grocery store with employees who perceived that his cousin, his wife and himself were there to steal.

[18]     The principal claimant testifies that they were followed around, and, at the cashier, an employee pulled the hair of his cousin. He testifies that he intervened, to also protect his wife, and he was punched in the face, and they were called “crows”. As well, when they managed to exit the store, they noticed on that there were other persons on the outside who were gathering to physically abuse them.

[19]     The principal claimant testifies that, in that same year, 2008, while on his way to work in one of the villages, he was beaten by racist Romanians. Also, in that same year, he and his wife were kicked out of a restaurant because Romanians in the building felt uncomfortable. And, when he attempted to make a report to the police, it was not accepted.

[20]     The principal claimant states, further, that in the year 2010, while driving with a friend, they were pulled over by the police, and that even after offering a bribe, they were beaten by the police.

[21]     The principal claimant testifies further, as contained in his narrativeiii, to incidents that occurred in the years 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015, where the underlying facts are alleged to be incidents of discrimination, and physical altercations with Romanians, in which, also, he states, the police in Romania did not offer any assistance, following complaints, and that the police, themselves, assisted in the discrimination.

[22]     The principal claimant testifies that he left Romania in [XXX] 2016, and, after travelling with his brother [XXX] through [XXX] he arrived in the USA, where he asked for asylum.

[23]     The principal claimant testifies that he was arrested for being illegally in the USA, and, later, he was released, with an ankle monitor device.

[24]     The principal claimant testifies that, on [XXX] 2018, he and the spouse travelled to Canada in order to make a refugee claim, and they did so, travelling by boat.

DETERMINATION

[25]     For reasons below, I find that the claimants are Convention refugees, as, in my opinion, their expressed subjective fear has an objective basis.iv

ANALYSIS

[26]     The claimants’ national identity is established on the basis of a certified true copy of documentsv submitted by Immigration Canada, and, as well, as established in their package of personal documentsvi which include a copy of the national Identity card of Romania, in the name of the adult claimants.

Credibility/plausibility

[27]     I agree with counsel’s submissions, namely that, overall, the evidence is credible, and that it presents information of a serious violation of the claimants’ human rights in Romania.

[28]     I am satisfied that the principal claimant presented his testimony in a straightforward and consistent manner, and I find that he clarified, satisfactorily, the concerns raised by the Ministervii, in the written document.

[29]     I find that the principal claimant has adequately clarified that a charge against him in the USA was the result of an accusation of a [XXX] and that, in the end, it was [XXX] by a US Judge.

[30]     I note that, also, as clarification, the principal claimant has explainedviii that, in [XXX] by the police on a [XXX] on the street. Similarly, he explained, in [XXX], the principal claimant was [XXX] for the same offence of [XXX] on the street. He returned to Romania in 2007, following which he travelled around Europe job hunting, but eventually resorting to [XXX].

[31]     I find that the principal claimant was straightforward in his testimony in this area, and, with particular respect to the Minister’s concern on the charge against the principal claimant in the USA, the testimony is accepted, and not fatal to the claims.

[32]     As well, I find that the details of the manner in which the adult claimants entered Canada [XXX] in a process that, seemingly was contrary to CBSA requirements, is not a bar to the making of a refugee claim, and given the clarification provided.

Objective Basis

[33]     I find that the claims, as presented by the adult claimants, are supported by the guidelines in the Hand Bookix, and by the case-lawx, where it is held that a number of discriminatory and harassing acts may cumulatively amount to persecution.

[34]     I find that, in addition to the claimants’ undisputed testimony, I can rely on the documentary evidencexi, some of which forms part of Counsel’s submissions.

[35]     In his writtenxii and oral submissions, Counsel has provided a helpful review of the country condition documents and case law that relate to Romania, and as found in his documentary packagexiii.

[36]     In my own review, also, I find that a relevant guide to my conclusions is found in excerpts of the Response to Information Request, ROU105285.Exiv, as follows.

[37]     In that documentxv, the following is said, in part.

” … The World Bank report indicates that Roma in Romania are “poor, vulnerable and socially excluded” (28 Feb. 2014, 5). A report produced by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) that” draws on the results of the UNDP/World Bank /European Commission regional Roma 2011 survey [3]”, reports that approximately 81 percent of Roma are at risk of poverty compared to approximately 41 percent of non-Roma (EU and UN 2012, 24.xvi

Under the heading Treatment of Roma (Treatment by Society), it is stated that, “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 areas of education, housing, health and employment (US 25 June 2015)… Country Reports 2014 notes that stereotypes and discriminatory language regarding Roma was widespread (US 25 June 2015,33)… According to a report the Open Society Foundation (OSF)… indicates that “pervasive racism and racist violence continue to distance many Roma families and groups from the greater society (OSF 10 Sept 2013yvii.

[38]     I find to be relevant, also, a documentxviii found in Counsel’s package where the opening sentence reads, ” … In a ruling dealing with what it called “institutionalized racism” directed against Roma in Romania, the European Court of Human Rights has for the first time explicitly made use of the term “ethnic profiling” with regard to police action it found to be discriminatory”xix.

Failure to claim elsewhere- [XXX]

[39]     I have accepted as reasonable, the claimant’s testimony and counsel’s submissions on the issue that the claimant failed to seek asylum in [XXX], which he visited in the year 2003 and 2006, respectively. Counsel points out that, and as found in his documentary package, an IRB documentxx, notwithstanding that there is not likely a bar against claiming refugee protection in these countries by citizens of these countries, the provisions of the Asnar Protocolxxi virtually prevents the filing of refugee claims from citizen of European States, as there is an almost zero recognition of claims among the European States.

[40]     Counsel points out that, according to some documentary evidencexxii, procedurally, the governments of these countries behave differently in the matter of asylum claims, and that some countries reject applications from countries considered to be safe countries.

[41]     I have determined, also, that the claimants’ decision to leave the USA to seek protection in Canada is not unreasonable, The principal claimant testifies that he was informed that Canada could provide them with protection, while, at the same time, during his wait in the USA he faced the difficulty of surviving on little money [XXX] while his spouse, the female claimant, [XXX] for money and food.

[42]     For these reasons and after careful consideration of the evidence and submissions, I find that the adult claimants [XXX], the principal claimant, and his common-law spouse, [XXX], the female claimant have established valid claims and are Convention refugees.

[43]     I accept the claims of [XXX].

[44]     I reject the claim of the son, [XXX], the minor claimant, a citizen of the USA. In his claim, no evidence has been adduced in support, pursuant to s.96 or s. 97 of IRPA.

(signed)           G. Griffith

July 7, 2020

i Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c.27.
ii Exhibit 2.
iii Ibid.
iv Rajudeen v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1984), 55 N.R. 129 (F.C.A.).
v Exhibit 1.
vi Exhibit 6
vii Exhibit
viii Exbibit 6
ix Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, under the I 951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, Geneva, January 1988, paras 54-55.
x Madelat v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1991] No. 49 (F.C.A.)
xi Exhibit 3, Index to National Documentary Package for Romania
xii Exhibit 10
xiii Exhibit 3
xiv Exhibit 3, Index to NDP for Romania, Response to Information Request (RIR), ROUI05285.E: Romania: Situation of Roma, including treatment by society and government authorities; state protection and support services available to Roma (2011-2015), Research Directorate, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Ottawa, 9 October 2015.
xv Ibid.
xvi Ibid.
xvii Ibid.
xviii Exhibit 10: Case Watch: European Court Finds Ethnic Profiling by the Police Discriminatory, Zsolt Bobis, Open Society Justice Initiative, April 23, 2019
xix Ibid.
xx Exhibit 12, European Union: Application of the Protocol on Asylum for Nationals of Member States of the European Union (2013- June 2015). Refworld (UNHCR), Canada: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, 9 July 2015
xxi ibid
xxii Ibid.

Categories
All Countries Lebanon

2020 RLLR 38

Citation: 2020 RLLR 38
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 21, 2020
Panel: T. Nicholson
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Mary Jane Campigotto
Country: Lebanon
RPD Number: TB8-25424
Associated RPD Number: TB8-25462
ATIP Number: A-2021-00655
ATIP Pages: 000058-000065

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]       The claimants [XXX] and [XXX] purport to be stateless Palestinian refugees. They have claimed refugee status pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the Act).1

DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE

[2]       The claimant [XXX] acted as the designated representative for the minor claimant, [XXX]. He confirmed his knowledge of his responsibilities in this regard prior to the hearing.

ALLEGATIONS

[3]       The claimants’ allegations are set out in their Basis of Claim forms (BOCs).2 They allege they are at risk of persecution in Lebanon due to their Palestinian ethnicity.

[4]       The male claimant testified being born in Lebanon, but moving to the United Arab Emirates as an adult, where he created a business [XXX]. The claimant testified to mistakenly arrested in [XXX] on suspicion of being a [XXX] due to confusion of his name with that of a [XXX], which resulted in his name being flagged and him being routinely harassed and threatened in Lebanon on his visits if he did not pay a bribe.

[5]       In [XXX] 2017, the claimant was questioned by UAE intelligence regarding his connections to refugee camps in Lebanon. After refusing to work with them, the claimant attempted to move to Lebanon, but testified to being frightened by an attack by militants.

[6]       The claimants arrived in Canada on valid visas on [XXX] 2018.

DETERMINATION

[7]       The panel concludes that the claimants are Convention refugees.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[8]       The panel was provided with true copies of their Lebanon issued Travel Documents for Palestinian Refugees,3 as well as documents relating to their residency in the UAE.

[9]       The panel finds that the documents, and the testimony of the claimants, are sufficient to establish their identities on a balance of probabilities.

Countries of Habitual Residence

[10]     The claimants are stateless Palestinians. Statelessness per se does not give rise to a claim to refugee status: the claimant must demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution based on a convention ground or that they possess a s.97(1) risk in a country of former habitual residence.

[11]     The concept of “former habitual residence” implies a situation where a stateless person was admitted to a country with a view to enjoying a period of continuing residence for some duration. The claimant does not have to be legally able to return to a country of former habitual residence. The claimant must have established a significant period of de facto residence in the country in question. The claimants must establish that they are persecuted in one country of former habitual residence, and are unable to safely return to any other.4

[12]     The Federal Court of Appeal established that a broad and liberal approach must be taken when assessing a proposed country of former habitual residence: there is no minimum period of residence required in that country, the analysis should not be unduly restrictive, the claimant does not need to be able to legally return; and the claimant must have established some significant period of de facto residence there.5

[13]     The male claimant and minor claimant lived for most of their lives in the UAE. The panel finds that the UAE is a country of habitual residence for them.

[14]     The claimants were able to legally enter and return to Lebanon, and if they had not gone to the United States and then Canada, they likely would have been required to return to Lebanon. The male claimant was born in Lebanon, the claimants presented documents that were provided to the claimants by the government of Lebanon, and the male claimant testified to having extensive family in Lebanon, and testified to intending to live in Lebanon with the minor claimant permanently.

[15]     The panel finds these circumstances are significant and substantially connect the claimants to Lebanon, and that Lebanon is a country of habitual residence for the claimants.

Nexus

[16]     The panel finds that the claimants have established a nexus to the convention, namely through their ethnicity as stateless Palestinians in Lebanon.

Credibility

[17]     The panel had serious issues with regard to the male claimant’s credibility.

[18]     The male claimant was, at times, flippant and dismissive of repeated questions from the panel. The claimant caused a considerable procedural difficulty at the first hearing date, when he admitted that he did not understand English to the extent required to understand his BOC without interpretation.

Incident in Lebanon

[19]     The claimant indicated that he was attacked by militants on his return to Lebanon in 2018. He testified that two men on motorcycles stopped the car he was travelling in on [XXX] 2018, seized him, beat him, stated they were from Hezbollah and would follow him wherever he went.

[20]     It was pointed out to the claimant that his BOC did not mention that the attackers threatened the claimant, did not mention the claimant was driving a car, did not mention that the attackers were on motorcycles, and did not mention the attackers had mentioned they were members of Hezbollah.

[21]     The claimant responded that he did not remember the situation very well.

[22]     The panel finds it unlikely that the claimant, given the claimant testified it was his only physical interaction with persecutors, would make so many mistakes in his description.

[23]     The panel rejects the claimant’s explanation for the omissions, and draws a negative inference with regard to his credibility.

[24]     Given the vast difference between the male claimant’s description of the incident in his BOC and in his testimony, the panel finds that the incident did not happen and that the claimant is not pursued by Hezbollah.

Other Incidents in Lebanon

[25]     However, the panel finds that the claimant has, through his testimony, established that he is a stateless Palestinian.

[26]     The claimant testified to having to pay a bribe every time he went through the airport, and to having family members who died in the camps from intrareligious warfare, and to having had difficulties as a businessman working in Lebanon due to his statelessness. It was also made clear that the minor claimant would have difficulty obtaining schooling and social services due to her status as a stateless Palestinian.

[27]     The panel accepts that the claimants are stateless Palestinians and the claimant’s description of the incident of 1983 and the resulting issues, which were presented in detail and made clear by the claimant’s testimony. The panel finds that the claimants have been subject to discrimination that, in its severity, amounted to persecution due their status as stateless Palestinians.

United Arab Emirates

[28]     The claimant credibly testified that, due to his last name, he was questioned by UAE security forces, and that he was asked to offer intelligence to UAE security. The claimant refused, which he testified put a mark on his security record.

[29]     Through documentary evidence,6 the panel finds that the claimant has established his status has been revoked in the UAE and finds that, on a balance of probabilities, he would be unable to return given his security issues.

SUBJECTIVE BASIS

[30]     The male claimant indicated he was afraid of returning to Lebanon due to the profile given to him by his last name and the treatment he suffered. The panel finds that the claimants have established a subjective fear of persecution.

OBJECTIVE BASIS

[31]     Objective evidence indicates that the claimants’ options as stateless Palestinians would be limited to either living in one of the refugee camps near Beirut, the conditions of which are described by the United Nations as “deplorable,”7 or to attempt to live in general Lebanese society without familial connections, which objective evidence indicates is bereft of all but menial employment and features extremely limited housing opportunities, as well as reduced access to social services and healthcare.8

[32]     Militant groups are common in Palestinian refugee camps and frequently engage in violent conduct against fellow Palestinians within the camps, including arrest and kidnapping of outsiders in camps without judicial oversight and without protection by Lebanese authorities.9 Objective evidence indicates that this is a risk regularly faced by stateless Palestinians in Lebanon.10

[33]     The panel finds that the claimants have an objective basis for their claim of persecution in Lebanon as stateless Palestinians, and that they would face a well-founded fear if they were to return there, given their lack of connections, the primary claimant’s age, and their status as stateless Palestinians.

STATE PROTECTION

[34]     The state is presumed able to provide adequate protection to its citizens. Therefore, claimants have the duty to seek state protection before seeking protection in Canada. However, in certain circumstances, it would be objectively unreasonable to expect a claimant to do so. Furthermore, the protection available to a claimant may not be adequate given their specific circumstances.

[35]     Lebanon does not provide state protection in Palestinian camps.11 Objective evidence notes that the security situation is generally poor throughout Lebanon for Palestinian refugees,12 and there is a “crisis of governance” in Palestinian camps that means Peoples Committees are generally seen as being unable to protect their constituents from harassment from Lebanese forces harassing their residents.13

[36]     The panel finds that the claimants have rebutted the presumption that adequate state protection exists for them in Lebanon with clear and convincing evidence.

INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE (IFA)

[37]     The claimants were asked if they would be able to live elsewhere in Lebanon, and were given the example of Beirut. The panel finds that the claimants would face persecution as stateless Palestinians throughout Lebanon.14

[38]     The panel finds that the claimants would not have an IFA in all of Lebanon.

CONCLUSION

[39]     The panel finds that the claimants face a serious possibility of persecution in Lebanon and can not return to the United Arab Emirates.

[40]     The panel accepts their claims.

(signed)           T. Nicholson

January 21, 2020

1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, sections 96 and 97(1).
2 Exhibits 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4.
3 Exhibit 1.
4 Thabet v. MC.I., [1998] 4 FC 21 (F.C.A.).
5 Maarouf v. Canada, [1994] 1 F.C.R. 723 (F.C.A).
6 Exhibit 5, pages 32-37.
7 Ibid., item 13.1.
8 Ibid., item 13.1.
9 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Lebanon (29 March 2019), item 13.1.
10 Ibid., item 13.2.
11 Ibid., item 13.1.
12 Ibid., item 13.5.
13 Ibid., item 13.1.
14 Ibid., item 13.1.

Categories
All Countries Ethiopia

2020 RLLR 37

Citation: 2020 RLLR 37
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 21, 2020
Panel: M. Dookun
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Teklemicheal A Sahlemariam
Country: Ethiopia
RPD Number: TB8-06719
ATIP Number: A-2021-00655
ATIP Pages: 000052-000057

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: So I have enough information ma’am to go ahead and make a decision in your claim without hearing from your counsel. Mr. Interpreter I ‘m just going to mute you and you can do this simultaneously okay, counsel you know if you need me just wave right?

[2]       So ma’am based on the information that I have in front of me you are a [XXX] old female citizen of Ethiopia. You are seeking refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, sorry I see Mr. Interpreter looking at me are you hearing me okay Mr. Interpreter or have you waved interpretation?

[3]       INTERPRETER: She waived (inaudible)

[4]       MEMBER: You waived interpretation? Is that what happened?

[5]       INTERPRETER: Yes, I will stay though.

[6]       MEMBER: Got you, alright so I don’t have to mute you then fine.

[7]       So the specific details of your claim ma’am are set out in your basis of claim form which I’ve labelled Exhibit 2.

[8]       To summarize you are of Oromo ethnicity, in around [XXX] 2017 after your brother was displaced you along with other Oromo people demanded that the Oromia government seek justice for the Oromo people who were killed in an attack by the Liyu L-I-Y-U, forgive my pronunciation, police in [XXX] 2017.

[9]       So as a result of your actions you were detained overnight with the condition that you appear whenever the authorities demanded that you appear. After the state of emergency was declared in [XXX] 2018 you received word that two of the persons that were with you in [XXX] 2017 were arrested and two others had gone into hiding.

[10]     You then decided to flee Ethiopia for Canada. You fear that if you return to Ethiopia you could be killed by the government due to your ethnicity as Oromo and also due to your perceived political opinion and also due to your failure to comply with their demands which is to make yourself available whenever they ask for you.

[11]     There’s also a brief mention in your basis of claim form of a fear of your Muslim family members because of your marriage to a Christian man which occurred in approximately 1992 by the Western calendar. I have to note that this fear is not reiterated in your narrative.

[12]     Anyway the panel finds that you are a person in need of protection pursuant to Section 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[13]     With regard to your identity, you established your identity by way of your Ethiopian passport which I have in Exhibit 1. You testified that that is a genuine document, you established your identity as Oromo by way of your Kebele card which I have in Exhibit 4 and also a letter from an Oromo organization also in Exhibit 4. So, on a balance of probabilities the panel accepts your personal identity as you’ve alleged.

[14]     With regard to credibility I have to the [XXX] report in Exhibit 5 that report warned me that you may find being questioned reminiscent of being interrogated which might cause you to experience [XXX] throughout the hearing such [XXX].

[15]     The [XXX] report warns that you may display nonverbal behaviours in response to questions that are a reflection of your experiences in Ethiopia. So I was mindful of that as I was asking you questions this afternoon, that’s one of the reasons that the questions were few.

[16]     That being said you did testify in a straightforward manner, you made no attempts to embellish your testimony. There were no inconsistencies or contradictions inherent in your testimony. Your responses were all very detailed and direct.

[17]     I noticed that there were times where you switched from the Oromo language to the Amharic language but thankfully we had an interpreter who spoke and understood both languages so that was not a really a problem this afternoon. Overall the panel has no reason to doubt that your sworn testimony was truthful.

[18]     Now very briefly with regard to your religion and your fear based on the interfaith marriage, there was no real persuasive evidence put forward to support the allegation that there would be a risk to your life or a risk of persecution based on your interfaith marriage.

[19]     The documents at 12.1 specifically states that most major religions respected each other’s religious practises and permitted intermarriage. You may have faced some displeasure at the hands or the voice of your family members because of your choice but nothing that amounts to persecution or a risk to life. So the panel finds no objective basis for your fear based on your interfaith marriage.

[20]     Now with regard to the situation for the Oromo people in Ethiopia and the change of circumstances I rely heavily on the documentary evidence in Exhibit 3 which talks about the changes that have occurred in Ethiopia since the new Prime, Oromo Prime Minister has taken place.

[21]     Now the panel is aware that the Oromo people have faced persecution in Ethiopia at the hands of the Ethiopian government in the past just as you’ve described ma’am but the panel finds that the changes that have occurred in Ethiopia appear to be substantial and appear to be sustainable.

[22]     I’m going to talk about a few of those changes and this information comes from 2.1 of Exhibit 3, the government in Ethiopia took positive steps towards greater accountability under Prime Minister Abiy to change the relationship between security forces and the population.

[23]     On June 18th 2018, 2017, 2018 the Prime Minister 2018 yes, thank you counsel, the Prime Minister spoke to the nation and apologized on behalf of the government for decades of mistakes and abuse he said amount to terrorist acts. Prime Minister Abiy’s assumption to office was followed by positive changes in the human rights climate.

[24]     The government decriminalized political movements that had been accused of treason in the past, this includes many Oromo organizations. The government under Prime Minister Abiy also invited opposition leaders to return to the country and resume political activities. The government allowed peaceful rallies and demonstrations and continued steps to release thousands of political prisoners.

[25]     The document goes on to say that both the number and severity of human rights issues diminished significantly under Prime Minister Abiy’s administration and in some cases there were no longer, and in some cases the human rights issues were no longer issues by the end of the year.

[26]     Now some of these changes you indicated that you were aware of and some of these changes you indicated that you were not aware of because you don’t know much about the politics.

[27]     The panel understands from some of the documents that your counsel provided in Exhibits 4 and 6 that the situation in Ethiopia today is not perfect, that’s understood.

[28]     However based on the preponderance of the most recent objective documentary evidence the panel finds that the significant change of circumstances in Ethiopia has proven to be sustainable and is ongoing and it directly effects your situation ma’am.

[29]     So the panel finds given the change of circumstances in Ethiopia there is Jess than a mere possibility ma’ am that you would face harm at the hands of the Ethiopian authorities based on your previous political activities or your previous imputed or real political opinions or even your political opinions now and going forward.

[30]     Now that being said the panel finds that irrespective of your political affiliations and your political opinions there may be an outstanding warrant for your arrest in Ethiopia. Your committee members a couple of your committee members were arrested during the state of emergency and you testified that to date they have not been heard from.

[31]     So as far as you know they are still being detained. You were able to evade that arrest during that time by leaving Ethiopia. You testified this afternoon that you believe that there is a warrant for your arrest in Ethiopia an outstanding warrant for your arrest.

[32]     The panel finds on a balance of probabilities that if an outstanding warrant for your arrest exists that you may be detained upon entry to Ethiopia. So that’s separate from your political activities, this warrant for your arrest that may exist.

[33]     The documents tell me again relying on Exhibit 3 Item 2.1 states that if detained you could face torture and abuse at the hands of security officials. Inmates are reported to have been flogged and have suffered broken bones and head injuries at the hands of prison guards and sexual abuse is also a concern at the hands of prison officials.

[34]     Overall prison and pretrial detentions centre conditions are said to be harsh and in some cases life threatening. So the panel finds in this particular case ma’am that there is a serious possibility that you would face cruel and unusual treatment or punishment should you return to Ethiopia having evaded arrest in 2018.

[35]     So clearly because it is the state that your fear, the authorities that you fear there would be no state protection for in Ethiopia and similarly because the at this point the government or the police forces are the agents of persecution there would be no internal flight alternative available to you anywhere in Ethiopia.

[36]     So the panel therefore finds ma’am that you are a person in need of protection pursuant to Section 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The Refugee Protection Division accepts your claim.

[37]     So that’s going to conclude the hearing for this afternoon, you can, you can interpret now Mr. Interpreter.

[38]     Thank you ma’am for your answers this afternoon, your claim has been accepted. Thank you Mr. Interpreter for your patience and your professionalism.

[39]     INTERPRETER: Thank you (inaudible)

[40]     MEMBER: The echo?

[41]     INTERPRETER: Yes (inaudible)

[42]     MEMBER: I know I know sometimes that can be an issue and then you know my accent is so heavy hahaha… that’s a problem as well.

[43]     INTERPRETER: No way.

[44]     MEMBER: You couldn’t understand when I said committee and I couldn’t understand when you said isn’t it so it’s fair right we had some trouble understanding each other so that’s fine and counsel of course it’ s always a pleasure working with you thank you for your time and your patience this afternoon

[45]     COUNSEL: Thank you bye bye.

[46]     MEMBER: You’re very welcome

[47]     INTERPRETER: Your comment about your comment about accent I feel bad.

[48]     MEMBER: You feel bad?

[49]     INTERPRETER: You said my accent is heavy but I told you, I thought it was me.

[50]     MEMBER: No, my no my accent haha…because to you I have an accent right, to you I have very strong accent and to me you have a very strong accent right but to each other you guys, you guys think you don’t have accents at all, you speak perfectly well, so everything was relative, everything is very subjective but we made it through that’s all that matters.

[51]     INTERPRETER: (inaudible) it was not about accent or anything but I hadn’t done any significant communication (inaudible)

[52]     MEMBER: Okay it does take some getting used to there is sometimes a delay you know like a very bad long distance phone call where the person speaks and you have to wait then pause and until you hear it so it does take some getting used to. Counsel and I we’re old pros at it now but…for your first video conference Mr. Interpreter you did amazing excellent job.

[53]     INTERPRETER: Yes (inaudible).

[54]     MEMBER: Alright, alright so everyone have a good afternoon than I’ m ending this call.

[55]     INTERPRETER: Thank you madam member.

[56]     MEMBER: Alright okay bye bye ma’am.

[57]     CLAIMANT: Thank you

[58]     MEMBER: You’re very welcome bye bye.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Categories
All Countries Slovakia

2020 RLLR 18

Citation: 2020 RLLR 18
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 10, 2020
Panel: Micheal Somers
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Howard Gilbert
Country: Slovakia
RPD Number: TB8-26137
Associated RPD Number(s): TB8-26192, TB8-26204, TB8-26205
ATIP Number: A-2021-00540
ATIP Pages: 000114-0000117

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: The Panel has considered the testimony offered today. And the testimony is from the parents, the married couple in this family. The Board has also considered other relevant evidence in this case and is ready to render its decision orally. The claimants’ a family, a mother, father, husband, wife and two sons. One of the sons, obviously the youngest is a minor. They are all citizens of Slovakia. And they have all made claims for refugee protection under Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Regarding the youngest son, his mother has been designated as the representative for him in this proceeding.

[2]       Regarding the determination of the claim of the youngest son, the Board has taken into consideration Guidelines regarding Child Refugees. Regarding the claim of the female claimant, that is the mother, the Board has taken into consideration the Chairperson ‘s Gender Guidelines regarding all relevant factors such as social, cultural context in which the mother finds herself in respect to the issues of state protection. And the changing country conditions were examined with respect to the Gender Guidelines.

Allegations

[3]       The specifics of the claim are stated in the mother’ s, the adult female claimant’ s narrative which is found in her Basis of Claim form (BOC). She and the claimants allege the following. They are citizens of Slovakia and their ethnicity is that of Roma. They have been harassed, discriminated, threatened with violence and in some cases, assaulted while living in Slovakia. They maintain that the security apparatus in particular the police do not protect them because of their discriminatory attitude towards the Roma community. The claimants left Slovakia on or about [XXX], 2018. And filed their application for refugee protection on or about October 14th, 2018.

Determination

[4]       The Board finds that the claimants are Convention refugees pursuant to Section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The reasons are as follows.

ANALYSIS

[5]       The Board is concerned with the issues of credibility and state protection.

Identity and Credibility

[6]       The Board is satisfied with the claimants’ personal identity as well as being citizens of Slovakia. And this is based on certified copies of their passports. In addition, the Board is satisfied with the claimants’ ethnicity, that being Roma. It should be noted that the language that was used in today’s proceedings and hearing was that of Roma.

[7]       Furthermore, regarding their identity the Board found the two claimants that testified, the parents, that their testimony regarding their ethnicity was trustworthy, credible. As such, the Board accepts that the claimants are indeed Roma.

[8]       Regarding the country conditions articles and reports that were filed in this proceeding, it does indicate, that is the country conditions articles and reports, do indicate that the Roma community is discriminated on a continuous basis. Simply put, the country condition articles, reports do substantiate the claimants’ testimony and the allegations in their claim as to what they confronted. What other members of the Roma community confront on a daily basis.

[9]       I want to emphasize that the testimony, their brief testimony regarding the incidents that they confronted is substantiated in the country conditions articles. As such, the Board finds that the claimants do have a well­ founded fear of persecution. I would also like to emphasize that the country conditions articles and reports, many of them are from independent reputable international human rights organizations as well as reports from agencies and departments from very well dis-, respected western democracies such as Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

[10]     From the particular incidents that the claimants testified to and mentioned in their narrative, I think it would be fair to say not one of the incidents alone would amount to persecution.  However, put them all together I believe that they do amount to persecution. There, these incidents they testified to and more, and the country condition articles stated are continuous, widespread and yes, they do touch upon in my view core, some core human rights. It affects their education. And again it’ s based on their ethnic-, ethnicity. It affects their employment. It affects their treatment regarding social services. Many of these discriminatory attitudes are actually perpetrated by official agents of the government, including the police. It’s fair to say that this particular minority group as described in the country condition articles and reports are marginalized. Excluded from society in most of the spheres of normal daily life.

[11]     It is trite law that states that refugee law is forward-looking. If they return, would they be dis-, discriminated to the point of persecution. I’ve already answered that question, yes. I’m not going to go through the country condition articles, reports and, to any great detail. Because they all say the same. They state that there’s continued societal discrimination and violence towards the Roma in Slovakia. And yes, as the claimants testified to, there are incidents in which the police are, how I would describe, a little too aggressive and violent towards this particular minority community.

[12]     The reports indicate that extremists, nationalists, what could possibly be described as neo-Nazi groups continue to hold events designated or designated, or designed to intimidate the minority groups, including the Roma by these far right groups. Organized anti-Roma gatherings and locations where tension between the Roma and non-Roma population exist. There’s also indication that the Roma face discrimination not only regarding government services but also, to a certain extent, in the commercial sphere. That is indicate, indicate that employers in Slovakia refused to hire Roma.  And what is alarming is the statistics regarding the unemployed in Roma. That is unemployment statistics for non-Roma compared to Roma. There’s a stark difference.  A significant difference which cannot be explained away by coincidence.

[13]     Now, the Board does acknowledge that there is some comments made that the Slo-, Slovak government has expressed a willingness to improve the treatment of the Roma. And that the government has made commitments to the European Union to make efforts to improve conditions of its minority citizens including, the Roma. However, the Federal Court of Canada has held on a number of occasions that good intentions alone do not protect or improve the plight of the Roma in Slovakia. Is not good, is not good enough.

[14]     There’ s jurisprudence that states that having legislation that protects its citizens but not implemented at all or not adequately impie-, implemented while their citizens are being deprived of important rights, core rights, does not amount to adequate state protection. The Board finds that the Slu-, Slovak government at this time is unable to provide adequate state protection toits citizens of Roma ethnicity.

[15]     Simply put, the Board finds that the claimants have proved or rebutted the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence.

[16]     Based on the previous statements, it’ s clear that there is no viable IFA for these claimants as the discrimination against this minority group is widespread. And as noted, the Slovak government and the police at this time are not adequately protecting the Roma.

CONCLUSION

[17]     Based on this brief analysis, the Board finds that the claimants are Convention refugees. And accepts their claims.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Categories
All Countries Romania

2020 RLLR 11

Citation: 2020 RLLR 11
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: September 9, 2020
Panel: Marlene Hogarth
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Peter Ivanyi
Country: Romania
RPD Number: TB9-11480
Associated RPD Number(s): TB9-11534, TB9-11543, TB9-11544, TB9-11545, TB9-11546
ATIP Number: A-2021-00540
ATIP Pages: 000072-000075

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: I have considered your testimony and all the other evidence in this case and I’m ready to render my decision orally.

[2]       [XXX], [XXX], [XXX], [XXX], [XXX], and [XXX]; are citizens of Romania and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[3]       These claims were joined and the claimants’ mother [XXX] was the designated representative.

[4]       I find that you are Convention refugees according to Section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act because of your ethnicity, that being Roma, living in Romania.

[5]       You have alleged the following: you have experienced discrimination throughout your lives. The adult claimants have little schooling; all of the children have been harassed by their teachers and bullied by fellow students. You had difficulty finding work. When employment opportunities arose you were not hired when the employer recognized you as Roma; or if you were hired, you were shortly fired for some unknown excuse.

[6]       Sir, you joined a political party that wanted equality for the Roma people. You visited their homes to see how everyone was doing and organized rallies trying to get equal rights. The Romanian citizens became violent and threatened to kill you if you did not stop the demonstrations and leave Romania. Several Roma were injured, including you. The incidents were reported to the authorities; however the police did not investigate.

[7]       You operated a [XXX] to keep yourself and your family fed. Ma’am, you also worked there. You had to close the [XXX] after you were harassed on several occasions by Roman (sic) citizens and the police. They destroyed your [XXX] and stole your money. On one occasion your finger was badly ripped after an officer seized a vase. You reported these various incidents to the authorities; however you never received any help.

[8]       You decided the discrimination you endured was too much to take. You travelled to Germany and found work there. However you were verbally abused there and the minor, the younger children had difficulties with teachers and fellow classmates in school.

[9]     You decided to come to Canada to claim refugee protection. You arrived on [XXX], 2019 and made a claim on April 25th, 2019.

[10]     Your identities as Roma (sic) citizens has been established by your testimony and the certified copies of your passports held by Immigration Canada, found in Exhibit 1.

[11]     Credibility is always an issue in a refugee protection hearing. I found you were credible witnesses. Your answers were consistent with the documents and your narratives and evidence submitted in Exhibits 5 and 8. We also have country documents that support your allegations pertaining to the treatment that you received. These are all found in the Board’s documentation package found in Exhibit 3. Therefore I believe the allegations that you have written in support of your claim.

[12]     You have suffered discrimination throughout your lives. Documentary evidence found in Exhibit 3, 2.1, states that Romania is a constitutional republic with a democratic multi party parliamentary system. However significant human rights issues included police violence against Roma, endemic official corruption, law enforcement and authorities condoning violence against women and girls. The judiciary did take steps to prosecute and punish officials who committed abuses but the authorities did not have effective mechanisms to do so and delayed proceedings involving alleged police abuse and corruption resulted in many of the cases ending in acquittals.

[13]     The same document continues; police officers were frequently exonerated in cases of alleged beatings or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Discrimination against Roma continued to be a major problem. Romany groups complained that police harassment and brutality including beatings were routine.

[14]     Both domestic and international media observers reported societal discrimination against Roma. They were denied access to or refused service in many public places. Roma also experienced poor access to government services, a shortage of employment opportunities, high rates of school attrition, and inadequate health care. Roma have a higher unemployment rate and a lower life expectancy.

[15]     Now these things are all, all types of occurrences that you had to endure throughout your lives; difficulties finding employment, not continuing your schooling, and having difficulties with the health care, where you had to pay your own. As a matter of fact when you were having your children you had to pay the nurses to come into the room to help you. Even though there is an order by the Ministry of Education forbidding segregation of Romany students, Romany students were placed in segregated classrooms located in separate buildings.

[16]     And I just want to read just a couple of lines from Exhibit 3, 13.4. It states, “The World Bank report indicates that Roma in Romania are poor, vulnerable and socially excluded. They face systematic discrimination by society which affects them in the areas of education, housing, health and employment. It has been learned that government officials make discriminatory statements against Roma. The housing situation is grim; twice as many Roma live in houses made with poor quality material and they have less access to gas, running water, sewage and electricity.”

[17]     As you mentioned in your testimony today, you lived in a two room house and a kitchen that had no running water and no electricity.

[18]     Now we know that there is a law that prohibits discrimination in Romania; however the government does not effectively enforce these prohibitions and Roma often experience discrimination and violence.

[19]     So taking into consideration ail of the evidence that I have in front of me and there are several documents in Exhibit 3 that agree with your testimony and allegations, so taking into account all of the evidence and the documents that show the various forms of discrimination, although the government is attempting to improve the situation with the Roma population discrimination in all forms continues to exist.

[20]     I find that this continued discrimination you have faced amounts to persecution. Therefore considering all of the evidence and your testimony I find that if you returned to Romania there is a serious possibility that you would continue to face persecution. And in your particular situation there is no state protection available for you; you have gone to the police with no results. And there is no Internal Flight Alternative.

[21]     Therefore I accept your claim. You are Convention refugees, according to Section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Congratulations to you all. You can go home and tell your children and I wish you the best of luck. Thank you for coming and telling me your story. I know it’s not an easy thing to do.

[22]     So thank you very much, Counsel, and everybody have a good day.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Categories
All Countries Turkey

2020 RLLR 24

Citation: 2020 RLLR 24
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 27, 2020
Panel: K. Khamsi
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Amedeo Clivia (Clivea Law)
Country: Turkey
RPD Number: TB9-12901
ATIP Number: A-2021-00540
ATIP Pages: 000143-0000145

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: This is the decision in the claim for refugee protection made by [XXX]. So you claim to be a citizen of Turkey and you are claiming refugee protection pursuant to Section 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Your allegation are detailed in your-, in the narrative portion of your Basis of Claim form but to summarize, you fear persecution in Turkey due to your Kurdish ethnicity and your Alevi faith and also your support of the HDP. You mentioned that you have been discriminated and bullied because of your Kurdish ethnicity and also because of your religion.

[2]       You were arrested twice by the police in-, in Turkey. You were also involved with the HDP and you have relatives who were arrested and held in custody because of their involvement with the HDP. So, now you are afraid to return to Turkey and be discriminated because of your-, of your faith and also because of you are a supporter of the HDP and you are afraid that if you become involved in politics and you are arrested by the police, they find out that-, about your record and you would be in much more trouble. You also testified that you were involved in social media and that you have been criticizing the government and all that maybe held against you.

[3]       So, determination. I find that you are a Convention refugee based on your ethnicity and your political opinion.

[4]       Now, the identified issues are identity and credibility, your ethnicity. So, with respect to your personal identity, I find that you are a citizen of Turkey based on your testimony and documents that you have provided, including your passports.

[5]       With respect to your ethnicity and religious identity, I find on a balance of probabilities that you are of Turkish descent and Alevi faith. You needed prompting, your testimony was not that forthcoming when you were asked about your religion but you also provided some evidence with regarding the Alevi Cultural Centre here and a letter from the Kurdish Association. Too, you also explained that you did not speak Kurdish because your parents wanted to protect you, however, it’ s not something that you were hiding and that led to-, to-, to-, to travel as you have alleged in-, in your story.

[6]       Now with the regard to credibility, I find that your oral testimony did not contradict your written evidence. You needed prompting but there was no contradiction between your oral and written evidence. You were able to explain all the questions that I asked you. You have also provided evidence to support all your allegations. You have provided as I said, a letter from the Alevi Cultural Centre and from the Kurdish-, Toronto Kurdish Centre. You have provided evidence from your social media. I have a letter from your sister who corroborated your-, your story with regard to your arrest in [XXX] 2018.

[7]       I have reviewed also all country conditions documents that we provided in the NDP and by your counsel and the documentary evidence supports your allegations were always targeted and the information that we have in the NDP. They confirm that Kurds were already-, in Turkey, however, the situation has worsened since the-, the 2016 attempted coup and lots of people are-, were arrested in Turkey just because of-, of their background. Who-, so when you are Kurd and Alevi, it makes things worse and we have lots of evidence with regard to discrimination, with regards to Alevi.

[8]       Now, with regard to your political activities. The evidence indicates that if you are perceived to be a member or-, or of any political group, any opposition group sorry, in-, in Turkey, you may be subjected to human right violations and in-, in Turkey, those who are viewed as anti-government are subjected to lots of mistreatment. Specifically, Kurdish and Alevi’s, they are viewed as a threat to the government and as sometimes associated with the-, sorry, I’m trying to find the-, sometimes they can viewed-, be viewed as-, as associated to terrorist activities.

[9]       So, I find that your profile as a Kurdish and Alevi and your political activities may put you at risk of detention and torture at the hand of the government if you were to turn-, to return to Turkey, based on the objective evidence that we have on file. There were other issues that I did not touch, for example, delay in claiming and you went back to Turkey as well, it could have been considered as re-availment, however, you explained in your narrative and that’s I was-, the reason why that happened and you provided evidence with-, with regard to your delay. A letter from your friends who I did not held that against you.

[10]     Now I looked at state protection and given that the State is the agent of persecution, I find that, there is no state protection for you in Turkey and for the same reasons, I find that there is no internal flight alternative available to you in Turkey.

[11]     And to conclude, I find that you are Convention refugee and I accept your claim.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Categories
All Countries China

2019 RLLR 26

Citation: 2019 RLLR 26
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 2, 2019
Panel: Daniel Mckeown
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Mohammed Tohti
Country: China
RPD Number: TB8-31053
Associated RPD Number(s): TB8-31087, TB8-31110
ATIP Number: A-2021-01124
ATIP Pages: 000159-000161

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: I’ve considered the testimony and evidence in this claim and I am now prepared to render a decision in IRB file number TB8-31053. The claimants seek refugee protection against China pursuant to Sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. For the following reasons, the Panel finds that the claimants are Convention refugees and this claim is accepted.

[2]       This claim was based on the following allegations. The claimants are ethnic Uyghurs. They left China in 2014 so that the adult male claimant could work in Malaysia fearing current pol-, Chinese policies towards Uyghurs. The claimants fear for their lives if they were to return to China. The claimants left Malaysia and came to Canada on November 20th, 2018. They signed their Basis of Claims on December 8th, 2018.

[3]       The identity of the claimants were established on the basis of their Chinese passports. The originals of which were seized by the Minister.

[4]       The Panel had no significant concerns about this claim. There was one potential exclusion issue, given that the claimants had Malaysian residence permits in their passports. However, those residence permits are also-, also clearly state that their residence was dependent upon the validity of their passports. Which means that in order for the claimants to continue legally residing in Malaysia, they would have to renew their passports with the Chinese government at some point in the foreseeable future. Given the claimants ethnicity and the government of China is the agent of persecution, it would not be reasonable to expect the claimants to have their Chinese passports renewed. They could not reasonably exercise any right to residency in Malaysia, therefore even if it was available to them and of akin to Malaysian citizenship.

[5]       The sole determinative issue in Uyghurs-, in Uyghur claims in this Panel’s view is the identity of the claimants as Uyghur. That is because of the brutally persecutory nature of the Chinese government towards the Uyghur people. This Panel has access to reliable and credible resources such as the U.K. Home Office report and the US DOS report. Each of which make clear that the Chinese government has oppressed the Uyghur people in virtually every aspect of their lives. Some reports even suggest that as many as two million Uyghur people are now detained in concentration camps.

[6]       The country conditions evidence is suggestive that the Chinese policy of assimilation has now arguably moved into the realm of genocide. For this reason, in this Panel’s view, identity as an ethnic Uyghur is sufficient to establish persecution.

[7]       In this claim, the claimant presented their passports which noted their places of birth in [XXX] province. The claimants spoke Uyghur. And the Panel had no reason to disbelieve any of the evidence or testimony. The Panel finds that the claimants are indeed likely ethnic Uyghurs. Whereas the State is the agent of persecution, the claimants have rebutted the presumption that state protection would be adequate and forthcoming to them. Likewise, there is no location in China where they can go where they would not face a serious possibility of persecution.

[8]       For all these reasons, the Panel finds that this claim is credible. The claimants’ fear is well-founded. The claimants face a serious possibility of persecution on account of their ethnicity.

[9]       The claimants are Convention refugees and this claim is accepted.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Categories
All Countries Cameroon

2019 RLLR 99

Citation: 2019 RLLR 99
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 28, 2019
Panel: A. Shaffer
Counsel for the claimant(s): Ugochukwu Udogu
Country: Cameroon
RPD Number: TB8-07480
ATIP Number: A-2020-01459
ATIP Pages: 000114-000118

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: Okay, I am sorry for the delay again. I took a few moments to consider the evidence and I am going to accept your claim. I just have to read my reasons, okay. It is going to take me a few minutes.

[2]       [XXX], you are a citizen of Cameroon and you are seeking refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[3]       Your allegations are more fully set out in your Basis of Claim Form and in your testimony.

[4]       In summary, you allege that you fear persecution based on your political opinion and based on your ethnicity as an Anglophone Cameroonian. I find that you are a Convention refugee for the following reasons.

[5]       I find that you have established your identity on a balance of probabilities based on the certified true copies of your passport on files forwarded to the Refugee protection division by Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada.

[6]       I find that you have established a nexus to a Convention ground to your ethnicity as an Anglophone Cameroonian.

[7]       With respect to credibility, I have serious concerns about your alleged Sur Place political opinion. I find much of your evidence about your political activity within the Southern Cameroon’s relief organisation suspect.

[8]       You alleged that you joined the party in early 2017 and attended a protest with this organisation in August 2017. You alleged that this protest is what led you to becoming of interest to the Cameroonian government. I am not persuaded by the evidence you presented on this matter.

[9]       All of your letters from this organisation indicate that you joined the organisation almost a year later than you said you did. You have no reasonable explanation for why you did not bring documentary evidence to correct the alleged error.

[10]     You had no documentary evidence to show that you attend this protest. I am not persuaded based on the evidence before me that you attended this protest.

[11]     I note that your documentary evidence indicates that you joined the organisation either shortly before or after you prepared your refugee claim.

[12]     You did not name the organisation correctly in your BOC, Basis of Claim Form and you had no reasonable explanation for why you would misname an organisation that you had allegedly joined which put your life at risk.

[13]     I had serious concerns about your motivation for joining this organisation and many other concerns about the evidence that you presented with respect to your alleged political activities.

[14]     However, I have no valid reason to doubt that you are an Anglophone from Cameron. I will rely on the Response to Information Request, CMR106141.E even though it was not disclosed prior to the hearing, but because the evidence contained within it is to your benefit.

[15]     I will excerpt the portion that I find particularly relevant, “A joint statement by a group of UN independent experts expressed concerns over reports of the violence in the South West and North West at the end of 2017 where the country’s Anglophone minority was reportedly suffering worsening human rights violations including excessive force by the security services, injuries, mass arrest, arbitrary detentions, torture, and other ill- treatments”, UN November 17th, 2017.

[16]     According to US country report 2017, “there continue to be reports of arrest and disappearances of individuals by security forces in Cameroon’s Anglophone regions, US, April 20th, 2018, 2.

[17]     A report by Amnesty International documents “unlawful killings and extrajudicial executions, destruction of private property, arbitrary arrest and torture committed by the Cameroonian security forces during military operations in the Anglophone regions including the burning down of villages”, Amnesty International, June 12th, 2018, 6.

[18]     Similarly, in correspondence with the research directorate or researcher in transnational African migration indicated that, more than 78 localities in Anglophone Cameroon have been burned down by the Cameroon military and that the civilians are killed on a daily basis, the Researcher, August 9th, 2018.

[19]     Correspondence with a Research Directorate, representative from International Crises Group indicated that in Bamenda, the regional capital of the predominantly Anglophone Northwest region the security of the Anglophones and Francophones too is not guaranteed.

[20]     This is because violence has been rising as a result of confrontation between security forces and armed separatists as well as several abuses on the population committed by both military and armed groups.

[21]     Security and military officers brutalise and then carry out arbitrary arrest, extort money from the population, intimidate girls and boys with guns and even rape girls. The above information on Bamenda also applies to Buea, Kumba, Menji, Mamfe, Bangu and other Anglophone localities especially rural areas”. International Crises Groups, August 3rd, 2018.

[22]     Similarly, in correspondence with the Research Directorate, a representative at Nouveaux droits de l’homme Cameroon, NDH Cameroon, an Yaounde-based NGO indicated in the document she prepared on the situation of Anglophones in Cameroon that armed forces in Bamenda <inaudible> fire live ammunitions, sometimes occupy houses at night for searches, carry out arbitrary arrest and use excessive force in all circumstances against individuals and Anglophone residents are caught in the crossfire of separatists and government forces”, NDH Cameroon, August 2018.

[23]     According to sources, people have fled the violence in Anglophone regions <inaudible> Cameroon May 29th, 2018, Caritas May 15th, 2018.

[24]     The UN reports that, “Anglophone Cameroonians began fleeing violence in October 2017 and continue to pour into Nigeria’s Cross River, Taraba, Enugu, Akwa, Ibom states and total over 20000 refugees have been arrested in the area, UN March 20th, 2018.

[25]     Amnesty International similarly reports that as a result of the security operations conducted in Cameroon’s Anglophone regions and the consequent violence, more than 20000 people fled to Nigeria and over 15000 people became internally displaced, Amnesty International June 12th,2018, page 6.

[26]     Similarly, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs OCHA reports that at least 160,000 people have been internally displaced in Cameroon’s Anglophone region, UN, 29th May, 2018.

[27]     In an emergency response for these regions, OCHA further explained that clashes between non­State armed groups and defence and security forces have displaced the civilian population into the surrounding forest and villages and that 80% of the displaced population have found refuge in the forest, UN, May 2018, page 3.

[28]     I find that the information contained in this RIR as well as other information from the National Documentation Package indicates that there is a serious possibility that Anglophones even ones that are not politically active, accordingly I find that as an Anglophone Cameroonian you face a serious possibility of persecution based on this ethnicity.

[29]     As the State is the agent of persecution against Anglophone Cameroonians, I find that here is no State protection available to you. For the same reason I find that, there is no internal flight alternative available to you.

[30]     Having considered all the evidence, I find that you are a Convention refugee for the above noted reason.

[31]     I am going to return your original documents. Thank you for your testimony today.

[32]     CLAIMANT: Thank you madam member.

[33]     MEMBER: That’s it.

[34]     This hearing is now concluded.

[35]     CLAIMANT: Are we off the record?

[36]     MEMBER: No, I don’t have discussions off the record. So if you would like to say something, go ahead?

[37]     CLAIMANT: Okay, So he did mean, additional, it is not why I mean it..

[38]     MEMBER: It’s fine. Everything is done. So it doesn’t matter. Thank you.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Categories
All Countries Sri Lanka

2019 RLLR 90

Citation: 2019 RLLR 90
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 6, 2019
Panel: James Waters
Counsel for the claimant(s): Raoul Boulakia
Country: Sri Lanka
RPD Number: TB8-00236
ATIP Number: A-2020-01459
ATIP Pages: 000048-000054

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]       The 29-year-old claimant, [XXX], claims to be a citizen of Sri Lanka, and claims refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).1

ALLEGATIONS

[2]       The allegations in support of his claim are set out in detail in his Basis of Claim Form (BOC) narrative.2 The following is a short summary.

[3]       The claimant left Sri Lanka for India with his mother and siblings in 1999, to escape the fighting between the Sri Lankan Army and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The claimant returned to Ukulankulam, Sri Lanka in 2003, and studied at [XXX], where he was a student prefect.

[4]       In April 2006, the claimant was kicked while being interrogated at home by the Sri Lankan Army, concerning his attendance as a representative of his school at what had been a Tamil cultural event, which turned out to be an event organized by the LTTE to promote their cause and recruit students.

[5]       The claimant returned to India on [XXX] 2006. His activity as an [XXX] of a 2009 protest at the Pooluvapatti Refugee Camp, demanding a halt to the war in Sri Lanka, brought him to the attention of the Q Branch of the Indian police. In 2013, the claimant attended a large student protest in Chennai, accusing the Sri Lankan Army and government of genocide, and demanding that the Sri Lankan government and Army be held accountable for the atrocities committed against the Tamil people during and after the conflict with the LTEE.

[6]       The claimant alleges that his younger brother, [XXX], who had returned to Sri Lanka in 2014, was arrested and detained at an army camp in Vavuniya for his participation at a student protest held on October 24, 2016, after police killed two Jaffna University students. During his detention, [XXX] was questioned about the whereabouts of the claimant, and instructed to inform the claimant that he must attend for an inquiry whenever he returned from abroad.

[7]       The claimant became involved in publicizing an intrusion by members of an extreme wing of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), a Hindu nationalist party, riding motorcycles into the Pooluvatti Refugee Camp on July 8, 2017. The claimant alleges that he was harassed and targeted by the Q Branch police in India, who pressured him to apply for a travel document to return to Sri Lanka.

[8]       The claimant was issued a passport that restricted his travel to refugee repatriation to Sri Lanka.

[9]       The claimant fears he will be detained and tortured on his return to Sri Lanka, as someone returning from abroad, suspected of fleeing Sri Lanka because of his association with the LTTE, and of supporting their cause abroad.

IDENTITY

[10]     The national identity of the claimant as a citizen of Sri Lanka was established by his oral testimony in the Tamil language, and the supporting documentation filed. The supporting documentation included: a certified true copy of his most recent Sri Lankan passport,3 as well as copies of his expired Sri Lankan passport, birth certificate, and birth registrations for his parents.4

CREDIBILITY

[11]     When a claimant swears that certain facts are true, this creates a presumption that they are indeed true, unless there is valid reason to doubt their veracity.5 The determination as to whether a claimant’s evidence is credible is made on a balance of probabilities.6

[12]     The claimant testified in a spontaneous direct manner. There were no significant discrepancies between his oral testimony and the information contained in his written narrative.

[13]     The claimant’s oral and written testimony as to returning to Sri Lanka from India in 2003 was supported by a copy of his Sri Lanka Deputy High Commission Emergency Travel Document, issued to his mother and her accompanying children, dated April 3, 2003.7 Similarly, his oral and written testimony as to returning to India on [XXX] 2006 was supported by an entry stamp in his expired Sri Lanka passport.8

[14]     The claimant’s oral and written testimony as to attending high school in Sri Lanka after his return was supported by a copy of his General Certificate of Education (O.L.) Examination results, dated May 4, 2005.9

[15]     The claimant’s oral and written testimony as to being a refugee from Sri Lanka, housed in refugee camps in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu after his return to India, was supported by a copy of his family identity card.10

[16]     His testimony as to his younger brother, [XXX], attending an October 24, 2016 large student demonstration in Colombo, protesting the killing of two Jaffna University students by the police was supported by an article from the Tamil Guardian which included a picture of [XXX] waving a sign.11

[17]     The claimant’s testimony as to his involvement in publicizing a violent incursion into the refugee camp he stayed at, by militants aligned with the BJP, was supported by a newspaper article and a copy of the photograph of the damaged motorcycles abandoned by the militants in the fracas that ensued after they entered.12

[18]     Having regard to all of the evidence, the claimant established, on a balance of probabilities, the main allegations outlined in his narrative. He established problems with the Sri Lankan Army that caused him to return to India in 2006. He established participation in demonstrations in India against the Sri Lankan government in 2009 and 2013. He did not use the expired 2017 Sri Lanka passport that permitted travel only to Sri Lanka.

OBJECTIVE BASIS

[19]     A British Home Office Report indicates that:

‘The focus of the Sri Lankan government’s concern has changed since the civil war ended in May 2009. The LTTE in Sri Lanka is a spent force…’

‘The government’s present objective is to identify Tamil activists in the Diaspora who are working for Tamil separatism …’

‘If a person is detained by the Sri Lankan security services there remains a real risk of mistreatment or harm requiring international protection.’ …

‘Any risk for those in whom the Sri Lankan authorities are or become interested exists not at the airport, but after arrival in their home area, where their arrival will be verified by the CID or police within a few days…’

…

For persons whose names appear on either the ‘watch list’ or ‘stop list’ the risk of ill-treatment following arrival in Sri Lanka will be as a result of arrest and detention by authorities, rather than any prosecution itself for the crime or crimes for which the person is wanted.13 [footnotes omitted]

[20]     The latest Department of State (DOS) report indicates that the “[e]xcessive use of force against civilians by police and security officials remained a concern.”14

[21]     Amnesty International maintains that:

Individuals removed from Canada and suspected of having ties to the LTTE may be detained, interrogated and arrested by the CID or SIS upon arrival at the airport with respect to their reasons for return to Sri Lanka, activities in Canada and possible links to the LTTE. Such a person is at risk as a person returned from abroad, who may be presumed to have access to financial resources and/or international connections which could be exploited for financial gain by Tamil paramilitary groups or state agents.15

[22]     The documentary evidence provides an objective basis for the claim. The claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection.

[23]     The claimant has established a serious possibility of persecution should he return to Vavuniya, based on his Tamil ethnicity and imputed political opinion.

INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE (IFA)

[24]     An IFA arises when a claimant, who has a well-founded fear of persecution in his or her home area of the country, is not a Convention refugee, because he or she has an IFA elsewhere in the country.

[25]     The test to be applied in determining whether there is an IFA is two-pronged:

… the Board must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that there is no serious possibility of the claimant being persecuted in the part of the country to which it finds an IFA exists.

…conditions in the part of the country considered to be an IFA must be such that it would not be unreasonable, in all the circumstances, [including those particular to the claimant,] for the claimant to seek refuge there.16

[26]     The Federal Court of Appeal sets a very high threshold for the unreasonableness test, requiring “nothing less than the existence of conditions which would jeopardize the life or safety of a claimant.”17 There must be “actual and concrete evidence of such conditions.”18 I identified Colombo as a prospective IFA.

[27]     Sri Lanka is an island country, and the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade report notes that, “Sri Lankan security forces maintain effective control throughout Sri Lanka and it is unlikely that individuals would be able to relocate internally with any degree of anonymity.”19

[28]     The claimant fears the Sri Lankan Army and police who are important parts of the state apparatus. The claimant has established a serious possibility of persecution throughout Sri Lanka.

CONCLUSION

[29]     I find the claimant, [XXX], to be a Convention refugee. I therefore accept his claim.

(signed)           James Waters

November 6, 2019

1 The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c.27, as amended, sections 96 and 97(1).
2 Exhibit 2, Basis of Claim Form (BOC).
3 Exhibit 1, Package of information from the referring CBSA/IRCC, Certified True Copy of Passport.
4 Exhibit 4, Package of Personal Disclosure, at pp. 3-10, and 18-19.
5 Maldonado, Pedro Enrique Juarez v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-450-79), Heald, Ryan, MacKay, November 19, 1979. Reported: Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1980] 2 F.C. 302 (C.A.); 31 N.R. 34 (F.C.A.).
6 Orelien, Joseph v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-993-90), Heald, Mahoney, Stone, November 22, 1991. Reported: Orelien v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) [1992] 1 F.C. 592 (C.A.); (1991), 15 Imm. L.R. (2d) 1 (F.C.A.).
7 Exhibit 4, Package of Personal Disclosure, at pp. 16-17.
8 Ibid., at p. 19.
9 Ibid., at pp. 31-32.
10 Ibid., at pp. 20-25.
11 Ibid., at pp. 41-43.
12 Ibid., at pp. 46-47.
13 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Sri Lanka (March 29, 2019), item 1.4.
14 Ibid., item 2.1.
15 Exhibit 5, Country Conditions Package, at p. 23.
16 Rasaratnam, Sivaganthan v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-232-91), Mahoney, Stone, Linden, December 5, 1991. Reported: Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] I F.C. 706 (C.A.), at paras 6 and 9.
17 Ranganathan: M.C.I. v. Ranganathan, Rohini (F.C.A., no. A-348-99), Létourneau, Sexton, Malone, December 21, 2000. Reported: Ranganathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] 2 F.C. 164 (C.A.), at para 15.
18 Ibid.
19 Exhibit 3, NDP for Sri Lanka (March 29, 2019), item 1.4.